So as not to derail the chat thread, this one is for the 4th Edition chat. Please try to direct your discussion to its suitability and effects on RoA.

Ah, 4th edition. <laughs manically>

Okay, there's two topics here:
1) 4th Edition D&D rules
2) 4th Edition Forgotten Realms campaign setting, post-Spellplague

We DMs discussed the two last year when they first announced it and some ideas trickled out of WotC. The common problems were these:
a) Some DMs were reluctant to learn new rules, or pay for them, after investing their time and/or money in 3.x. Others were fairly optimistic and interested, some neutral.
b) We weren't sure if the setting would last and stick around, or kill the whole game, or be replaced by 4.5 in a year's time.
c) Updating every character and campaign would be a nightmare.
d) And everyone, in the entire universe, who ever lived and ever will, agrees that 4th edition FR sucks. Updating to it would trash all our games, the last few years of campaigning, ruin all our plans, and kill all of your characters. No one wants that, right?

So the broad consensus was, roughly, this:
a) Wait and see how 4E turns out. Waiting's easy.
b) Stick with the current version of the Realms, and go in our own direction. We're still 10 years behind the Spellplague in-game anyway, and will take a 100 just to reach out-game. As things start going to pot, we'll diverge.

Of course, now 4th edition is upon us and seems quite popular, a new discussion would be in order, I suppose. I have my doubts as to its suitability for online play though, and we'd need to wait for the PHB2 or even PHB3 to account for all the Druids, Bards, Barbarians and Monks, as well as the Aasimar and Genasi and other subraces, if they even ever get support. Some of us DMs are seeking out 4e practice games to get a feel for it.

More thoughts later, as I read more of the books.
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:46, Wed 04 June 2008.

4E - DnD for WOW gamers?  A paper and pencil MMPORG?

Just wondering...

Love it!

Hate it!

:p

Seriously, though, while I like the 4E rules, I can't imagine it would work to convert a game the scale of RoA into it, and like BCM pointed out, a lot of characters would be left behind.  Plus, a lot of the classes aren't as flexible as they used to be - I know few of my Wizards specialize in combat to the extent that the new 4E Wizard-class does (their role is basically to deal damage to lots of people).  I just don't see it working at all, really - and that's even without concidering that the developers have basically said that converting from one edition to another isn't going to work well, and suggested that people round off their 3.5 games before starting fresh with 4E.  *shrugs*

so everyone that has it ( 4E ) likes it so far? Interesting.....

You want to take a realm that has lasted on post-by-mail on RPoL since 2003 and change everything so drastically that all PCs would die and everyone would have to start over after developing and running in this realm? People still have troubles knowing all the 3.0/3.5 rules...

Ask what other game has lasted on RPoL uninterrupted for almost six years? You will find that is why we are allowed to break rules by number of threads the Realms have etc.... Why ruin a good thing. No reason why you cannot test waters with an 'RoA 6 Adventures' that would be a 4th Ed Bubble section. But why do that when we have so many regions that need DM's.

Plus anyone who applies to play in RoA knows it is a 3.5 ED FR game. And more importantly that the game will still be here tomorrow.

As you know even if I wanted to I could not get any new books. So I have not held a single 4th Ed book in my hand and can make no comments on the new revision. But all I hear about 4th ED FR is very bad.

Well, that is my 2 coppers...
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:54, Wed 04 June 2008.

Couldn't we carve out a bubble region and try out 4ed for a while and see how it works? no ways to transfer characters at this point, but just make it standard 4e rules, no options, example: psionics, if they even exist in 4e.

just a suggestion spell, make your will save.

It really seems to me like they are trying to tap into the WoW market. It's really sounding like they're trying to do too much for everything. Then again, that's just from the few briefing videos I've seen, I have not looked at any rules yet.

I rather like 4E, it cleared up all the major problems I saw with 3.5, though I don't think the game ought to change over.

But I honestly cannot see why everyone keeps calling 4E WoW the pen and paper RPG. The primary shifting point is away from equipment and onto class abilities, which is essentially the opposite of every fantasy MMO I've played.

Equipment is king in an MMO, but in 43 they've toned DOWN the importance magic items play in a character's power level. Most of them will give you a daily power and a small bonus. Compare that to something along the lines of a Monk's Belt, of Ioun Stones, or that hand coral thing.

Plus you're no longer able to mix/max to the point where you can deal over a million damage on a charge.

I also like that someone no longer has to 'bite the cleric bullet' to make sure that the group can be healed.

And that damage dealing is spread out across the classes, so the wizard isn't left out in the first few levels, and any melee class isn't reduced to "Keeping the baddies off the wizard so he can save or butts" or "Stand aside and watch the pimped out Cleric do my job for me."

Is class balance and MMO thing? Yes. But should the classes have been a bit more even to begin with? Hells yes.

I say good riddance to the Vancian magic system as well, as well as wizards who can theoretically, with enough Boccob's Blessed Books, learn every single spell in the core rules, every WotC published product, every single third party product, and every spell Stinky Jimmy thinks up in his basement while touching himself.

I also applaud the race selection and the decision to make race always a bonus, never a penalty. I have three friends who absolutely adore Kobolds, but if you played a Kobold you took a 4 point stat hit overall. I also like that with the Tiefling and the Dragonborn we finally have two races that AREN'T FLH's. Funny Looking Humans, who can be accurately cast by grabbing someone with the appropriate build off the street and having them spend 5 minutes in wardrobe. You have two races that, while bipedal, don't look like something that typical human genetic deviation, very minor plastic surgery, or ten minutes with a bucket of paint can accomplish.

Also I applaud the fact that elves no longer look like 'drag queen' type transsexuals/transvestites in 95% of the official art work. Mialee looks like a guy dressed up like a girl.

The one in the chapter 1 Complete Arcane art has a mysterious bulge, even.

It frightens me.

But seriously, can someone explain to me what exactly makes 4E an MMORPG emulator? Because I don't see it. It looks to me like its trying to head more towards a miniatures game, which is what it evolved from in the first place.

But Tieflings are humans with minor genetic deviance! I liked it when they had a variety of different possible appearances - and those horns look, to my mind, absolutely god-awful. In fact, in their fluff in this addition, they aren't even part alien, they're just a different kind of Warlock!

On that note, though, I love the introduction of Fey pact for Warlocks. ^^ And the inclusion of Eladrin - though why hey're named that, I have no idea, when they're obviously supposed to be Sidhe. I guess they couldn't justify a Sidhe with such a weak starting power after reading Laurell Hamilton. >>

- Feygeek, signing off

After only spending an hour, these are my observations.

* One of things I noticed is that character creation and evolution is very decision tree based. At low levels, this could possibly lead to a small army of undistinguished characters running amok. Boring. Being decision tree based, especially narrow trees, gives it that MMORPG feel in my opinion.

* Also gone are what appear to be the druids, the illusionists while mostly absent in 3.5 without special builds are even further pushed into obscurity.

* The "spells" from the last 20+ years of DND are gone too, replaced by various "powers" which don't even sound familiar. Not all change is good, not all change is bad, but losing flavour might sour some.

* The damage progressions for some of the early level "spells" seems weird too. The cleric's Lance Of Faith attack spell - 1D8 damage, increases to a whopping 2D8 at, drum roll please.... 21st level.

* It also seems that everyone gets fixed hit points based on their class. This means outside of con bonuses, you can start predicting how many HPs NPCs have. This could really help the metagamers.

Hopefully more time spent with the book will dispel some of my fears, or confusions.

Bards, Monks, Barbarians and Sorcerers were also left out this time around, but since Wizards plan on publishing several new PHBs (PHB 2, 3, etc.), expect to see them back eventually.


Check the 'Rituals'-chapter, to find most of the non-combat 'spells'.  :-)


Well, to be fair, that's an At-Will power that you get at first level.  It also lets the cleric attack at range (5 squares), and gives an ally a bonus to attack the opponent you hit.  In addition, it deals Radiant-damage, which I don't think a lot of things are resistant to, so all in all, it's a pretty nifty at-will power that you can throw around every round, all day long.


Only if you actually tell the PCs, "This NPC has X levels".  Since all premade NPCs had averaged hit points in 3e, that's not really a change, anyway.


It should.  :-)

Though, aside from spell selection, there were no options for customization in your base class right out of the box.

Barbarians all got identical abilities.

So did Bards.

Clerics had the option to turn or rebuke undead and pick two domains to give them powers.

Druid class features, all that was customizable was your animal companion.

Fighters were the most customizable with their bonus feats, which were essentially decision trees.

Monks got a few one or the other bonus feats, then the rest was identical.

Paladins were all the same.

Rogues only started to get unique abilities around 10th level or so.

Ranger, you have either your Two Weapon Fighter, or Ranged Attacker, exactly the same two options you have in 4e, and a half-strength animal companion.

Sorcerers got to pick a familiar, and that was it.

Wizards also got a familiar, but they also got bonus feats.


Looks to me like the 4e characters are, out of the box, more customizable overall. It's true that with just three books on the table right now we've lost a few character options, but that's to be expected. After all we're going from dozens of books to exactly three. That's to be expected at this stage of the game.

Anyone wanting to give 4E a shot are welcome to check out this game, where I'll be doing an introductory campaign, starting off with the short premade adventure found in the back of the DMG, then either progressing into Keep on the Shadowfell or doing something else entirely, depending on how things go.  Until further notice, the game is only open for people from RoA, though the game itself is in no way connected to this community at large (in fact, the game doesn't use the FR setting at all).  More information can be found within the game, and if you have questions, you can ask them there in a PM, in here (preferably in a PM), or by rMail, whatever floats your boat!

I like the 4e rules okay for the most part, some things are great, and some are not so great.  I love 3.5, however, almost across the board.  4e FR is atrocious, and I don't ever intend to use the 4e happenings.  Ever.  Ever, ever.  But I'll most likely be playing in several 4e games.  I just don't really want RoA to take that route unless we stick with the events/people/etc. as we have them now.

I still miss the 1 & 2e rules from time to time. Fail a save vs poison? You're dead! Hehe.
Haven't made a decision on where I stnd on 4e yet, will have to try a game first. Maybe a CRPG in the making perhaps?

my god, the gnomes, won't someone think of the gnomes?

they're gone.

yes, i suspect they will be back in a supplemental rule book.

did anyone go to worldwide game day? our table ended in a TPK.

Wait, Miko, I almost missed it, are you a Hamilton fan too, then?  You're talking about the Merry Gentry series there, do you like it?  Do you like the Anita Blake series?

Gone?  Nah - they're in the Monster Manual now, though rumors of them having badgers for minions have been greatly excaggarated.  ;-)  There are stats for playing one as a PC in the back of the book, too - but who would want to play a gnome, anyway?  :D

Who nose?

what page in the phb? i found them in the mm of course, i noticed they are considered fey, were they before? they also have illusion powers, a little hearkening back to the old days.

Not the PHB - the back of the Monster Manual.  Gnomes are, after all, vicious little buggers.  :p

On the topic of the Anita Blake series, I've decided to give it ago as it's been recommended in blurbs in the back of the Dresden Files books, as well as the ascertation that in later books it devolves into a blossoming orgy of lycanthropic sex.

It piqued my interest.

And perhaps gnomes have been banished to the MM due to the fact that America is by a large a very gnomophobic nation.

Well, yeah...in later books in the Anita Blake series it is rather...naughty...  :p

Lycanthropes?  There's a wolf!  Were?  Over there, and yes.

On Anita Blake:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/6/2/

Oh, yeah: off topic! :(

*holds out hands for slapping*  Sorry, BCM.  :(

No, there nurse! Me doctor. You Mr. Berkinshaw.

Wow, and to think I thought the Clerical Quintet was a good series, but man, completely devoid of any lycanthropic orgies. What was I thinking!?

edit: So...back to 4th ed...
This message was last edited by the player at 15:54, Mon 09 June 2008.

*can't help but giggle lots*  I really, really enjoyed that series, too.  And I loved it when Drizzt et. al., got to go meet Cadderly et. al. ...

*tries frantically to think of something to say about 4e to avoid getting BCM angry*

*can't so runs away quickly before BCM catches her*

Wow, someone doesn't like the system ;-)

The 4e OGL is to be published next week.

Having made a character, I see why it got the MMO comparison - chosing powers felt a lot like chosing what skills to take on Guild Wars. heh. Especially my Daily and Utility spells, as a Wizard.

Just my two cents, I'd rather not bother changing all my DnD roleplaying to a new edition.  I've always played 3.5, and I'm used to it.

*chuckle* As one who started playing AD&D when they didn't need an edition number (because there was only the one edition), I'll have to say that you get used to the changes after a while.

I can't comment on 4e yet, as my books still haven't been shipped to me, but every edition so far improves some thing and breaks some things that work.  I've also found that it's rare to find a large group that agrees on which thing are fixes and which are breaks.

I think it does a great job on the whole, and I personally so far prefer playing it over 3.5.  However, I agree with the people who say that at the moment it would be a lot of trouble to switch everyone over.  I am converting a personal campaign of mine, and I am having to House Rule a lot of stuff just because of missing races and classes.  Assuming ROA doesn't want to House Rule, then it seems ROA couldn't swap over at least until they come out with Druids, Barbarians, and a couple more races.  WotC hasn't even gotten to the Nature power source, so there really isn't even anything close to Druids and Barbs.

http://www.wizards.com/default...dnd/4pod/20080618e23 - the latest D&D Podcast is in video-form, where you can see a 4e combat ran with level 15 characters, played by various people working at WotC.  I was able to check it out before work this morning, and it looked pretty cool - and boy, would I love the chance to work in that building!  :p

Well, my books finally came in, and I've been doing some reading over the weekend. R.I.P. D&D... It's not as bad as I had feared from their preview, and it's actually a playable game system, but calling it D&D is a travesty. As far as I can tell, they've given up a lot of flexibility and a lot of the story/RPG side of things for flashier combats and not much else. It doesn't sound like an even trade to me. The little bits of RPG fluff they weave into the mechanics have about as much depth as the plot on a typical porn flick.

So in effect you need the rulebook to tell you how to roleplay?

Well there's just not a lot of choices nor RPing options in there, so I don't know I'd exactly say it that way.  :p

More like the book tells you how to create and level up a character just like in a video game instead of an actual role-playing game.  It's not bad.  I like it in it's own way, and on PbP there are more options for RP, but I far prefer 3.5.

Nope. But if they're going to provide setting details and other 'fluff', those details should encourage the roleplay experience, rather than discourage it.

It sounds like they're trying to make their product appeal to a wider audience by watering it down. If you take away the RP it turns D&D into a more mainstream board game.

And may I ask what details 4E's books have left out that 3E's core books included? Because I haven't really seen much of a difference. 3E might've spit out just a little bit more on the Greyhawk setting in the core rules, but I really don't think its supposed to be the job of the basic ruleset to create the world in which your characters play.

The core books are supposed to tell you how to play the game, how to run the game, and give you a monsters to challenge the PC's every step of the way.

4e actually HAS a mechanism for creating and running social encounters in the rules, rather than having your DM make up something, which is what folks had to do in 3e.

As for setting fluff, aren't they putting out the Forgotten Realms books in August and September? You know, letting the players get used to the mechanics before coming out with the big fluff books?

My order from Amazon still hasn't showed up, but I am running the H1 book in a game here. So far I am pretty sure I will never convert any of my existing 3.5e games over to 4e, but I do like the 4e rules and if I were to start up another D&D game (unlikely) it would be in 4e. And if I could find some players local to me, I'd definitely play 4e live over 3.5e live. I love how every person in the party now has something to do that is actually meaningful, even at level 1. No more spellcasters sitting back trying not to be a target, now they can always do their basic spell attacks every round. That to me is a big improvement. The game seems more team-focused which is great in my opinion.

Bah, half the fun was trying to make your character useful :D

After my first look and talking to some people around here that tried it, they do not like the new edition.

Some of the racial powers are incredibly broken, especially for bypassing traps. The classes are very similiar in powers, just different names and flavor texts. It is designed to only have abilities and skills that can be part of computer gaming world.

A lot of classes change powers and flavor, a lot of classes aren't around, a race or two is not around.

The skill system is nowhere near as robust or helpful. You are down to about 14 skills, no item creation feats. I have heard multi-classing just destroys any character. You pretty much have to be single class.

I do not think ROA shoudl convert and if it does, I will have to back out.

From what has been discussed in the DM's Lounge, I certainly do not foresee us moving to 4e.  Most of the DMs seem to prefer 3.5, plus changing would be nearly impossible and we'd have to fast forward many, many years and also make many of our characters obsolete (plus fast-forwarding that much would mean many of our PC would be dead of old age).  If, and this is a big if since we're all so busy, anybody decided to run any 4e games, it would likely not be a part of RoA as we know it but perhaps an off-shoot that is based on RoA as we know it.  This is not being talked about or anything, but that this is the only way I think any of us might run any 4e games unless they are simply independent on RPoL.

Wrong.  Fighters and Wizards are a world apart when you concider what they can do.  Fighters are best for holding back opponents, keeping them from the squishy parts of the party, while at the same time being tough enough to stand in the middle of a massive melee.  Wizards' powers, however, are designed to affect a large group of opponents, as opposed to focusing on a single enemy - the ones best suited for taking down a single enemy is, in fact, the Rangers, Rogues, and Warlocks.

And, as for the racial powers, the only thing I can see that even remotely fits the description you gave, is the Fey Step possessed by only one race, the Eladrin (High Elf, for the 3e people out there! :p).  This lets you teleport 5 squares, and so could conceivably let you bypass a trap, assuming you know where it is and how it works.  However, inventive players have been bypassing traps for a long, long time now, so this isn't anything new.  Besides - unless your whole party are Eladrin, what good does this do?  One of you can bypass the trap, while the others are forced to stay behind?  While it might be useful at times, it's certainly a far cry from being 'broken', and certainly not incredibly so.


Well, concidering that each class in the PHB has over a dozen pages devoted to them, what did you expect?  For every 3e class to be ported over right away?  Five of the classes from the 3.5 PHB are no longer present, and really, do you need two classes as similar as Sorcerer and Wizard right away?  The other four 'missing' classes might reappear in a future PHB, but none of them are essential to a good fantasy RPG - nor is the gnome or half-orc, the only two races to get the axe (gnomes can still be found - in the Monster Manual, with playable stats, for those who just have to play one).  And, concidering that they've added three races (two for those of you who refuse to see the wisdom in changing Elf into Elf (Woodsy) + Eladrin (Magic-y), rather than have one race be supposed to fill two rather different archetypes), that's hardly a loss at all.


Few skills - yes, but concidering that a Rogue no longer needs to maximise Disable Device, Search, Open Lock, etc., that's a good thing, I'd say.  Most skill uses are still around, they've just been put together into broader, more useful skills, such as Thievery, Stealth, or Athletics.

Item creation isn't done with feats, it's done with Ritual magic, which requires you to take the Ritual Caster feat.  Then, you can pick up the rituals that lets you craft magic items, and go nuts with it, as long as you can afford the gold for it.  And, oh, yeah - it no longer costs XP to craft things!  Yay!

Multi-classing - I completely disagree, especially concidering how you gain a new feat at every other level, rather than every third level.  Spending a feat to get training in Thievery, Sneak Attack once per encounter, and the ability to take Rogue-only Feats or Paragon Paths?  Sign me up, please!  And with the Power Swap feats, you can enhance this even further - your high-AC Fighter can now stand in the middle of melee and blast huge areas of enemies with magic, rather than targetting single foes!  Your Rogue can now make attacks with two weapons!  And your Priest can join his friends on the front line, with some Fighter or Paladin exploits, dishing it out with the best of them.  Destroys your character?  Hardly.  As broken as multiclassing used to be?  Not even close.  A perfectly viable character option?  Definitely.


Well, here's some good news, then - it won't.  It's just impossible to convert all of RoA's characters, so even if we wanted to make the change over, it would be too much work for too little gain, especially concidering the fact that you're not the only one who wouldn't be interested in making such a change.  So, RoA is likely to stay 3.5 forever, and I for one can't see anything changing that.

I haven't spent much time with my new 4E PHB, but it seems to be much the same as for any new edition (as opposed to .5 editions) in that you would not be able to convert 3E/3.5 characters to it.  I think if you want an RoA 4E that would/should be a whole new game, not a bubble area.  Weren't any of you RPGA members/Living City players when 3E was coming out?  Sure they handled it all about as badly as possible, but I don't think anything would have made a conversion work well.  (And then Ryan Dancey got his hand - and both feet - into LC and finished the kill.  *sigh*  But that's another gripe.)

If you're concerned about having evolving/new rules, perhaps you should check out the Paizo version of 3.5?  They say they will not be doing any wholesale conversion to 4E, but will maintain the connection to 3.5.

What I've seen of the Pathfinder rules looks pretty darn good in my opinion.

For anyone with experience with change management, this forum is quickly proving to be a classic example of the different change types.

You have the idealists who embrace the new edition with whole hearts

The rationalists looking at it from all perspectives, analyzing the good and the bad

And then you have the  cammudgins who rabble about how terrible everything is with broad generalizations, exaggerations and oversimplifications about how terrible everything is.

Personally, I'm a cammudgin. 4E sucks, RoA should convert to AD&D 2nd ed because that was the classic and we don't need none of this wizards of the coast crap. If it isn't TSR, it isn't D&D

:D

Whatever - everyone knows that the Star Wars Saga Edition is the greatest form of d20 rules ever created, anyway.  :p


Thankfully, no need to convert RoA to that - it's got a newly created community of it's own, right here on RPoL!  Check it out if you have any interest in Star Wars, or just good roleplaying systems in general.  :p

Shameless plug, Annhi :p

Actually, as was pointed out to me today - in a seminar on "children in the digital age" no less - Douglas Adams said it the best;

What is this "shame" of which you speak?  :p

Shame, Annihilator, shame.  You should be advertising for the older SW D20 rules, like me!  They have their own community too, right here.

EDIT: I can never get these dang links to work anymore... link to another game

Anyway, everything I've heard about 4E leads me to not want to bother getting the books.  If I can find enough free information to read the rules and all that, I'll check it out, but I'd just rather stick with what we know and love.  What's the point of House Rules anyway, if not to fix things we think are broken?
This message was last edited by the player at 19:59, Mon 25 Aug 2008.

I might have advertised for it, if not for the fact that the old RCR rules are vastly inferior to the glory that is Saga.  :p

Bah, you and your silly d20 star wars. Back in my day, we only needed d6's. Tons and tons of d6's.

And hey, what do you know? d6 Star Wars has their own community too! And an RoA player to shamelessly plug it :D

link to another game

LOL Douglas Adams has it just right, I hate things to change unless I initiate it, rarely like new things right away, though I don't know if I was already that way at 30.  Maybe there are good things about 4E, I haven't really looked that hard to see, but for this forum/games the Paizo version sounds more practical since their stated intention is compatability with 3.5.

Don't worry, the buckets of d6s still get some use.  That's what fireballs are for, right?

Or in SWSE terms - Move Object.  :p  *throws jmkool into a wall for 8d6 damage*


I've always wanted to try the d6 game, but without any knowledge of even the basics, and no way of getting the rulebooks, I've pretty much given up on that one.  SWSE does everything I want from Star Wars, anyway, so it doesn't really matter to me, though.

I'd be happy to discuss d6 with you, but uh... about 4ed anyone? Anyone at all? 4th ed.

(steers train back on track)

Uhm, right, right, 4e...  the new FRCG?  Terrible.  Only good thing about it, is the lack of Drizzt on the cover, heh.

Don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoyed reading the many many Drizzt books, but even I think he was overused. He was in both Baldur's gates, referenced countless of times in just about every sourcebook that came out for 3rd ed, and what bothers me the most is that he's supposed to be relatively unknown. He's supposed to be "that dark elf waaay up north" but the way Wizard's wrote it, there were 30 Drizzt's doing the rounds all around A-Toril.

At least Elminster has an excuse for being in every single adventure, he's enigmatic, eccentric, and practically a demi-god. But Drizzt was exploited, hands down exploited.

I miss the old 2nd ed days when Volo was the one in every adventure, not Drizzt.

Don't forget that BG2 was 2e. :p But Volo was in BG1... heh.

Am I the only one to find the Drizzt books' writing style absolutely boring, though? The best thing Salvatore ever had his hand in that I've encountered is the War of the Spider Queen... which he plotted, but did not write.

I enjoy Salvatore's humor. A lot of it is subtle, some of it is slapstick, but I have yet to read a book of his that didn't put a smile on my face one way or another.

My favorite series of his was the Clerical Quintet. I bought the huge 5-in-1 book and I've read it so many times it is falling apart. He can get a little heavy-handed at times, especially in the later books during the Drizzt exerpts, but there are a few good quotes. My college actually has a quote of his outside out Liberal Arts building.


"Spirit. In every language,
in every time and every
place, the word has a ring
of strength and determination.
It's the hero's strength,
the mother's resilience,
and the poor man's armor.
It cannot be broken,
and it cannot be taken away.

R.A. Salvatore"


I walked past that plaque just about every day for 5 years and I must say that everytime I read it, it picked me up a little. That's something that few authors can do. My top three authors:

Michael Crichton, William Gibson, and R.A. Salvatore (although J.R.R Martin is 5th and Douglas Adams is 4th)

I'm doing a "conversion" of sorts of my characters, trying to stay close to their 3.5e powers, but within the 4e rules. So far Quinlan looks like he will kick evil's butt big time in 4e, combining two striker classes.

J.R.R Martin?  I know of a J.R.R. Tolkien, and a Goerge R.R. Martin, but no J.R.R. Martin.

Since we're off the rails again already, anyway...

jmkool - I was looking through the community chat of the old d20 SW community, and without really seeing where it's been announced, it looks like it's dead/dying?  And that he head guy - Arkyn - is about to delete it or hand it off to someone else?  What's going on over there?

cough George R. R. Martin is what I meant. Too many initials in today's authors.

R.A. Salvatore
Geroge R. R. Marting
J.R.R Tolkein


Whatever happened to simple writer names, like Gibson or Asimov?

Tolkien is one of today's authors, now?  :p

I blame the LotR movies for Tolkeins resurgance into modern topics of conversation.

Also

<--- full of crap

Also, post moar in goblin combat thread!

Yeah, I'll have something up by tonight.  Allergies have been beyond bad this week, and I've been roped into DMing a tabletop game tonight, so I should at least try to prepare for that, heh. . .

Um, we've got no life.  Black Talons kinda was a black hole, sucking the life away from the rest of the community.  I'm trying to bring about some connections with other SW fans, to prevent us from dying.  We need players and GMs alike, though more GMs.

I would be willing to run a d20 star wars game, I enjoyed the system enough, whether it be old skool or saga edition. However, I'm currently managing 33 players and I'm a micromanaging fool so I'm seriously at capacity.

And I said I'd be willing to do a RPoL area too.

Argh, so many ideas, so little time to post :( If my d6 games dies, I'll run a d20 star wars, but considering that the players in d6 have been amazing at keeping the game going, I doubt it will end any time soon.

Back on topic for a bit - anyone else checked out the new Forgotten Realms Player's Guide?  Appearently, now, being a Chosen (as in, Chosen of Mystra, Chosen of Bane, etc.) is something you can choose as an Epic Destiny...  don't really like that one.  Being a Chosen of a deity isn't something anyone should be able to choose to become, IMO.  Oh, well.  I don't play 4E FR, anyway.  :p

Also, the description for Drow says to play them if you want a race that's cut out for being a Ranger, and to "play a hero in search of redemption, or one who struggles to rise above the wickedness of his or her people."  Yeah.  WotC - now fully supporting people wishing to play Drizzt-clones!  :p

And...  wow, I must have missed this when skimming through the FRCG - Lathander has been replaced by Amaunator?  Argh!  Just checked the FRCG again, and appearently, Lathander was really Amaunator under a different name, all along?
"Amaunatori are rigid and traditional in the worship of their deity, and little variety exists between different sects. His priests, the sunlords, offer their services as judges and administrators."
Great!  Thanks for ruining my favorite deity, 4E!  *shakes fist at WotC*

I just have one thing to say to that:

Abeir-Toril.

Hasn't it always been Abeir-Toril? So what's this stuff about Abeir being another world that was seperated and then rejoined?

Not to mention... wtf is the Feywild doing there? They already have a backwards-space, kind of, and the Elves are aliens from another dimension, except apparently now, that dimension was just Toril all along but it got a bit lost for a while.

Double Yew Tea Eff?

Has anyone else noticed that the rangers seem to have lost their connection to nature? Their power source is now "Martial" as opposed to the expected "Primal" (shared by druids and barbarians). While we still have to wait and see what's in store for those classes it is safe to say that the ranger no longer is the martial companion to the druid, in a way similar to paladins and clerics. They have been "reduced" to scouts(?).

Rangers are fun. heh.

It's a bit of a full circle, really.

Rangers were originally based on Aragorn, son of Arathorn, a scout, a warrior, and a hero, equally adept with his longbow, his sword and knife, or his two-handed cleaver.

Then some bright spark looked at them during the change-over to 3e and said "Hm. They're kind of wilderness-y types... so are Druids... lets make the Ranger a Druid paladin!"

Now, they've gone full circle back to the Aragorn archetype, since being all sneaky and woodsy is now just a matter of taking Skill Training (Stealth).

If you want to be the spellcasting Ranger, take Ritual Magic or something.

---

Here's my 4e question: Where's the charm magic?! Charm Person? Charm Monster, even? Gone! I can accept Wizards being turned into Big Guns because Ritual Magic lets anyone cast the useful stuff, but...

Well. Maybe we'll get Charms back when we get the Bard supplement. I hope.

Yeah, but now they've lost their ability to cast spells, which they had in earlier editions. The ranger/rogue combo is deadly though; plenty of opportunity to stack damage when flanking!

What?!?  Anybody can cast magic?  That's...that's just wrong...

Ranger going back to the first edition AD&D was nature oriented sort. It was a light moving forest scout/warrior. They had the tracking (only one with tracking in 1st ed) and at higher levels did get a few druid spells. They were nature warriors as druids were nature priests to compliment Clerics and Paladins as City/Urban priests and Knights in shining armor.

From what I heard, 4th edition was designed such that feats, abilities, powers and such all could be part of computer games. A lot of the flavor and feel of D&D was destroyed. This is wizards though, it fits them.

It was based on Aragorn but even Aragorn had a few spell like abilities.

Ritual magic feat allows anyone learn bit 'magic' but only mage and cleric have feat for free (but warlock qualifies also quite well with amount of knowledge he has).

Anycase only interesting in books is also Swordmage class which is defender. Interesting image see leather clad warrior with sword spring around blasting stuff close range and covering folks.

But lore wise old FR was ruined and it is better consider this new FR as different game and setting.

The true charm of 4th edition is the fact that you don't need a PhD in comparative mathematics to make effective characters. Although I do miss some of the unfettered nature of 3rd edition. 4e is the most balanced game they have ever made. But to get that balance you loose some flavor. Most of the lost flavor is in magic items and spell lists, two of the most broken aspects of the 3e game. And the last bit of lost flavor is from multi-classing. Which is far less effective than in any previous edition.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:07, Tue 21 Oct 2008.

I actually quite like the Multiclassing system for 4E, obviously it doesn't provide you with the same breadth of choice as 3.5, but it does enable you to make the generic classes slightly more interesting fairly easily, and without giving much up in terms of the power in your main class. It lets you play around a little more with those particularly unusual character combinations, that didn't really work in 3.5. Rogue/Paladin of Vecna anyone?

For example, I have an Epic level Eladrin Archmage (Level 25), who I multiclassed to cleric. He's just as bad ass as an ordinary wizard, but with a bit more concentration on radiant powers, and some ability to heal. He's basically a wizardly undead killer (with a serious hatred of Liches)

I've also noticed that although they've done some pretty nice features

• Taking the healing burden of clerics
• Created a combat leader path
• Streamlined prestige classes so they're not nearly as confusing
• Added more "once per encounter" abilities (i.e. rip off WoD :D)

I can't shake the feeling that it feels like an MMO. You choose X number of powers that can be used only X amount before you have to wait for them to "recharge"... they basically turned D&D into an offline MMO.

Even in the PHB when they talk about "non-combat" encounters, they talk about puzzles & traps "and other obstacles" without ever mentioning social interactions. Might as well just say that any NPC with a quest has a big exclamation point over their head :D

I was going to write a short review, but eh, that's too hard. :) The 4e games I was in have died. :(

I like that anyone, with a little training can learn to use a little bit of magic (be it Rituals or Spell Powers via Multiclassing). It suits a wider range of character types. Think of the Winchesters from Supernatural: Fighters with Ritual Casting. :)

Multiclassing is, well, interesting, but I think it's flawed. The feats don't always give the necessary class features to gain a Paragon Path (Ranger, for example) or make a multiclassed build fun. And they're confusing. :S

While everything is nice and even and mostly balanced, the skill for success seems to have switched from mathematical character design to a chess-like tactical wargaming, IMO. The greater need for map-based play and lots of bonuses and penalties floating around make combat look very complicated, especially in online play.

Personally, I can't get myself terribly interested in 4e. All the powers and classes and stuff are, more-or-less variations on a theme, and light on the flavour text. As someone who most wants to play something in 3e based on how much the flavour grabbed me (I could never get into Wizards until I saw the Malconvoker, powerful maybe, but my favourite feature is getting attacked by your own summons!), 4e doesn't inspire me much. Sure, things are fun in practice, but I can't get interested enough to try it again.

As for being like an MMORPG, well, the designers themselves have said as much. They tried to grab the WoW-crowd. I've never played an MMO, so I couldn't say. But I will add that RoA itself is technically an MMORPG, albeit very slow with poor graphics. ;)

It's more like a MUD, MUSH, MOO or one of those other text acronyms.

When I say MMORPG, I mean WoW because that's pretty much the only style of MMO game you have. Eve Online is the only major game that I've seen that doesn't follow the "WoW" format.

So by reading these, does that mean you guys like it 4e ?

I do not have it or have not tried it or anything.

BUt overall what would you give it from a scale from 1-10? And could you add your scale for 3.5 1-10..lol

Thanks-

Personal opinion?

3.5:  8.5
4th:  7.5

SWSE:  9.99  ;-)

2nd ed: 7.5
3.0: 5
3.5: 8.5
4th: 5


As for SW

SWd6: 6
SW20: 4
SWSEC: 8

From my personal experience, I'd go for

4E - 7
3.5E- 8.5

1st 7.5
2nd 8.5
3rd 8.0
3.5 9.0
4th 3.0 (from what I have seen, I haven't actually played it)

:sigh:

pretty soon every game will be like WoW, which is unfortunate becuase I can't stand it. Maybe my addiction with video games will finally be cured as everything gets turned into MMO's that you have to keep paying to play.

I won't rate them like that, but in order of preference, and why:

3.5 - It works, and has so much extra information, it is just a wealth of possibilities.  In my mind, what DnD should be, many, many rules that work well together, and you take a few for your own world.
3.0 - never played it, but I assume it's similar to 3.5.
ADnD - as a whole, 2e over 1e, but 1e has some cool things that I wouldn't overlook.  I was introduced on ADnD, and I'm just starting back into it, tabletop to boot!  It is only just behind 3.5 in my books, especially the way our GM does it, combining both.
4e - no thanks.  I've heard, from a reliable source(I absolutely forget where), that it was designed to work on the computer.  Some things that should never have been done to the game, were done, and the entire tone of the game has changed.  Looking into it as a different game altogether, I'll give you my opinion, once I've done so.

And yet, you put 3.0 (which you've never even played) over it?  Make up your mind, won't you?  :p

I couldn't rank any of the editions. I barely know anything about 2e or 1e, and of other RPGS, I'm only familiar with d20 Modern and Star Wars Sage Edition. 3.x ediiton and 4th edition do very different things though. 3.x tried to simulate an entire fantasy world and failed under the weight. 4e tried to simulate a tactical adventure battle and succeeded. But I fault it for it's limited ambition and potential as a result.

4e just seems so... unfinished. Classics like summoning, necromancy and illusion, shapeshifting, druids, barbarians, etc, are all "not done yet, wait until next year". Skills left out, role-playing encounter rules fuzzy and reportedly out-of-whack, light flavour text. It's like a first-draft of some other, more polished RPG.

All RPGs will work on a computer, it's just a collection of rules. That's how you get CRPGS. 4e is just a little bit easier to do than 3.x, but for the same reasons it might be easier to play. I got the idea when I was reading powers and thought "oh, these could all be done with matrix transforms on arrays representing the battle-grid, applying adjustments to functions of each creature". Maybe it was just me turning maths-crazy, or maybe it was a sign of how mechanical 4e is.

I would rank 3.0ed as the worst D&D iteration. There were so many many many things broken in just about every book published for it. The skills were crazy, balance was off... the whole thing was a step backwards from AD&D.

Without too much trouble I could break the system time and time again. My favorite was the freebie trip attacks with the feat that lets you take a free trip attack if you deal over 10 pts of damage in oneblow

3.0 had some broken feats and broken spells. The shield spell as a 3/4 cover bonus (+7 to ac, +3 reflex from 50% battle field) was case in point. That was one of the broken things. The fact that there were class only skills added to it. Still it was a rich system that if you have a careful DM could work. It was a good basis for 3.5 and addressed the skill failings that 2nd edition had. Magic item pricing was way off as well. Wings of flying were about 1/3 what their price should have been.

2nd was better than 1st in that it actually had a skill system so players could do more than than just basic class skills. You had skills for dancing, etiquette, languages, making weapons or armor. It was flawed though in that a good ability score made you master of any skill off that ability you took. (18 dex, the moment you took dancing you had 90% chance of succ) and additional proficiences made a weak skill not get much better. (4 prof into cooking with 10 base stat was still weaker than someone with 15 base stat).

3.0 and 3.5 did make item crafting a little too easy for things outside potions and scroll even as 1st and 2nd left it much too vague. Plus not all items fit the creation formula (anyone know how 12000 for boots of speed was determined)

4.0 was designed to be a MMO based game. Every level had to give something and nothing that couldn't be programmed into a game could be included. I don't want to play an MMO, I want to play a role playing game with quirks, odd spells, things that don't necessarily computer code easily.

I'm with you on that.

There are somethings that are good about some editions, and some things good about others.  If I had the time to devote to it, I'd make my own version, taking the best from each.

Class-specific skills, that was taken from 2e.  Only the rogue got the skills, hence his reputation.  Well, the ranger and bard got a few.

Now here's a big one.

750gp for a Healing Belt in the Magic Item Compendium. It can heal up to 6d8hp a day.

750gp for a Cure Serious potion...a one shot item that heals 3d8+1...once.

Yeah, some things are broken.  You think maybe there should be another zero on there?

ok thanks for the ratings guys, I was just curious is all. Seems no one really likes 4th that much.

Here's the big question. Do you like WoW enough that you feel that D&D should play more like it?

If (yes) {goto 4th ed}
else
   {stick with 3.5};

Healing belt is 6d8 but in three 2d8 doses which means not a lot at once.

Cure serious is 3d8+5 (min caster level is 5) which is slight higher than 4d8 average score and delivers it all in one dose which in battle makes it more valuable. I would say price probably should be closer to 1000 gp for the healing belt but it isn't that badly priced.

You can overload the belt to do 4d8 points of healing in one turn, so it can do 6d8 over 3 turns, 5d8 over 2 turns, or 4d8 in 1 turn.

Considering that it recharges daily, I think it should just tack on a '0' at the end of it's cost. If you do the math it costs about 6,800gp without factoring the ability to use multiple charges in one turn.

The way I see it, Healing Belts were WotC's way of saying "no, you don't need to have a cleric in your party, just grab one of these" - so the low cost was probably intentional.  It costs the same as a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, I think, which would give a total of 50d8+50 points of healing, but is of course limited to just about half the core classes who gets access to the spell, and/or Use Magic Device as a class skill.

That and only a couple charges per day items are cheap compared to other items.

Think about it, overload it for 4d8 and you have average healing of 18 vs the potion of cure serious wounds (18 1/2). Now doing it every day does make it a better value however there are the following catches and comparisons:

1) It uses up your belt slot (no girdle of giant strength, monk belt, etc) while wearing it. Potions are unslotted items
2) potions are expensive in comparison to some other items: Scroll of cure serious wounds is only 375, wand of cure light that heals 50d8+8 is same price.

I would have to look at the entry but it seems as if its base power is off the cure moderate wounds (level 2 spell) and 3rd level caster vs cure serious potion whose power is based on 3rd level spell and 5th level caster. I suspect if I worked at it, I might be able to reason out the costing formula but I am not sure.

Like I said, if you follow the magic item creation forumla you get an item that is x10 times as expensive and doesn't let you "overload it"


The wand is restricted by class and the fact that you can only do 1d8 a round.
The belt is basically a reusable cure serious potion at the exact same price as the only difference is that, on average, the potion does 1/2 hp better, which because you round down makes them the same item.

I think I might be willing to accept the belt as 750gp if it didn't have 3 charges a day.

Having only 1 charge that renews a day would be the same as having an eternal cure moderate wand...hmm...wonder what one of those costs.

Anyway, we're off topic!

I think if I remember the formula, 1800 * 6 * .2 = 2160 for cure moderate at 1 charge a day doing 2d8+3, cheaper by a lot if you factor in spell trigger rather than command word. I could be off.

Spell trigger = wand/staff

remember, it gets 3 charges a day, so divide by (5/3) instead of 5.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:51, Fri 24 Oct 2008.

You asked about 1 charge a day eternal wand so that was my calculation. Yeah, belt of healing should be 6880 base (including factorign in the +2 to heal skill) but then you have to reduce a little since it is 2d8 rather than 2d8+3

Cure Serious 1/day is 5800 with the +2 to heal skill.

I still think that is a little high since it does use your belt slot compared to potions being unslotted.

Spell completion is only priced for single use, spell trigger for 50 charge item.

Anyway, even if you cut the cost in half due to it being not very scalable and taking up a valuable slot, it's still a lot more expensive then 750gp.

Anyway, so about 4th ed. Reading through the PHB reminded me of reading through a computer game manual, with the little one line blurbs about what each power does, the whole "select one power per level" stuff.

Oh well, this will probably mean that new D&D games will follow the rules much closer, which always annoyed me about NWN(2) is that many of the rules were warped or twisted or just hard to get right on the computer.

If you're itchin' to play 4e, or at least get into some combat, then I recommend my arena game.  Start at various levels, form teams, do PvP or challenge The Tower, which is a set of 7 levels/maps each with a different monster encounter intended to be undefeatable, or at least a good challenge, since you fight each battle after only a short rest.  Check it out!

link to another game

I've just dropped the 4E games that I joined in order to give the system a go. I just don't rate it.

I started DND on 3.5, and my entire roleplaying experience prior to that had been online freeform gaming. I found 3.5 really easy to learn and pick up, while not getting boring because hey, they was about five years ago, and I'm still finding new things that I want to do with it!

I don't know what it is about 4E, but I just have found it annoyingly frustrating to pick up, even though I'm at least going into this with some idea as to what system gaming involves. It's comprehensible, it just annoys me. I don't feel like I have as much freedom to do what I want with it. Everything appears to be typecast, with no real option to vary or individualize your own path.

I can see compendiums, alternate rules and other independent publications being a lot more prolific with this.

I dunno, the problem I see is that it cries out for people to powerbuild like in MMO's. Pretty soon you'll get guides saying "the only way to build X is by taking Y and Z at levels A and B etc. etc. They don't even try to encourage people to take the crappy powers with neat RP fluff text to entice those of us who don't metagame, but instead everything just gets a one-line blurb like in MMORPG computer manuals.

I completely agree with you. I've never really played an MMORPG - the closest I've come to that was making an attempt at Runequest about seven or eight years ago. I think that was the game, anyway.

I've always RPed for the roleplaying, the characterization and the story, and I know that there's a lot of people who'll say that the story's up to the DM, characterization's up to the player, and roleplaying's up to both. However, 4E just doesn't feel like it encourages that sort of development. It feels like its solely built just to leap in, beat the crap out of the bad guys, and get the treasure. It doesn't feel like you can play a more mundane character who doesn't go that deep into adventuring.

Perhaps it's that I've only so far purchased the PHB, but the thing is, the PHB was the only thing I bought to start with in 3.5, too. Within a very short amount of time, though, I wanted to go out and buy the other core books, and then some of the additional resources as well. This one just hasn't made me want to go out and do that.

From what I've seen, the other books aren't much better.

Even the expansion books like the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is RP-lite. It has the timeline (as usual) and one page per kingdom, with half of that being dedicated to "latest rumors and plothooks."

I watched as all of Cormyr's rich and varied history is summarized into a couple paragraphs :(

Now, I'm far from a 4E-lover, but honestly, this just isn't right.  The primary trait 4th edition has that makes it stand out, is the fact that it's very well balanced - which means that not only will a Wizard and a Fighter of equal level be equally powerful and useful, but also that you'll almost have to sabotage your character to create one that's not efficient at his primary duties.  There aren't many clear-cut sub-par powers - they're more or less equal, really.  4E, for all it's traits that makes people (myself included) dislike it, is a system that doesn't require you to powerbuild to beat foes of appropriate challenge levels.


Also, I'd definitely reccomend getting the 4E DMG, even if you'll never run a 4E campaign.  It's really very good, and instead of being filled with materials like magic items and prestige classes, it actually serves as a guide to running campaigns, and has many pieces of tips and advice useful for games regardless of system.  A very solid book, the highlight of 4E for me, so far.


But, yes...  4E FR is utterly FUBAR.  No redeeming points to it whatsoever.  ><

The 4th Ed DMG is like the 3.5 ed DMG II, (i.e. useful to a DM)

I've been running a 4E message board game since the edition came out, and I think it's wonderful!  I don't think it's any harder to run on a board than 3.5, and it is soooooooooo much easier to DM!  I did not like keeping a freaking spreadsheet just to track treasure, among other things, and the encounter setup is much easier as well.  The abilities easily lend themselves to reflavoring such that it's pretty easy to get the feel you want--want a wizard that just casts fire spells?  Re-describe them all as fire and ask the DM to let you change all damage types to fire (which Keith Baker and others have recommended as something that doesn't affect balance, and I've been allowing with no problems).  Etc.

The only problems we've had have to do with Immediate Reaction powers.  I've just asked people to tell me in advance the general timing they'd want to use those skills, and if they reply quickly to a question I do what they want; if they don't reply quickly I make the call for them.  Not really much of a problem so long as the PCs accept that on a message board you might have to do that.

I've just not been able to get into 4e at all.  I love 3.5.  I love Star Wars Saga Edition.  I'm loving Serenity so far.  But I just can't get into 4e.  My characters that I built all felt the same.  One rogue had almost the exact same powers as the next.  The weapons were the same.  Everything was the same no matter how different backgrounds and personalities were.  Plus, I don't like the thought of everybody having all those powers.  It just doesn't feel right to me.  I just plain don't like it although it's far too early in the morning for me to really discuss it.  :p

I agree, DM Windwalker - in that all the powers seem to be the same and so on. There was a bit of discussion going on in Community Chat along the same lines, and I guess that no matter how long people debate it for, there are going to remain opposing points.

In regards to DM Annihilator's comment about 4E's balance - that in itself is something else that I'm not so keen on. Personally, I would think that a seventeen year old who's been training with a sword for a few years would be more powerful than a seventeen year old wizard who's just learned to cast his first cantrip.

My impression would be that yes, it takes longer to become a master wizard than it does to become a master fighter, and it certainly takes a hell of a lot more study.

To be honest, one of the reasons I'm not overly keen on the wizard class as a whole, is that it really strikes me as a 'study' class. I would imagine the most powerful wizards being the ones staying at home, huddled away in their libraries reading book after book.

But I'm running off on a tangent, my original point was like I said - a 1st level wizard shouldn't be equally as powerful as a 1st level fighter, and yes, a 15th level wizard probably should be more powerful than a 15th level fighter.

A problem I've encountered is that, cool as the whole 'rebranding for flavour' thing is - it's not much good if you can't hit anything. I've just finished an encounter, and my wizard was completely useless, not because her powers were weak, but because I just couldn't hit anything, and I've got a maxed out INT score.

Plus, an encounter that killed one party member and used up everyone else's Dailies only gave us 100 XP each.

Well, yes, in the world at large. Magic is usually a world-shaping force, of course.

But story-wise, a heroic warrior really ought to have a chance at slaying the evil wizard, no matter what their level of power (provided they're roughly equal). Can Conan slay Thulsa Doom? Yes, of course he can.

Balance in the rules enables the heroes to have a chance at defeating the villain, and for everyone to be able to contribute equally. Rules, with balance, is just a way of creating authorial control over the story, rather than having everyone die pointlessly. Rules enable story, they shouldn't shape story.

I agree.  I will add that from a balance perspective, the "more powerful wizard" at high level is really, really shitty for the other PCs.  I ran a AD&D campaign for 4 years, where the party ended up at like level 26.  The wizard was a god--not literally, but making it literal was on his agenda.  The cleric did OK, but the wizard outpaced him.  The rogue and fighter suffered heavily.  They were nearly useless (comparatively to the encounters and the wizard/cleric) at high levels.  It was so bad that, to balance those two players, I had to give the rogue a minor artifact and practically re-write the fighter class.

Having unbalanced classes at high levels is not fun for anyone except the overpowered class....
This message was last edited by the player at 01:56, Tue 20 Jan 2009.

Aye, it is one reasons why I like 4th edition. The all classes are balanced and are somewhat equal in power level wise but each with own specialization (wizard can deal more better mobs of minions while fighter smash one targets harder and can self-recover for sometime without aid of healer).

The dailies use and so on is call card (or trump card) on chars. I myself rely quite heavily in using at-will powers and oppoturnistic use of encounter powers. I often have noticed I go to day sleep wit daily powers left in my wizard!

It can be that I do play WoW a lot so I have MMO tactical mind working while I play or something, but so far how I have run encounters the ONLY one who uses dailies often is our party ranger who likes make some hefty nuking from start and do things calmly rest of the time (he always uses power where he fires three arrows, then uses action point fire two arrows to single tough guy once he figures out which figures are minions and which are tougher guys).

Still, I do like 3.5 edition because it provides variety and is fun to tweak builds and make varied chars with different abilities instead cookie cutter builds in 4th edition. I try add some interesting mixes by choosing a different race to the class beyond recomendations. Example I play tiefling wizard who uses FORCE spells instead fire spells (and so not taking infernal bloodline likely).

A good summary of the problems with unbalanced classes....:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw
This message was last edited by the player at 15:45, Tue 10 Feb 2009.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20090218 - in the latest episode of the D&D Podcast, the guys from Penny Arcade and PVP are back, playing another 4E adventure, with Chris Perkins from WotC R&D as the DM.  Joining them for the adventure, is Will Wheaton of Star Trek fame, playing one of the new classes to be coming out in the PHB 2.  For those who have yet to actually play or try out this system, I suggest giving it a listen, and if you'd like, there's about eight other episodes of their first adventure in the podcast archives, as well.


Warning: This podcast contains strong language.

So, since I now have some first-hand experience, I'd like to make the following statement:  running a tabletop game of 4E D&D is a lot of fun, and a whole lot smoother than 3.5 ever was.  Class powers are a really great concept, giving everyone other options than just moving or attacking, and letting everyone have the option of pulling out some really neat trick once per day that can change the tide of an encounter for them.  Also, I really like the simplified skill list, which I'm sure I've already mentioned when raving about how awesome Star Wars Saga Edition is - having skills like Perception, Stealth, and Thievery is definitely a Good Thing in my book.

Also, I like the way Healing Surges work - you can get a small boost, once per encounter, by drawing on your natural resilience, but to get more healing than that in one encounter, you'll need someone giving you an aid, like a Cleric with his Healing Word, a Paladin, or a Warlord (I had all three of these present in my game, heh).  If you could just continually soak up damage by yourself, it would have come of as 'wrong' to me, but the way it's actually implemented really works, as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, there was no less roleplaying than in any game of 3.5 I've ever run, and the rules did nothing to hamper creativity.  So that particular myth is, as far as I'm concerned, completely and totally busted.  :p

I agree, DM Annihilator.  I love 4E.  I've been running a message board game ever since it came out, and it seems to work just fine.

Also, I agree there's lots of RP.  I also think that the classes are much more susceptible to being reflavored than 3.5 or any other previous edition I have played.  For instance, I have a player who wanted badly to play a sort of Final-Fantasy esque "monster" mage--in the sense of having monster powers.  So he picked a changling (so he could morph his features), and then just reflavored all his wizard spells.  They do the exact same thing, he just describes them very differently.  (I've told him he could change the damage type to fit with my approval, but so far he hasn't even done that.)  For instance, this is his Cloud of Daggers:

The Brood: (Wizard at-will)
Your features shift to that of an insect and you call fourth a small brood of angry hornets.
At-Will, Arcane, Implement, Force
Standard Action     Range: Area 1 square within 10 squares     Target: Each creature in square
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Attack Bonus: +5     ½ Level: +1  Ability: +3     Class: +0
                     Prof: +0     Feat: +0     Enhance: +1
Damage: + 4     Ability: +3     Feat: +0     Enhance: +1
Hit: 1d6 + Wisdom modifier damage and you push the target 1 square.
Increase damage to 2d6 + Intelligence modifier at 21st level.
Secondary Effect: Any creature that enters the area or starts its turn in the area takes force damage equal to your intelligence modifier (+3).  The colony remains until the end of your next turn.  You can dispel it early as a minor action.


(I'm letting him use his changling morph power as a free action to look monstrous as he casts, with the proviso that it provides him with no game benefit--IE, no bluff bonus.  So it's effectively just flavor text.  He doesn't want it as a disguise anyway, so he doesn't care.)

I personally think that 4E has a lot more options for a creative RPer than any previous edition--you just have to use your imagination and change the flavor text.  (Especially true for caster classes; martial power source is harder.)
This message was last edited by the player at 18:14, Mon 09 Mar 2009.

I can see how a player with a good "theme" can really take advantage of the "generic" powers, which reminds me a lot like GURPS Supers where you built your powers out of basic building blocks and flavored them differently.

So a telekentic force push would do X damage.
A fireball would do X damage + fire + Area of Effect + combust combustable items
An ice beam would do X damage + forst + freeze things etc. etc.

However, the major failing I had with the system is that it does nothing to assist a player who's imagination is lacking. For example, in Star Wars Saga there are all these diplomatic powers that cause enemies to hesistate or switch sides etc. etc. Game mechanics are fine, but I'm still WTF? How does that work RP wise? Why would a stormtrooper suddenly not fire on someone?

The player really has to fill in the gaps or there are huge gaping gaps and the game feels like a video game. From what I can tell, the mechanics seem to be pretty solid, but there's no flow. It's turned from South Park to Family Guy (eh, how about that cultural reference :D). That's not to say it's not fun!, but it seems to put much more emphasis on the "game" part as opposed to the "role-playing."

It's interesting, because 2nd ed (and Star Wars d6) had TONS of emphasis on the "role-playing" part but the rules were convaluted and a real mess. 3.0...3.5 swung the pendulum closer to the middle, but then they kept going and now the rules & mechanics are solid, but there are huge gaps on the RP side. A good player or a good concept can fill those gaps, but then again a good DM could fill the rules gaps, it's just harder for the rest of us :D

Hmm.  Well, the flavor text on each ability helps to fill in gaps.  But I also just haven't had much trouble figuring out how to describe things in 4E--and nor have my players.  The hardest thing has been the healing ability of the Warlord (as he is martial), but my player does a good job flavor texting that as cajoling people to stand back up, "Stop napping!", etc.

With due respect, I think one would have to have a really terrible imagination not to be able to come up with something for this stuff.  I'd have some sympathy with someone trying to flavor some martial powers without going into the super-human (which is what I'd do), but other than that I just don't see it.

Also, since when has anyone ever expected D&D to be a game that doesn't require imagination?  In my experience as a DM, every new player I've encountered is quickly enamored with the idea that they can describe their abilities however they want, and almost always have ideas once I prompt them a little bit....

*shrugs*

Well, remember that Stormtroopers, being the elite soldiers of the Empire, are completely and totally loyal to the Emperor.  "They cannot be bribed, blackmailed, or seduced. Any such attempt automatically fails."  To me, this would also mean that abilities that would cause an opponent to switch sides (the only thing that does this that I can think of, besides Mind Trick with the Dominate Mind technique applied - which would clearly work - being one of the talents from the Corporate Agent prestige class from KotOR CG), would fail.

As for the Adept/Master Negotiator talents from the Jedi Consular talent tree, which lets you slide an opponent down the Condition Track by making Persuasion-checks, it's as the original talent states:  "You weaken the resolve of an opponent with your words."  You basically talk them down, until they put down their weapons (or at least choose not to attack you or your allies).  Now, remember that if you or your allies attack them - these penalties dissapear completely.  Again, Stormtroopers, in my campaign, would be immune to this - you aren't going to be able to talk a Stormtrooper out of following his orders, not unless you accompany your words with a Mind Trick anyway.  :p

And those abilities have deep consequences to be roleplayed out...




On the RP in 4e front, I find that I'm so much less inspired to play anything in 4e, just going by the fluff.

After messing around with SWSE and 4e, I found myself getting frustrated at having to put skill points into both Hide and Move Silently. Stealth is just so much easier. Logically, I know the reason: a failed Stealth check - did the Rogue step on a twig and give away his position (Move Silently failed) but still have the option of pretending it was an animal, or did he just get spotted altogether (Hide failed). I find I prefer 3.x's simulationist nature, even if it does overwhelm me, but 4e is easier.

I'm still rather mixed on 4e. Is anyone here running a 4e game and require a new PC? (I've just about giving up on finding games in Wanted - Players, too many hopes dashed.)

The only part about skills I don't love about 4E (and SWSE), is the inability to put just a single skill point into something that can't be used untrained, representing a very light degree of study in the skill, but enough to at least let me roll the dice for it.  Still, when it comes to the actual gameplay, the 4E skill list is definitely better, in my opinion - combining skills makes them more valuable (for example, you could take Athletics in 4E, rather than having to take Climb, Jump, and Swim - skills which I rarely see taken by anyone, except maybe a few Rangers or Rogues), and the Trained/Untrained mechanic makes levelling up so much easier.  Dividing out skill points was always one of the more time-costly thigns about levelling in 3.5 for me, except when I was playing something like a low-Int Fighter, or something, or just wanted to keep maxing out my existing skills rather than branching out.

Aye, skill system is quite simple in 4th edition and skill challenges are good way get whole team involved in task instead one guy do everything in one roll in 3.5 edition.

Example of gather information about corrupt merchant; fighter uses streetwise ask from street rumors, priest uses diplomacy ask from local officers or merchants about him, rogue uses stealth to stalk merchant learn more about him while wizard uses history knowledge to learn from local history about merchant's family etc.

GM would give varied info about merchant based on success of each roll and even if same scenario is played and used different skills it gives different info (it all matters how it was acquired).

What comes to RP then it can be both poor or rich as players make it out. Basically 4th edition allows loads of creativity but there is no 'rule based RP' present which comes automatically. Both GM and players need be creative to create interesting gaming. Otherwise 4th edition holds quite simple video gamish rules but thanks of simplicity it allows loads of creativity go around it.

Anycase has anyone opened 4th edition version of RoA? Based on the time table shown in 4th campaign guide to FR?

You know I hadn't actually thought of it that way. Good points raised, Kazzaroth.

I'm probably still not going to run out and buy any other books on 4E anyway. I'm just going to be happy to continue playing the system I know in the few games that I play in. However as time goes by and I hear more reports, my distaste towards 4E does seem to be lessening.

RoA will remain 3.5, though if anyone were to open a similar community for 4E games, I'd probably join, if only as a player at first.



What Class Are You?


Wooh, Bard!  :D

Did they include Druids in PHB2 for Fourth Ed?

I could have sworn as I was answering the questions that I was going to come out as a Ranger or Druid. Don't know how I got Barbarian, but there you go...

Yeah, Druids are in the PHB2.  They, along with Barbarians and some other new classes (Shaman and Warden, I think) represent the 'Primal' power source, so most nature-ish related answers will guide you towards those (but, strangely, not the Ranger, who is a Martial class, not Primal).

Yup, I observed that a while ago (see old post in this thread). The ranger has lost his place as the Paladin counterpart.
The class quiz appears to be broken...

I got Barbarian, too, jaguar.  I should have been a ranger or druid for sure.  If not that, then maybe a rogue.  The second time I took it, using some answers that had tied with others for my first choice, I got shaman.

And there I was sure I'd get Cleric... but then, Clerics aren't support characters any more, I guess.

>< How many times did they think they needed to ask me to choose a power source (arcane, martial, divine, primal)?!

Edited by DM Windwalker to clear up broken tags.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:07, Fri 20 Mar 2009.

Well, I thinked if some DM's volunteer become DM's/players I could open game(s) on Rpol which are made for 4th edition FR. In similar build/system as it is in here on RoA (regions split by different games while one game is basically OOC section).

Sure they are - Clerics are 'Leader' types, who support other characters and heal them, and aid their groups.  Even if you play a battle cleric, you'll be helping out the other party members, unless you really don't want to.  :p

So...  anyone here running any 4E games in need of characters?  I'm looking at the PHB2 classes, now that my Character Builder updated to include them, and I want to try both the Avenger (think Paladin meets Assassin! :D), Bard (my new favorite Leader-type), Sorcerer (Wild Magic-using halflings are totally awesome), and the Barbarian - and I'm sure I'll want to try some of the others, once I get to know them better, too.  :D

Me? Sneaky? Never...

Hehe, I am actually :).

(paste/copy advertise)
Anycase as note to peeps in here (as I like all/most of you as gamers) come check out my game which I plan GM (information about Alundra not needed to play).

In Player's Wanted seek Alundra (4th edition DnD game).

http://www.wizards.com/default...x=dnd/4news/20090428

Try 4th Edition - for free!  The H1 adventure, Keep on the Shadowfell, along with the quick start rules and pregenerated characters, are now available for download.  And if you don't want to use the pre-gens, having been told that they suck, you can download the Character Builder, which will let you build a character of levels 1 through 3, using material from both PHB1 & PHB2, without a subscription to D&D Insider.  It'll give you a filled-out character sheet, ready to be printed.

Enjoy!  :-)

so overall after reading these posts it appears you guys like it.


Does it grow on you ? 4th ed ?

I still do not have any books and have not played it, just curious.

I've DM'd AD&D, 3E, and 4E, and 4E is my favorite so far.

I've not really gotten the chance to play much, I always seem to end up as the DM, so I can't really comment from a player's perspective.  My players like it better than 3.5E by far, though, and most like it better than AD&D (though there are a few who are nostalgic for the brokenness of the old-school AD&D multi-class system and the Skills and Powers books....)
This message was last edited by the player at 17:37, Wed 06 May 2009.

I haven't really had a chance to play it; as every time I try to start playing a game online, the game seems to crash and burn in 4E; and my tabletop group doesn't want to convert right now.

From what I can tell from reading; it's not a bad system. I prefer 3.5 at a glance, but not to the point of despising 4E; just a preference.

I am working on a 4.0 Character Builder/Compendium written in javascript.

http://dnd4characterbuilder.i8.com/

any feedback would be welcome!

 Having now actually played Fourth edition under a fairly good GM, I have to say that I won't be touching it again with a ten-foot pole - we've run 3.0 and 3.5 games since they came out (and I've got a couple of old games that came in boxes lying around here somewhere all dog-eared from when we ran them first) and they've been a lot of fun.
 We got bored sick of Fourth Edition in about two months.

 On the other hand it has a lot of good ideas we've stolen - the condensed skills seemed like a great idea (stealth and perception, athletics, disable device handling both locks and traps) so we've nicked them for 3.x games. Skill challenges are outright brilliant, and we've stolen them too.
 They work just fine in 3.x.

 The condensed monster sheets and 'mooks' work when taken back an edition too - without the godawful 'it has more hit points because it's a boss' piece of utterly flow-breaking metagame 'balancing'.

 Class and character balance and 'you must have X to be any good' has never been an issue in our local games anyway (most of us got bored of optimised killer builds in our teens and generally now only break them out for giggles) and any GM worth his dice can spot the most popular exploits and come down on their user like a tonne of anti-magic fields in the tarrasque's stomach (I will never get tired of remembering the look on that 'I'll kill it by myself!' putz's face. ^_^)

 We've played around with the Star Wars wounds/vitality system for a while in D&D (and that worked nicely) before going back to hit points as they're meant to be used (a combination 'arnie factor' and actual injury) which meant that we've also tried out a few 4th-Edition style 'second wind' powers that generally operated off a hero/action point pool not entirely unlike the ones suggested in various 3.x house rule collections.

 I think the final analysis with our whole local gaming group was just that Fourth Edition feels like a follow-up to games like HeroQuest or the excellent 'Descent: Journeys in the Dark' and Third Edition feels more like a fantasy RPG in which it's equally possible to play a blacksmith-turned adventurer as it is Generic Hero #3 and have the rules in place to round you out.
 You pays your money, you makes your choice.

So ummm... other than a fighter mage... no wait, IS that all a swordmage is?

I think the main question for me is, is it really worth the considerable investment of cash to make the switch? I like 3.0 and 3.5! They revamped the system from the muck that 2E became and made it playable. Some of us invested quite a sum on these editions and have built whole game worlds based on the mechanics as an inspiration.

Yes. I know that I can get every 4E book ever published on 4shared.com or any of a dozen other sites for free, but that's not what WoC intended. To make a change over would take a few hundred dollars and I am not about to miss a month of rent to play a game.

Been there. Done that.

So I ask a general opinion from those who have ponied up the shekels: Is it worth it?

truthfully it is only worth it if you feel it is. When alot of my friends started switching to 4th edition and starting new games I told them yeah I may get the books but I won't be getting them quickly as I have a few hundred if not near a thousand or more dollars (US) tied up in 3.0/3.5 materials. In the time since 4th came out i have gotten maybe 5 or 6 of the books total and have only played it a couple times filling in for a missing player in a friend's campaign.

 A bunch of my friends bought up the books as they came out... They've now almost all been returned to the second hand shelf of the local game store. While they've kept all their 3.x stuff.

 But your mileage may vary - the best advice really is to try it before you buy.

Good advice....

Try before you buy


At least now you can get the books on PDF....lol

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx - for anyone who wants to give 4E a try, here's a free download of the quick start rules as well as the Keep on the Shadowfell module.  I've ran about half of it myself, and the players seemed to have a good time, so it's worth checking out, I think.  And you can't really argue with the price, either.  ;-)

has anyone looked at the free 5e basic rules. its about 110 pages long.

I have run a few sessions of Next or 5e during the open Beta period. It's much more to my liking than 4e and even 3e.

In reply to DM solo (msg # 162):

In some ways it reminds me of ADnD 1st edition more about how they describe the relationship between the heros and the "mundanes".  As I still consider myself a first editionner I guess that says something.

I just took a look at the free .pdf download... actually looks playable.
I was impressed with how much they seemed to simplify things and return to the old basics of 1st and 2nd edition.

I also saw that their first two adventures are going to be set in the Realms. :D
Hoard of the Dragon Queen (8/19)
Rise of Tiamat (10/21)

Anyone up for trying them out?

I'd be willing to give them a shot.

I did a little bit of playing with Solo, and I think I like the way that they set it up.

I'd say it's a bit of a mix of 2 and 4.  (During play-testing they still had at will spells for the lower level spells (like read magic, detect magic, magic missile and I think a few others)  But once you got outside the first level spells it was a lot more like 2nd edition.

While play testing I think it most resembled a mix of some of the better things of 4th edition (at will spells for the really low level stuff) and things that were better handled in 3.5.  I think skills and such were simplified too...  like 2nd where you had a few proficiencies.

I'm up for trying out the adventures, sure!

So, 5e: any players?

I'd be up for playing 5e actually. Though not those two set in the realms as I'm playing them somewhere else.

Which two?

Hoard of the Dragon Queen for starters. Probably followed by Rise of Tiamat.

Ok, we'll look for something else then. I'll send out a request for PC's shortly.