RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Realms of Adventure: OOC Forum (Forgotten Realms DnD 3.5)

13:05, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

4th Edition Discussion thread.

Posted by DM BadCatManFor group 0
DM BadCatMan
GM, 485 posts
I am the Master
and you will obey me.
Wed 4 Jun 2008
at 10:00
  • msg #1

4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
PC samimgreen
player, 12 posts
Wed 4 Jun 2008
at 13:44
  • msg #2

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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

Just wondering...
DM Annihilator
GM, 257 posts
The future
Mr. Windwalker!  :-)
Wed 4 Jun 2008
at 17:24
  • msg #3

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

DM BadCatMan:
Okay, there's two topics here:
1) 4th Edition D&D rules

Love it!
DM BadCatMan:
2) 4th Edition Forgotten Realms campaign setting, post-Spellplague

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*
PC Jinx
player, 14 posts
Wed 4 Jun 2008
at 17:40
  • msg #4

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

so everyone that has it ( 4E ) likes it so far? Interesting.....
DM HackDoc
GM, 675 posts
ROA Sage
Defender of the Truth
Wed 4 Jun 2008
at 17:53
  • msg #5

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
DM Tarkin
GM, 3 posts
Thu 5 Jun 2008
at 01:25
  • msg #6

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
PC praguepride
player, 117 posts
Thu 5 Jun 2008
at 03:02
  • msg #7

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
PC EvilRoy
player, 3 posts
Thu 5 Jun 2008
at 04:38
  • msg #8

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
DM Furyou Miko
GM, 142 posts
Santera Fan
Recuperating? Nah.
Fri 6 Jun 2008
at 12:28
  • msg #9

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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
DM Tarkin
GM, 4 posts
Fri 6 Jun 2008
at 14:48
  • msg #10

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
DM Annihilator
GM, 259 posts
The future
Mr. Windwalker!  :-)
Fri 6 Jun 2008
at 15:31
  • msg #11

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

DM Tarkin:
* 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.

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.

quote:
* 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.

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

quote:
* 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.

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.

quote:
* 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.

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.

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

It should.  :-)
PC EvilRoy
player, 4 posts
Fri 6 Jun 2008
at 20:18
  • msg #12

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
DM Annihilator
GM, 260 posts
The future
Mr. Windwalker!  :-)
Sat 7 Jun 2008
at 00:39
  • msg #13

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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!
DM Windwalker
GM, 659 posts
Property of
Annihilator
Sat 7 Jun 2008
at 02:20
  • msg #14

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
PC solo
player, 87 posts
Sat 7 Jun 2008
at 09:24
  • msg #15

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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?
DM Tarkin
GM, 5 posts
Sun 8 Jun 2008
at 23:38
  • msg #16

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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.
DM Windwalker
GM, 660 posts
Property of
Annihilator
Sun 8 Jun 2008
at 23:43
  • msg #17

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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?
DM Annihilator
GM, 261 posts
The future
Mr. Windwalker!  :-)
Sun 8 Jun 2008
at 23:44
  • msg #18

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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

they're gone.

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
PC samimgreen
player, 13 posts
Sun 8 Jun 2008
at 23:46
  • msg #19

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

Who nose?
DM Tarkin
GM, 6 posts
Mon 9 Jun 2008
at 00:31
  • msg #20

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

DM Annihilator:
DM Tarkin:
my god, the gnomes, won't someone think of the gnomes?

they're gone.

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


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.
DM Annihilator
GM, 262 posts
The future
Mr. Windwalker!  :-)
Mon 9 Jun 2008
at 00:36
  • msg #21

Re: 4th Edition Discussion thread.

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