http://www.enworld.org/

 

At the top. Grrr... I don't see why we need a 4th Edition DnD. There is nothing wrong with 3.5e.

**** that ****. It's bad enough we have that damned 3.5. AD&D had done a good job.

3.5e is the best version of the game. I have read through the Saga version of the new Star Wars game which 4e is supposedly be based on and it was pretty much crap.

That thing you linked sounds like they want it to be easier for new players to access as well as quicker to start a game. Sounds like reasonable goals. It's not like 3.5e is going to stop existing with the new edition.

Edited August 16, 200718 yr by Tale

3.5e is the best version of the game. I have read through the Saga version of the new Star Wars game which 4e is supposedly be based on and it was pretty much crap.

What I've seen of Saga/Star Wars is very good.

i dont see why either.

waste of resources waste of time.

 

dont plan on buying it either.

 

the srd will do fine

 

 

 

edit: and they better d(censored)n well recycle all those left over 3.x material books or make them still usable .

Edited August 16, 200718 yr by steelfiredragon

3.5e is the best version of the game. I have read through the Saga version of the new Star Wars game which 4e is supposedly be based on and it was pretty much crap.

What I've seen of Saga/Star Wars is very good.

 

How can you say that? It is over simplified and the changes were wholly unnecessary. Also it forces you to use minitures no matter what in order to make sense of the combat. I mean all distances uses squares instead of exact measurements of meters and feet. What the hell is up with that?!?!? Just how big is a square anyway? They left it very much undefined.

One advantage to such a system is freedom.

 

On the other hand, I'm happy with 3.5. I doubt if I get 4.0 right away, but I'll keep a look out for it.

Hi Visceris.

 

How can you say that? It is over simplified and the changes were wholly unnecessary.

Says you. I like most of the changes (including the consolidation of skills, removal of skill points, getting rid of AC, changing the system so it's always the attacker who rolls, etc). As a DM with a fairly extensive experience, I welcome the streamlining process... even if it's not perfect, it's a step in the right direction (without being too much - q.v. Castles & Crusades)

 

I mean all distances uses squares instead of exact measurements of meters and feet.

Just think of squares as an abstraction. It's not as if the d20 games which used the metric system were consistent, anyway - some stated that 1 square = 1.5 meters, others had 1 square = 1 meter, and I've seen 1 square = 2 meters as well. As a person who uses the metric system IRL, British units are as much of an abstraction to me as squares.

 

What the hell is up with that?!?!? Just how big is a square anyway? They left it very much undefined.

They leave a whole lot of stuff undefined. It's called "abstraction."

 

Overall, I am cautiously NEUTRAL towards 4E. As always, I'll take what I like from the game and dump the rest.

Edited August 16, 200718 yr by Sammael

I've heard a lot of talk (from disgruntled self-denying fanboys) that 4e was going to go 100% digital, would require payment as an MMO would, and would do away with the Open Gaming License. Glad to see that they were wrong.

 

I'll tentatively await, as always.

How can you say that? It is over simplified and the changes were wholly unnecessary. Also it forces you to use minitures no matter what in order to make sense of the combat. I mean all distances uses squares instead of exact measurements of meters and feet. What the hell is up with that?!?!? Just how big is a square anyway? They left it very much undefined.

I can say that because I think that the things they simplified are better in their simplified form.

 

I have no problem with units being in squares. It doesn't really take much reverse-engineering to figure out that squares are 5'. Humans have a base movement of 6 squares. 6x5 = 30, the same as D&D. If you care enough to actually track a character's movement in detail, you might as well use the grid units instead of converting between two different units.

I don't see why we need a 4th Edition DnD. There is nothing wrong with 3.5e.

 

"We" need 4th edition because there is only so many books they can put out for a single edition and still expect to bring in any money on them.

Its just another way for WotC to rip off your money. You go out and buy all of the rule and accessory books noly to have to buy them again a few years later because they have another uberly c00l new set of rules coming out.

They leave a whole lot of stuff undefined. It's called "abstraction."

 

I don't like abstractions. I prefer specifics.

I can say that because I think that the things they simplified are better in their simplified form.

 

I wholly disagree. Just look at the new skill system. That is way to oversimplified. I like the point system for it actually gauges how much one knows about a subject as well as give specific skills for specific action. Having only one force skill for all force use is just stupid.

Its just another way for WotC to rip off your money. You go out and buy all of the rule and accessory books noly to have to buy them again a few years later because they have another uberly c00l new set of rules coming out.

 

Correction, it's another way for the D&D section of WotC to stay in business. The core rulebooks, in my experience, outsell all other books about 50 to 1. At least. And the older the latest edition is, the worse new supplemental books are selling. New players think there's too much material to get into the game and old players start thinking they have enough material as it is.

 

So a semi-regular release of new rules is vital to any gaming company. Yes it means a lot of people will feel cheated (I already have that book), but those people don't have to buy anyhting. But don't say WotC is ripping off their customers, because they're not. If they were, they wouldn't have many customers left to begin with.

http://www.enworld.org/

 

At the top. Grrr... I don't see why we need a 4th Edition DnD. There is nothing wrong with 3.5e.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with 2e either. Another update and streamlining might have been fine, but a complete overhaul? It's a totally different game now.

 

But that's the nature of things. The past will crumble and we all still cling to it and mourn for a bygone era. You'll know what I'm talking about soon enough.

I played red book, blue book, 1st Ed., 2nd Ed., 3E and now 3.5. I very much doubt that I will cling any more to 3.5 than I did to previous iterations of the rules. If 4E is really crummy, I'll just stick to modified 3.5.

 

I do think it's pretty hilarious to gripe about WotC wanting more money and daring to make a 4th edition after only 7 or 8 years. What edition of GURPS are we on (4th)? Ars Magica (5th)? Vampire (4th)? Call of Cthulhu (6th)? Paranoia (4th)? Those are all games that have been out for less time than AD&D. Even Stormbringer/Elric! is on its 5th edition.

if they want to redo the core books thats fine, but to shell out over 300 dollars for all the FR sourcebooks( or atleast most of them) and a good deal of the other sourcebooks aswell( namely races and complete series) and not being able to use them is a joke and an insult.

let me tell you though it would be alot cheaper for wotc to make updated pdf files of the other books outside the campaign setting books then it would to remake them all.

 

 

other than that, i think id be in the same boat as J.E. Saywer.

if its crap it will be crap.

I have no problem WotC wanting to make money but 3.5e came out in 2003, not 7 to 8 years ago.

 

One of the reasons why I don't play those other games is that they come out new versions way too often. I like to stick with a system that has staying power, that is consistant. Sure, expand the rules system, put out optional variants if you so wish, but remain consistant to the core. Now if it actually was 8 to 10 years from 3.5e then it wouldn't be so bad but it has been only 4.

Edited August 17, 200718 yr by Sand

star wars/saga combat is better than d&d 3e... or 3.5 or wherever we is at now. the thing is that most of the things that is really busted with d&d for Gromnir will inevitably remain... alignment, prestige classes, growing number o' playable ecl races, excessive spells lists, etc.

 

if d&d were a house on fire, wotc efforts to makes a new edition would be equivalent o' installing pergo in the kitchen. sure, the pergo is a cost-effective improvement, but for chrissakes, the house is on fire!

 

HA! Good Fun!

www.wizards.com/dnd is offline right now, thanks to slashdot...

 

D&D is moving from 20 to 30 levels, tiefling as core race, goodbye to some classes (bard? sorcerer?) ... I just hope they keep the "monster as playable race" idea.

 

Hi there Sammael, Visceris, long time no see you. *waits for Gromnir*

I'd heard that alignment is getting the chop in 4th. I remain hopeful but sceptical.

star wars/saga combat is better than d&d 3e... or 3.5 or wherever we is at now. the thing is that most of the things that is really busted with d&d for Gromnir will inevitably remain... alignment, prestige classes, growing number o' playable ecl races, excessive spells lists, etc.

 

Oh, Gromnir's already there... they are changing spells AFAIK. From what I get theere will be less spells and they'll workf per encounter. I may be wrong tho.

star wars/saga combat is better than d&d 3e... or 3.5 or wherever we is at now. the thing is that most of the things that is really busted with d&d for Gromnir will inevitably remain... alignment, prestige classes, growing number o' playable ecl races, excessive spells lists, etc.

 

Oh, Gromnir's already there... they are changing spells AFAIK. From what I get theere will be less spells and they'll workf per encounter. I may be wrong tho.