Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is on the way...

[Tale]

... it's not like whole fantasy genre has too many masters of prose

You dislike Stephen King? Though I do find Eyes of the Dragon to be painful to even attempt to read. I think I got two pages in before I had to toss it.

[Xard]

Stephen King is one of my favourite authors (although he has released some absolutely crappy books alongside with his gems, heh) and used to be number one. The Dark Tower is best "epoch" ever, even beating LotR

 

In my opinion best speculative fiction author (and one of the best authors overall, not just in the genre) is Le Guin. She's just marvelous.

 

Hmh, I guess my top three would be Le Guin, King and Martin

 

It should be noted however, that - srangely enough - I rank works from such directors/auteurs like Hayao Miyazaki, Akira Kurosawa, Coppola, Shion Sono and, of course, especially Hideaki Anno above many of the greatest classics/books in history of literature. (Don't ask why that quick list has so many japs - I guess it was because first one to come in my mind was Anno, which led me to think other great japanese directors)

 

When it comes to music, Beethoven's 9th Symphony is also one of the pieces I'd rank above any book I've read. And I've read many books.

 

It's strange, I've done writing for a long, long time yet most of the works on my greatest works of human mind list aren't books. (for example, I still hold view how Anno handles/represents human psyche and subconscious in NGE is by far superior to even how Dostojevski does it. Of course, some of that superiority comes from natural edge of animation over text when dealing with such concepts) I'm not saying there aren't ones, but they're minority

 

Hmh.

 

edit: Almost forgot!

is something entirely "different" yet fantastic!

 

...I wonder why I rank many animations so high, considering how crappy I'm at drawing

Edited December 10, 2007 by Xard

[samm]

Xard: That could be the case because you're crappy at drawing It's probably harder to appreciate others' artworks if you're a master of the same art yourself.

 

 

Just one thing: What prevents you people from playing in the old ed even after 4th is launched? I don't see their revamp as a problem, but you seem to look upon the thing like it's killing your enjoyment of the previous editions.

 

That's a great point. The worst you'll have to do is tinker with the old stats to produce a new Mystra. With as much as you guys like to play with the rules, I don't see why that's a problem.

This is what will most probably happen with our round(s): We'll stick with 3.5. I know others who still play 3e, even AD&D, because they've grown up with this system and didn't want to change to some ruleset they thought inferior or superfluous.

My problem is, that I like to play on the Living Greyhawk campaign every now and then, and was looking forward to Living Forgotten Realms - but if both setting and rules will be as bad as they now imo seem to become - I won't be able to play that. I would have liked to, because it's fun to be PGing when you've had enough RP in your home round, and being able to change things in the world while playing that will affect everyone in the world who's also playing the same campaign.

Edited December 10, 2007 by samm

[Sand]

Change for the sake of change, which 4th edition is all about, is never any good. The 3.5e and d20 rules, as they are, work. 4e is just a money grab and nothing more. Wait 2 years and we will have 4.5e and 2 to 3 years after that we will have 5e. If they were actually improving the game, which they are not by every piece of released information I have read so far, that would be different.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Sand

[Cantousent]

From a rules standpoint, I agree with the idea that change for its own sake is not always good and very often bad. It's certainly not my favorite course of action. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to change these things every decade or so.

 

I feel for you guys as regards the campaign setting. It's just not a major issue for me.

 

As regards the ruleset, I always sympathize with folks when they think the company is screwing up the rules. I just don't know enough yet to agree or disagree on that topic.

[Joseph Bulock]

Change for the sake of change, which 4th edition is all about, is never any good. The 3.5e and d20 rules, as they are, work. 4e is just a money grab and nothing more. Wait 2 years and we will have 4.5e and 2 to 3 years after that we will have 5e. If they were actually improving the game, which they are not by every piece of released information I have read so far, that would be different.

 

They might be changing it in ways that you don't like, but they definitely have their goals. Everything I've read about 4th edition mechanics points to a solid focus in simplifying the number games, making player characters actual heroes from level one, and making each aspect of your character (race, class, items, role) important instead of just your magic items and class.

 

The designers also seem focused on making sure characters always have something to do, actively doing cool things to beat down bad guys and get through dungeons.

 

If you don't like those sorts of ideas, that's totally acceptable, but that doesn't mean that its a simple money grab. I think they're really going to fix a lot of the issues that drove many players away from 3/3.5, mainly that too many classes didn't do very many special things, or ran out of their special bits very quickly. Whether or not they get the mechanics of everyone doing special things all of the time right, I have no idea, but it definitely seems like a big enough goal for a new edition to me.

[Sand]

That is one thing I totally disagree with. At level 1 the PCs are not heroes. They are nobody nebies on the scene. To become a hero level character it needs to be earned, not given for free.

[Magister Lajciak]

They might be chaning it in ways that you don't like, but they definitely have their goals. Everything I've read about 4th edition mechanics points to a solid focus in simplifying the number games, making player characters actual heroes from level one, and making each aspect of your character (race, class, items, role) important isntead of just your magic items and class.

 

The designers also seem focused on making sure characters always have something to do, actively doing cool things to beat down bad guys and get through dungeons.

 

If you don't like those sorts of ideas, that's totally exceptable, but that doesn't mean that its a simple money grab. I think they're really going to fix a lot of the issues that drove many players away from 3/3.5, mainly that too many classes didn't do very many special things, or ran out of their special bits very quickly. Wether or not they get the mechanics of everyone doing special things all of the time right, I have no idea, but it definitely seems like a big enough goal for a new edition to me.

 

I agree that the designers have some major design goals with 4E. Still, I am not sure whether these goals always fit with what I would like to see, so personally I remain undecided on 4E.

 

On the one hand, we will supposedly get greater differentiation between classes, which is great and something I wholeheartedly applaud. What I do not like, though, is what I see as excessive simplification. I guess some simplification was necessary and things like the removal of iterative attacks seem reasonable, as does the combination of some skills into broader categories (as long as they do not overdo it), some stuff, such as making skills increase for everybody automatically, does put a damper on the creation of characters which are 'flawed' (as in: not good at absolutely everything), even though such characters are interesting to play and a staple of fantasy.

 

Also of concern is the apparent transformation of monsters into one or two trick combat challenges. Their logic is that monsters only last for a few rounds. Of course, that is only true if the heroes fight them and if they don't run away to plague the heroes later. I prefer the 'every monster a NPC' approach rather than thinking of monsters purely as things to be killed.

 

Hence, my reception of 4E is lukewarm for now. I will have to wait and see for more details to come out to make a decision on whether to buy it or not.

[Dark_Raven]

That is one thing I totally disagree with. At level 1 the PCs are not heroes. They are nobody nebies on the scene. To become a hero level character it needs to be earned, not given for free.

That they are. They're not heroes, they're zeros.

[Humodour]

Greenwood the pervert?

 

Don't know about Cunningham, like all other "rpg"-literature I'd guess her writing would range from abysmal to average, but I could be wrong

 

 

... it's not like whole fantasy genre has too many masters of prose

 

 

Yeah I've definitely found that. Leave the real writing to the writers I say.

[Humodour]

That is one thing I totally disagree with. At level 1 the PCs are not heroes. They are nobody nebies on the scene. To become a hero level character it needs to be earned, not given for free.

 

Yeah, because it totally makes sense to be the biggest loser around for the majority of your life, then suddenly start becoming a superhero in the span of weeks.

[Sand]

Weeks? That only happens in CRPGs. In PnP it takes in character time of years if not decades. At least in my gaming group it does.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Sand

[Joseph Bulock]

That is one thing I totally disagree with. At level 1 the PCs are not heroes. They are nobody nebies on the scene. To become a hero level character it needs to be earned, not given for free.

That they are. They're not heroes, they're zeros.

 

But in fourth edition they won't be. You won't be a weakling that gets murdered by a lucky hit from a goblin, or a wizard whose most powerful spell has a decent chance to either miss said goblin or not drop him if it does hit. That sounds a great deal more appealing to me, and I think it deals well with the fact that DnD 3/3.5 really isn't fun till around 4th level, when you character can actually get through most sessions doing things that are unique to their class, or at least flavored by their class abilities.

[samm]

Aw man, no. A wolf should pose a serious threat to a Lvl. 1 character. A goblin should be as dangerous as a kid trained in fighting with weapons - that is, less dangerous than your character (unless it's a mage going melee) but definitely not unable to kill you.

I do agree that wizards and sorcerers as they are now are not very balanced compared level to level to another character class: not able to really do anything at the beginning, while being potentially ridicoulously powerful at higher levels. And yes, that does mean that these classes should also in my opinion be able to defeat that goblin on level one using their speciality (spells), but: that

the fact that DnD 3/3.5 really isn't fun till around 4th level

is in fact no fact. It's depending on the DM, depending on how warlike the characters are, depending how great a hero you imagine your lvl. 1 pawn to be etc. pp.

I for one always find low levels particularly appealing because I can still more or less relate with what's going on which later just isn't possible anymore. DnD already begins losing appeal with the tank being able to stand in front and take all the blows of that grizzly bear, treant or whatnot and ends with puny humans defeating a colossal dragon. In short: When it's all about stats and strategy and nothing about comprehensible relations. I'm not asking to play real life now, I just wish a DnD round would feel like a dangerous adventure trip, not like... Well, I don't know... something that feels "distant". And being able to mosh through hordes of goblins at lvl 1 would not make the game more immersive to me.

Edited December 11, 2007 by samm

[Joseph Bulock]

... And being able to mosh through hordes of goblins at lvl 1 would not make the game more immersive to me.

 

I agree that 1st level characters shouldn't be taking on an army of goblins without hesitation, I just don't enjoy when my 1st level character gets surprised by a goblin, who then roles a crit, and manages to kill my first level character. There is no fun in that situation. There is no challenge. There is no tactics besides try not to get surprised by goblins. Once characters have enough hp to survive a lucky crit for a grunt monster, the game really picks up, but until that point, it can be entirely frustrating.

[Sand]

But in forth edition they won't be. You won't be a weakling that gets murdered by a lucky hit from a goblin, or a wizard whose most powerful spell has a decent chance to either miss said goblin or not drop him if it does hit. That sounds a great deal more appealing to me, and I think it deals well with the fact that DnD 3/3.5 really isn't fun till around 4th level, when you character can actually get through most sessions doing things that are unique to their class, or at least flavored by their class abilities.

 

 

Eh? I have the most fun in DnD at those first few levels because the threat of death is there. It makes every combat session a life or death situation which it should be.

[Tigranes]

But are you suggesting that a level 4 party in 3.5ed are not under the threat of death? I mean, they're not exactly hard to wipe out. Its just that, in most circumstances, they will have at least a chance and some time to try and defend themselves.

[Humodour]

I think Sand just feels safe with things as they are and wants to stagnate further editions of D&D (which he simply needn't play) by abhoring any innovations.

[Joseph Bulock]

But are you suggesting that a level 4 party in 3.5ed are not under the threat of death? I mean, they're not exactly hard to wipe out. Its just that, in most circumstances, they will have at least a chance and some time to try and defend themselves.

 

That's exactly my point. You can very must still die, but it won't because some grunt got a lucky hit, its because things went very wrong or you took a lot of stupid risks. That should get you killed at any level.

[Pop]

They might be chaning it in ways that you don't like,

 

If you don't like those sorts of ideas, that's totally exceptable

 

But in forth edition they won't be.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL BULOCK

 

BOOOOO

 

BOOOOOOO

Edited December 12, 2007 by Pop

[Dark_Raven]

News flash!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Level 1 dragon slayer!

[Humodour]

News flash!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Level 1 dragon slayer!

 

And? Some fighters decide to kill anything that moves. Some put their minds to dragons. They're both fighters and they both have to learn their skills somewhere. Would you prefer they started off fighters, then changed? I don't see a problem either way, personally. Of course, any Dragon should be able to mop the floor with a lvl 1 dragon slayer without breaking a sweat*.

 

For example, dragon slayers shouldn't start out with any unique dragon slaying abilities, because that would be rather illogical. Unless dragon slaying is in their blood or something.

 

*Because dragons are very powerful beasts, not because lvl 1 characters should be pansy loser pushovers.

 

Basically in D&D I'd like to see less of a gap between lethality and power at high and low levels. Personally I dislike the level system entirely (think Whitewolf), but if it has to exist there shouldn't be such ludicrous differences in power and endurance - any level of monsters should still be a threat to a high level hero, if he does stupid things, like run up to a bunch of globin archers while waving a sword around.

 

No that isn't how D&D has been in the past. But this isn't D&D in the past. There's enough versions and rulebooks which vary the themes of D&D 1, 2 and 3. It's time for something more innovative.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Krezack

[Joseph Bulock]

News flash!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Level 1 dragon slayer!

 

I don't even know what you're getting at here...

[Joseph Bulock]

GO BACK TO SCHOOL BULOCK

 

BOOOOO

 

BOOOOOOO

 

And you all wonder why so few devs post on these boards

 

The worst part is that you missed as many errors as you found.

[steelfiredragon]

you guys can go argue and drink that pint of beer and ill go kick back in Myth Drannor