Using Immortals Handbook AND d20 Future

paradox42 said:

On this topic, did you ever get around to figuring out what the other ones I came up with in the 3.5E Nehaschimic Dragons thread would produce, as half-dragons? Just curious.

Click to expand...

B'oh!

I started to work on that, and then I got distracted by...something? I think it might have been a butterfly?...and never got back to it.

I should move that back up on the to-do list.

Howdy Pssthpok mate!

Pssthpok said:

I've found 4E to be far more... predictable than earlier editions, while earlier editions (namely 3.5) had less stability but much more swing.

Click to expand...

Was swing ever a good thing though? Bad luck can really destroy the fun in 3E whereas because characters (and monsters) are a bit more durable, its more about tactics and teamwork now.

That being said, 4E Essentials looks to be just the tonic I need to really get back to D&D again: more class diversity is a big draw for me, and the carbon-copy nature of class design/advancement (pre-PH3, of course) has been a real drag. That, and the new Red Box comes out on my birfday

Click to expand...

Well I'm happy enough with 4E so I am not sure if I'll pick that up...then again I'll probably want to use any good ideas it has for helping me with the 4E Immortals Handbook.

Upper_Krust said:

Howdy Pssthpok mate!

Click to expand...

Hey there, UK. How are ya?

Was swing ever a good thing though? Bad luck can really destroy the fun in 3E whereas because characters (and monsters) are a bit more durable, its more about tactics and teamwork now.

Click to expand...

Well, I have a much more colorful analogy on the difference between the two editions, but I wouldn't want to offend any younger ears.
That being said, the "swingy" in 3E was the main root of all its problems. It was loose, it had loopholes big enough to park a bus in, and while it was really fun it was too wobbly the more levels you stacked up, Jenga-style.

4E is much more stable, much more apparent, but all that makes it feel rigid. Sure, monster design flexibility in 4E is unparalleled, and I can never nay-say a lot of the stuff in the DMG, but each class looking the same and all that... like I said, it's a drag.

Well I'm happy enough with 4E so I am not sure if I'll pick that up...then again I'll probably want to use any good ideas it has for helping me with the 4E Immortals Handbook.

Click to expand...

I'd look into it, man. It looks sweet. I can only hope it's half as cool as it seems. Wizard preview is going up on ampersand tomorrow.

BrokeAndDrive said:

I actually prefer my warrior-types to be able to do more than "I hit it with my sword."

Level one:
Wizard: I put them to sleep, or shock their butt.
Cleric: I keep the undead away, and my friends alive.
Druid: I flank with my puppy and buffed quarterstaff.
Fighter: I hit it with my sword.

Level five:
Wizard: I make them go boom, or sow confusion with fog spells.
Cleric: I make everyone invincible, or make them go boom.
Druid: I also make them go boom, or turn into a wolf and bite them.
Fighter: I hit it with my sword.

Level ten:
Wizard: I summon demons and sow even greater chaos in the fight.
Cleric: I summon angels and blast and tank and crush and kill and destroy.
Druid: I summon monstars and blast and tank and crush and kill and destroy.
Fighter: I hit it with my sword. Twice.

Level twenty:
Wizard: I treat the battlefield like it's my personal chessboard, my "teammates" simple pawns, knights, and bishops, letting those mere mortals have their little victory by doing all the hard work.
Cleric: I call down the might of my god to eradicate everyone who looks at me sideways, then create new planes of existence for us to rest and relax after the fight.
Druid: I wildshape into a twenty-foot tall humanoid tornado and change the weather to rain acid and drop lightning and send armies of barkskin-buffed awakened dire polar bears.
Fighter: I hit it with my sword. Four times. Anytime I try to do anything more than this, I'm thwapped with the "broken/overpowered/powergamer/munchkin" stick. Pointing at what my teammates are doing doesn't seem to matter for some odd reason.

Click to expand...

While it was probably intentional it kinda undermines your point when you compare the least cinematic melee class to the three best spellcaster classes(minus sorcerer) in the core rules. Obviously they will have more options, almost everything has more class given options than a fighter. Thats the point though, fighter is the basic melee class.

You really shouldn't need the flashiness for fighters, the beauty of a table top is that you can do more than move a pointer over the target and tap the attack button. As Rikandur pointed out their is plenty of things a fighter can do without using videogamish style super attacks.

While a class able to use such dramatic abilities would be nice(it should be the monk) it' shouldn't be the fighter. Give them too much flash and they really aren't the classic fighter anymore.

Upper_Krust said:

With minor exceptions* I don't plan any 3E stuff for the future though I will help in conversions to 3E of my material.

*The Revised Bestiary/Godsend hybrid; full art Ascension.

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that. I know your big on 4th but i was kinda hoping at least some of the new stuff(if only 120 level spells and such) were gonna make it into a 3.X product. The very things i like about D&D and by extension your works simply isn't in 4th.

Hey Farealmer3 matey!

Farealmer3 said:

Sorry to hear that. I know your big on 4th but i was kinda hoping at least some of the new stuff (if only 120 level spells and such) were gonna make it into a 3.X product.

Click to expand...

I'll see about some spells in the Revised Epic Bestiary.

The very things i like about D&D and by extension your works simply isn't in 4th.

Click to expand...

Well I haven't done a 4E book yet, so it would be difficult for my stuff to be 'in it'.

However, I am very interested to hear (from everyone) what it is that is in 3E (and by extension my works) and not 4E?

Upper_Krust said:

However, I am very interested to hear (from everyone) what it is that is in 3E (and by extension my works) and not 4E?

Click to expand...

Well i'd dare say it's a case of the things you love about it being the things i hate. I guess it's because in terms of viewpoint we couldn't be more different. You look at it with the eyes of a game designer long sick of the design challanges you have to put up with in 3.X. I look at from the prespective of someone wanting to see cool powers and a design that isn't steeped in meta fictional planning.

I don't like the loss of instant kill abilities:
Mythos monster had all kinds of stuff like that and it is really annoying they have safe gloved this aspect.

I don't like the bland descrption of character abilities:
It was one of the things i enjoyed most about reading character classes, now it gone. As well as not liking per encounter abilities(too metaish).

I don't like the forced balance for the character class:
Ultimatly few teams even in fiction are ever really balanced in terms of each persons abilities(unless thay all have the same abilities) You don't need to have the same number of powers as everyone else to be useful. Thats why D&D is a table top and not a video game. You can do things video games simply aren't adavnced enough to properly detail. Like the previously stated things about fighters.
Speaking of which i don't like fighters having all these abilities(which read to much the same anyway). And i don't like the powering down of caster types and the ritualization of there best 3.X abilities. It worked for D20 modern because it was low magic, D&D not so much.

But like i said as a game desginer who was sick of having to cross dozens of t's and dot hundreds of i's i understand that the above would all be a boon for you.

But the last and the one thing i cannot overlook is it has basically eliminated the very thing that got me into D&D to begin with. The first book i got was the 2nd monster manual. I loved it, as a guy who reads nature books and similar stuff it felt like i was reading a nature book from another world. The descriptions where amazing and fun to read. Even with the advent of 3rd and the more technicalization of the monster descriptions it was still fun to read about the monsters and now that the abilities were seperate and outlined i also had fun reading those as well. However 4th edition has taken all the fun out of it. Alot of the info is listed under how many skill ranks tell you what about this monster and the monsters ability descriptions are nothing but tech specs. The complete opposite of what got me interested in D&D to begin with. And if that wasn't bad enough it's basically full of the things that ruined later monster manuals in 3.5 for me, the multiple entries for the same monster but each one being just a little different(class abilities added, stuff like that).


So it has no interest for me. While it is a great for designers, for a guy like me who likes feeling like he's reading a nature book it might as well be digital code. Some people love reading code, i don't. Even the recent monster manual 3 was more of the same.

Simply my take, nothing really objective but since it is a hobby, subjectivity is all that really matters for it anyway.

Not saying 3.X is better or worse than 4th, but for me they are worlds apart.

I don't personally have anything against 4E, it's just that 3.X does everything I could possibly want it to do, and with the addition of your two books, U_K, it's just the perfect system to realize my setting within.

I have my entire world, from the Time Lord down to NPCs you could meet on the street, statted out, codified, and balanced against each other both in terms of the game itself, and in terms of their flavor. Everything aligns perfectly, they can all do exactly the things I envision them to do, particularly because 3.X is just so amazingly flexible (let alone Ascension's flexibility) that I can make up whatever I need to perfectly realize my characters.

What it really comes down to for me, is that 1.) I don't want to spend money or time learning a new system when the one I use is perfect for me in every way, and 2.) I honestly don't feel that 4E could represent my setting the same way that 3.X can. Understand that I do this purely as a personal hobby, so there are no "DM rulings" for out of combat abilities; I want those right there on the character sheet alongside the more actively useful ones. Even once (if) you get your 4E material published, I don't think it'll be enough to smooth over the problems I have between 4E and my particular setting.

Plus...I really have no desire to stat up everyone *again*.

In the end, there's not that much wrong with 4E, to me, so much as I have no need for it.

My two copper pieces.

Precision link strike!

Kersplooosh!

Don't ever hire me to write for comic books.

I've answered the question before, at considerable length- and don't see any valid reason to repeat myself here. I'll just sum up and say: 3.X == assembly language or C++; 4E == BASIC or COBOL. Looks friendlier, and easier to read or design for, but not nearly as powerful or flexible when you get really advanced.

Admittedly, I haven't read PHB3 or checked the newest Monster Manuals, which many seem to be saying fix some of those problems- but that's okay. 3.X works for me, I'm in no hurry to check out the fixes to 4E to see if they really do fix what I didn't like.