4th EDITION

Thezdemeus

First Post
wow..lots of angry opinions...as i expected there would be...and mine, is only and opinion as well...most of what i have read reminds me of old people set in thier ways unwilling to change..but as everyone is entitled to thier own opinion..i will submit to all of your ideas and with that, please close this thread..thank you very much everyone... :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Xen_Tiras

First Post
I like the dragonborn and tieflings way more than the eladrin. I just figure you could drop them altogether and leave the gnome. I don't really care about the half-orc, as I prefer the new fullblooded orc entry in the MM (Never saw why you had to play a halfbreed). I mean, if they wanted an arcane spellcasting race so badly, why not use the gnome? I seem to recall gnome illusionists fondly as far back as 1E.

Either way, I like the new edition, but seeing two elf species in the PHB was just annoying for me. Now I think I'll go make a full write-up for the gnome and orc, like there should've been.
 

Jeajea

First Post
My two words of wisdom, why not? I'm unsure about 4e. I haven't bought the books, and if I ever do change over it won't be for at least two or three years - until it has reached a certain maturity, or perhaps until 4.5 has come out. ;)

I'm not overly keen on the core races presented in the PHB, though to be honest getting rid of the ones I don't like is trivial to do. On the other hand, I find the loss of the gnome and the half orc no loss at all - I've personally never seen anyone play either, tabletop. In general, I think I'm in favour of the way they've done the actual rules, their choice of what's core for races aside. Oh, and the skills thing aside too, I'm really not sure about that. What happened to a bit of freedom about how to allocate things? But there are good changes; two stats increased at once, the way it's been divided into three ten-level 'tiers' incorporating epic gameplay more sensibly into the starting rules and having per-encounter abilities... these are all good, and a step forward in my mind. I might well end up playing some kind of mish-mash of 3.5e and 4e, call it 3.75e - the step beyond. Like a star wars movie... okay, I'm rambling...
 

Reshak Delanier

First Post
Everyone seems to be so caught up in the "this is now this way" and "that is no longer like it should" etc etc etc, that you have forgotten a very major point. The only reason that WotC created 4E, was to MAKE MORE MONEY. Its a business, not a game, not something for giggles and s**ts any more, but a way to make more money.

They saw how popular crap like WoW is, and changed a perfectly good system to something....less. Sad, really.

As to the Greyhawk matter....Personally, I say dump it, and put the tavern back where it belongs, in FR, and quit with all the xenophobic (read that as racist) garbage.

WotC is going to drive themselves right out of business, and I could care less. I have all I need for 3.5, and I'm happy with that.

*steps down off of soap box, and points to tag line as he walks away*
 


Jeajea

First Post
The fact that this edition came out about eight or ten years after the last (major) edition did not escape my notice. Plus, 3.5 in the middle... where before that, there was more like a 15 year gap between editions. My warhammer playing friend (boo, hiss) insists that it's nothing to make a big deal about - warhammer is now on it's fifth? Sixth? Seventh? edition, and it's a good thing when a new edition comes out - updated rules, better gameplay... but also bear in mind, children, that WotC can't make money on things like models. The books are the only way to rake in the dorras, so it becomes completely necessary for them, if they're to pick up what was not so long ago a wavering and dying industry, to update the rules more frequently, and make more gimmicks to get more pounds and pence from us. As you say, it's a business, and we should make no illusions that their primary goal is ever going to be anything other than profit. Still... that doesn't preclude the possibility that any given publication is going to be a good one, does it?
 

Tharivious

First Post
Thezdemeus said:
wow..lots of angry opinions...as i expected there would be...and mine, is only and opinion as well...most of what i have read reminds me of old people set in thier ways unwilling to change..but as everyone is entitled to thier own opinion..i will submit to all of your ideas and with that, please close this thread..thank you very much everyone... :p
Resisting needless, poorly reasoned change for change's sake =/= "set in their ways".

If the changes made had legitimate reasons (other than the money) and actually solved problems that a smaller, optional rules-set could have fixed (and, gasp, continued to sell existing published products to new gamers)? Or better yet, if the changes were limited to the rules-set alone instead of changing the definition of things that have been in the game for 30 years? I doubt if anyone would complain about 4E because it would purely be irrelevant abstracts (the rules), and you could choose not to convert while still enjoying continued support for your favourite setting of choice. The hitch is, they took to many liberties with the source material to the point where it only superficially resembles a game with 30 years of history. "Sacred cows" should not get "a bullet to the brain" just because it makes it easier to force a new edition on the customer base.

They changed too much on the flavour side at the intrinsic core level of the game, which should only have been changed for a specific setting, making every other setting either face official retcons, or be full of partial retcons of the core material. That's why the Realms are facing a 114 year time jump, the death of 95% of their NPCs, losing multiple cities, 60-75% of their deities, 90% of their racial deities, and yes, even a few entire nations.
 

Kinetti

First Post
Anti-capitalist "profit is ebil!" rhetoric aside, I will actually concede my own ambivalent-at-best attitude toward 4E. Primarily for reasons already discussed by ol' Tharivious. I also don't necessarily mind the simpler rules, what little I've read about them. What I also dislike greatly is the "change for the sake of change" tone of much. Using same names but greatly-different beings such as fiends, celestials, and the Eladrin, the further gutting/fracturing of the Planes, and so on. Then again, I'm less horrified about what they did from 3E to 4E with the planes, than I was with what they did to destroy the greatness of 2nd Ed Planescape in the change-over to 3E. heh. I guess I'm just less surprised this time -- to me they're just finishing the destruction 3E did to the planes. At least with this new set-up, it's easier to facilitate "each world using its own planes" now.

Is it "too soon" for a new Ed? I guess it depends on if you also count 3E and 3.5E as two separate Eds. True, AD&D 1st Ed lasted 12 years and 2nd Ed lasted 11 (my research showed it was released in 1989, and 3E in 2000, after all), and 2nd Ed had its own "half an Ed" if you want to call it that with the Player's Option series, though that was seen as quite optional, unlike 3.5E. It did see a revision of the core rulebooks as well, but not till '96, and if I remember right that was just more rearranging the content for easier reference, than actual overhauls of what the content was. But this shows us that even those two Eds didn't remain static. My theory is that a new Ed is proposed when a current Ed seems to be getting too cumbersome for new players to easily delve into. That does beg the question on if this is one reason (beyond the "mo' money!" hypoethesis of course :p ) that 3E was tossed aside. I don't know if I think it got so cumbersome so quick, but perhaps the designers thought so. However, as they started planning 4e already in, what was it, '05? '06? I doubt it. It's a thought though.

On the other hand, some of the changes aren't so bad, primarily rules-set stuff. I like how they mainstreamed the Warlock, seperation of Powers so that each class has its own niche to lessen overlap, and so on. Is it too MMORPG? Maybe, but with the rise of those games, whether we like it or not, I find myself hard-pressed to blame WotC too much. They fear losing more market-share to these online computer games. After all, when some player from this very community vanishes for a while, and we ask them where they were, if it's not work or family, more often than not it's "oh, I was hooked on [insert MMORPG here]".
 
Last edited:

Shasf

First Post
Tharivious said:
They changed too much on the flavour side at the intrinsic core level of the game, which should only have been changed for a specific setting, making every other setting either face official retcons, or be full of partial retcons of the core material. That's why the Realms are facing a 114 year time jump, the death of 95% of their NPCs, losing multiple cities, 60-75% of their deities, 90% of their racial deities, and yes, even a few entire nations.

Woot! . . .

One of the better things to come about from 4th edition. I say this because I simply do not like 3.0 and 3.5 edition Forgotten Realms setting.

This will make it easier to justify why there are adventurer's in my opinion, how so some might ask. The answer is, with the removal of so many high level NPC's (which I hope many of them are removed) and quite possibly the chance that the Deities of the Realms will be less inclined to "walk the earth" so to speak, the players will feel like they actually achieve success on a grand scale rather than feel like they just cleaned the rat infested cellar of the town's inn since it was too beneath the high level NPCs who turned up their nose at the prospect of actually doing anything similar. Also, the emply spaces created by such a renovation could also lead to the characters created by new players to fill that now present void.

If Lantan wasn't removed from the setting, I really want to see what became of it and see how far that area has advanced in the time jump.

------------------

As for the rest of 4th edition: I consider the update like any new patch for an existing computer/console game, the changed warrented a new edition instead of having another expansion pack like what they did between 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed.

Character creation is now simplier, easier, and faster (well for the most part), that is until the splat books start to cross the finish line. I like the setup of at will, encounter, daily, and utility based powers and how they are posted right next to the class that they belong to, the only two classes that have a bit more complexity to them are the fighter and rogue (mostly the fighter though).

I like what they did with the skills and skill checks, this speeds up game play, character creation/leveling, and makes it easier to spot the sneaky rogue who wants to sneak attack the guard. This goes hand in hand with the feats, you now get more and they give more bonuses that sometimes increase with level.

Combat now runs much more smoothly than it did in the previous edition, and now at higher levels, each character gets to do something before the encounter is over before it even began. Combat is no longer about power gaming, but much more inclined to how well you can work with your chosen party to take down a powerful creature (much more so than in 3rd and 3.5 editions; excluding encounters involving Big T).

I like the different roles that different monsters fill (such as the cannon fodder: minions), as well as the how the different classes fill similar roles. Thankfully they got rid of the level adjustments, that just drove me nuts when I had players wanting to play vampires (no offense to you +7 level adjusted critters) or other monstrous races, I'm sure it'll change when they release a few more books.

A few downsides to this new edition: they got rid of my favorite class, the druid from the core book, the druid would make a great class to fill the controller role. I didn't care to much for the barbarian, monk, or bard, so I was glad to find them removed from the player's handbook. Other downsides, no playable psionics (at least for now)!

--------------

Now as far as updating the settings goes, it doesn't need to happen on the site since 4th edition still mentions Sigil and practically leaves it (and the Lady of Pain) alone, and from Sigil we can have new edition characters meet old edition characters and vice versa. So as far as that goes, I really see no problem with leaving the current rooms the same unless someone is so inclined to update the rooms.

This about sums up my quarter of cents about 4th edition with a last word or few of them.

Have fun with whatever Edition of D&D you're comfortable with, and if you're going to compare one edition to another please do it just on rules instead of fluff.
 

Tharivious

First Post
Shasf said:
Woot! . . .

One of the better things to come about from 4th edition. I say this because I simply do not like 3.0 and 3.5 edition Forgotten Realms setting.

This will make it easier to justify why there are adventurer's in my opinion, how so some might ask. The answer is, with the removal of so many high level NPC's (which I hope many of them are removed) and quite possibly the chance that the Deities of the Realms will be less inclined to "walk the earth" so to speak, the players will feel like they actually achieve success on a grand scale rather than feel like they just cleaned the rat infested cellar of the town's inn since it was too beneath the high level NPCs who turned up their nose at the prospect of actually doing anything similar. Also, the emply spaces created by such a renovation could also lead to the characters created by new players to fill that now present void.
And this is precisely the sort of selfish and shortsighted perspective that has so many people in violent opposition to the 4E Realms. You don't like the NPCs, the deities, the depth of the setting - then the setting isn't for you, and another one likely is. The problem with that point of view, is that in changing those aspects of the setting, they've changed a lot of what the biggest supporters of the setting did love about it. To satisfy the people that weren't buying the Forgotten Realms products, they've sacrificed what the people that were buying wanted, and jeopardized the entire product line in the process.

Just to go at the points that you've chosen against it: If your biggest problem with the setting is the number of high level NPCs stealing the thunder of the PCs, then you or your DM has a bigger problem. It's not the job of the setting to keep its NPCs in check, because, gasp, your party were not the first adventurers to walk the continent, and they aren't the only ones, either. Those NPCs have other matters to attend to, other places to be, and often enough, different motivations from what the party has. If they're stepping on the toes of the PCs and wrecking suspension of disbelief, someone is sabotaging their own game, and it's not the setting's fault.

As for the deities, that's been part of the setting's flavour since, at the least, the Time of Troubles. And I've got some bad news for you: Killing off 120 gods won't do anything about the other 30 still being featured prominently in the novels as characters in their own right. If anything, it's likely to get worse, because Mystra's death was purely to cue up a new Cyric plot arc where he escapes from the 1,000 years of divine imprisonment a few centuries (nine, in all likelihood) early. But ultimately, even that is irrelevant, because to quote Ed Greenwood when A Grand History of the Realms came out, "Those aren't my gods". Your problem there isn't with the setting - it's with WotC's writing staff. Guess which one is still very much part of the setting.

Now, as many people know, I loathe the Forgotten Realms setting for many reasons, and while I do take some measure of morbid gratification from what's been done to it, I also loathe how WotC has decided to treat one of their largest fan bases. The Realms were a huge seller for them, one of the biggest selling product lines they had, and it was successful because it had history and background. Slapping your customers in the face is a bad move for a company, no matter who you are or what edition you support. Worse yet, so much of the changes made have been arbitrary and completely out of character for the NPCs and deities involved, that they don't even make sense from an internal perspective.

Have fun with whatever Edition of D&D you're comfortable with, and if you're going to compare one edition to another please do it just on rules instead of fluff.
Unfortunately, WotC has made that impossible to do (especially as it concerns a free-form community like this), by committing so much of the old flavour text into hardlined rules and using the new edition to mangle one of the topselling settings in their catalog. This is the heart of the problem with the changes: In many cases, what used to be flavour has been turned into rules, and those rules are often contrary to the original flavour that has existed for up to 30 years. So, yes, the new edition will cause problems between existing players, and new players who only know 4E, because 4E players won't know what the hell players of old editions are talking about.

The Eladrin are no longer exemplars of benign freedom of self, no longer fey-like celestials that had a unique place in the system; now they're just another PC race with advanced examples that can do things your PCs can't (a trend that goes beyond Eladrin, I'll add). Archons and Guardinals don't even exist at this point, and with the opinions of the WotC staffers as of Worlds and Monsters, never will. Angels... yikes, no longer universally good servants of the benign gods, winged humanoids meant to be wholesome and beautiful representations of real world myth; now, they're faceless servants of any deity, because "the Evil gods didn't have any servants of their own". Bollocks.

Devils went from being the exemplars of tyranny given flesh, to being a race of fallen angels that slew their own god; y'know, because the Catholic church doesn't mind having their mythology plundered by a game that their fundamentalists already decry as Satanic, especially when they now let the devils win. Demons are no longer scheming and intelligent foes (so long Graz'zt, we hardly knew ye... except that we did... for 30 years); they are now mindless destroyers that can't manipulate unless it's through fear (oh, wait... they don't use that, either according to 4E). Slaadi are no longer embodiments of chaos; they're just as destructive as demons, without actually being demons, making them utterly superfluous and pointless to the 4E cosmology that so readily picked them up. And the Yugoloths... alas, the Yugoloths, are no longer even a manipulative race of fiends of their own, but mercenary demons that are more interested in coin than in rampant destruction.

That's just out eight out of ten planar exemplar races. The Modrons were effectively dead thanks to 3E because someone "Thought they were too goofy" (not saying they weren't, but they still had history to them, and were far better examples of LN than the Formians or the Inevitables). The Rilmani won't get converted, since Neutral no longer exists. And I'm not going to even bother with the contradictions they've caused to freeform environments like ours using material plane natives.

There are many, many reasons that myself and others have said "4E is not D&D". The flavour is just as valid as any other, because without the flavour, it's just a game called Dungeons & Dragons, which can be anything as long as you own the trademark and copyright for it.
 

Remove ads

Top