Immortals Handbook - Godsend

[Upper_Krust]

I'm not surprised (though I am somewhat saddened) that U_K and so many other promising designers are so enamored of 4E that they're largely eschewing 3.5 now. It's an elegant system, to be sure, but for me it's far too limited.

Out of curiousity, what do you find too limiting about 4E?

 

[Kerrick]

What I don't understand is why people still prefer 3/3.5E? I mean to an extent I can understand if you are wary of spending money on new books, thats a valid point. To a lesser extent I guess I can understand that people are sometimes afraid of change. But beyond that I don't see it at all...and I certainly don't see it for epic/immortal* gaming.

*Of course I don't have those done yet but I can see it in my head that its going to be far better simply as an extension of whats there already.

I'll take a stab at it. I don't think it's a fear of change so much as a bad initial impression (and, for many people who actually tried the game, a continuing bad impression). For my part, I was turned off by the seeming wargame/Skills and Powers aspects of 4E. A lot of people have said pretty much the same, whether they've played or not - it plays more like a superhero game than D&D. *shrug* And with the economy being in the toilet, a lot of people can't afford new books, so they stick with what they have.

You already know my stance on things, so I won't bother retreading that ground again. I will say, though, that I found the WotC's abandonment of 3.5 the perfect opportunity to fix all the things that were wrong with the system, which also fixed a lot of the problems in epic before I even got there. I'm involved with a group playing 3.5, and we're having a blast.

 

[paradox42]

I've done the same, changing 3.5 where necessary to enhance gameplay at the levels my game is now running. My groups spent about 5 weeks discussing various aspects of the system and changing things, during which there was little to no actual gameplay, but after using the changes we've made the game has become on the whole a more positive experience for all. We took a few good ideas from 4E- it does have some, as I've said before- but kept the flexibility and strengths of 3.X along the way, even if that does make some things more difficult.

As a (sadly, former) programmer, I liken the difference between 3.5 and 4E to the difference between Visual Basic and C++, circa 2000 or so. Visual Basic has all the tools necessary to construct a useful Windows program for most tasks, and has the bonus of being very easy and natural for most humans to understand since its commands and language structure use natural words and even slightly resemble natural grammar. C++, by contrast, rarely even remotely resembles any spoken language on the planet, and contains numerous apparently-innocuous-but-nonetheless-important structural rules that can trip up even experienced programmers from time to time (missing semicolons, anyone?), and forces you to build everything from the ground up even when creating Window objects and other user-interface widgets. And yet, the majority of programmers who've learned to use both prefer C++. Why? Because while Visual Basic "holds your hand" and does a lot of work for you, it is precisely that aspect that makes it less powerful and interesting to use. C++ lets you get at all the nuts and bolts of the system the way Visual Basic simply can't, and allows you to perform neat and elegant tricks that no Visual Basic program could ever hope to match.

I'm fully aware that the above metaphor will be incomprehensible to anybody who did NOT program in Visual Basic and C++ during the 90s and early "naughts," but there it is just the same.

 

[Alzrius]

Out of curiousity, what do you find too limiting about 4E?

You mean besides the mindset of its fanboys who apparently think that fans of 3.5E are either too cheap to changover, or are just xenophobes?

...yeah, this is really starting to turn into a threadjacking...

I find it to be limiting in terms of the roles, for one thing. Essentially, there are only four classes now, with different ways of going about doing the same thing. Quite often, their abilities are all of a piece too, not being very different from each other in terms of what they accomplish (damage + status effect).

I don't like how curtailed multiclassing is. You're basically limited to one class with a few couple of powers from another if you want them, and that's it (one or two exceptions aside). 3.5 has a much better multiclassing system, particularly for building the kind of character you want to play. Yes, combat optimization suffers over the long run if you multiclass too much, but not everything is about having the most tricked-out combat character.

I don't like how PCs and NPCs are once again playing by different rules. Level adjustments aside, pretty much any creature in 3.5 can be a PC, which is a great example of options, not restrictions. 4E may have PC information for some monsters, but ultimately the PCs and the NPCs are fundamentally different in a number of ways, which is a barrier that I don't think needs to be there. I also don't like the implication that the PCs are somehow "naturally" superior to NPCs.

I don't like the new paradigm that hit points represent combat effectiveness, rather than physical health. Losing hit points from being hit by a weapon, or by Intimidation, leads to the ridiculous "Schrodinger's Wounding" paradigm, where any given instance of hit point loss isn't defined until you heal it.

I don't like the massive de-emphasis on everything that isn't combat. I agree the game is a tactical miniatures game, but it still has the potential to do other things. In 4E, with the exception of "skill stunts," it's all about the combat now.

That's just off the top of my head, but the bottom line for me is that 4E's success is based around streamlining. What some people (e.g. you) think of as getting rid of needless baggage, I see as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 4E wants its play experiences to be quick and easy, and got rid of anything that slowed that down. I just think that in doing so, a lot of good things were lost.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

I don't want to thread-jack any more, so I'll throw my post in a spoiler in case anyone wants to read it or whatever.
[sblock]

...
I'm fully aware that the above metaphor will be incomprehensible to anybody who did NOT program in Visual Basic and C++ during the 90s and early "naughts," but there it is just the same.

As someone who has dabbled in programming myself, I fully understand your metafore. Heck; I've got a better one (still in programming-speak, and speaking only on the mechanics, and not the flavor, as flavortext is mutable in both systems): 4E is Visual Basic; 3E is Assembly.
In 4E, everything is simple, and you can do most anything. Its also easier to do most things the system was intended to do. The game system is a high-quality game system, and has few flaws conversion-issues aside. 4E games that I have seen (when run whole heartedly) are just as good as 3E games.
But with 3E, you can do anything. No matter how obscure, it can be done. It takes 10x the work, and you get out the quality you put in and no more. (Bad Ruleset? Bad game; Bad math? Bad game) But, anything is possible. It is also possible to bring 4E mechanics to 3E, but not always vice-versa. 4E cannot bring more realism into the game, because healing surges let you fully recover from a 200' fall without magic in 5 minutes. 3E can drop realism if it wants.

The difference I see is that, as Kerrick noted, 3E is familiar to people, and they know it has a good following and community support. I know with the economy being as it is, money is an issue; Sticking with a system you can use for any game idea seems like a better choice than buying another game book set just for fantasy RP.
4E has less realism, a turn off to those who enjoy that kind of thing. 3E also has a wealth of sourcebooks/settings/supplements right now.
4E seems to be designed to function better long term (so long as they stay on top of power-creep the best they can) balance and mechanics-wise. 3E needed years and numerous source books to patch unbalances in the game (Try playing a fighter type without access to Complete Warrior or Tome of Battle and see how much you matter post level 10) to make the game fun and fair for all archtypes.
4E is simple, right to the point, and fair for whatever concept you run with it.

I loved 3E for all the neat things that it does. Back when I wanted a ruleset for game idea X, it was there, and it was better than anything else.
I love 4E because, as an experienced DM that I am now, It lets me do anything I want to do with the minimum wasted effort.
[/sblock]
Now, to get back on topic (unless this discussion decides to continue; perhaps it needs it's own thread, like "4E/3E Debate/Discussion" or whatever), U_K! Any ETA on Godsend? (or still more pre-writing on 4E stuff?) Dante's frothing at the mouth and I also want to see some more 3E mechanics for Timelords smashing universes in their bare omni-dimensional hands.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

Okay, don't really want to get into a point-by-point Edition Wars argument. Or rather, I really do, but its probably just going to slow me down and derail this thread so I won't.

So, lets just say some people like 3E and some don't.

Thanks everyone for the responses.

Now, to get back on topic (unless this discussion decides to continue; perhaps it needs it's own thread, like "4E/3E Debate/Discussion" or whatever), U_K! Any ETA on Godsend?

Ask me again at the end of next week.

(or still more pre-writing on 4E stuff?)

This week, yes.

Dante's frothing at the mouth and I also want to see some more 3E mechanics for Timelords smashing universes in their bare omni-dimensional hands.

My the hyper-real dandruff from Tetragrammaton's invisible beard of gold guide me in my soujourn back to 3E and gird me for the tasks ahead.

 

[dante58701]

Dante's frothing at the mouth and I also want to see some more 3E mechanics for Timelords smashing universes in their bare omni-dimensional hands.

ROTFLMFAO!!!

True enough

 

[Kerrick]

Last post on the subject, I promise.

loved 3E for all the neat things that it does. Back when I wanted a ruleset for game idea X, it was there, and it was better than anything else.
I love 4E because, as an experienced DM that I am now, It lets me do anything I want to do with the minimum wasted effort.

That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. 4E was designed for ease of play, and 3E is a "nuts and bolts" system for gearheads. 2E was bad about that - there was a rule for everything, but very few of them were balanced with each other OR the core. 3E introduced a core system whereby everything could be balanced, which made making rules a lot easier, and everyone took to it. The problem is, we ended up with a rule for everything. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; if you don't want to use a particular rule, you just ignore it, and if you want a rule, you could probably find it. Some people prefer just being able to play the game (a la 1E), and some people like tinkering with rules, creating new stuff, and playing around with things. That, I think, is why folks don't want to change over to 4E.

 

[Geraturatu]

eep! Not more arguments on 3e vs. 4e, I thought the wizard boards were the main source of those arguments! (hides in a dark corner)

All silliness aside (only temporarily mind you): I like 3e for many reasons, the first at mind (for right now) is that 3e has many of the things in it that I've always liked about D&D, and several of the other things added in are kinda nice. That being said: 4e is very tempting. I like several of the things I hear about it (just not most of it). If I really ever find a reason to buy it, I suppose I might, though in full honesty, I might wait for 5e since that will also save me money(sadly pokes wallet with a stick, in slight hope of a twitch).

Hope you all enjoyed Valentines Day! (Hope Godsend is coming along nicely)

 

[Sulacu]

Wow, my goodness. It appears as though I really trod on a landmine here... Although the discussion was a lot of fun to read, I was just wondering how the change affected the people at the designer end of the whole process. I'll say that it is strange how two systems can be respectively easier and harder than their counterparts at the same time, and leave it at that. I must also admit that I haven't yet taken the time to learn the intricacies of the whole 4e system. From what I've read and seen - which is mostly the PHb - I would liken it to 3.5's Tome of Battle regarding the mechanics of maneuvers and powers, which is kind of cool. As for me, who likes to occasionally design creatures, ranging from ye olde faustian nightmares, to H.R. Giger styled grotesqueries, to Lovecraftian silliness, whether for tabletop or forum based games, 3.5E is still a more attractive ruleset because I have yet to actually understand what's going on in the 4e MM.