When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Greg K]

You can have a fighter with a diplomacy of 15 or a rogue with a diplomacy with 15. Either way, the class had nothing to do with your non-combat role. Neither class gives any bonuses or benefits to having a diplomacy score.

You might not get a bonus, but if it is a class skill, you have can have more ranks than someone else. And, Diplomacy 15? That would probably be the spokesman/face or whatever?

 

[Thasmodious]

Monsters and NPCs did not have to do anything, but the tools were there to allow them to operate by them same rules as the PCs beause this adds depth and verisimilitude to the world.

I completely disagree with that. What it adds, is pain in the DMs ass and an huge increase in prep time. Making everything jive on the same power framework was a nice theory (and one new to 3e, it was not this way in previous editions). It was put into the arena and tested, and, imo, failed. It added mounds of prep work for the game to maintain because everything had to be built on the most complex system of any RPG (or most) - the PC. Since the PC is the unit by which the player interacts with the game, it is, by necessity, complex. Monsters that are meant to be killed and NPC merchants that are not, do not need to be built on that same scale. They need to be built to perform their game functions - dying and servicing the PCs. It is not necessary to know the exact craft score of the NPC blacksmith who is crafting the fighter's shiny new. The PCs shouldn't have that information, and the DM doesn't have a need to make die rolls for the NPCs to do things when the PCs aren't there. It's a lot of needed work for nothing. It was the idea I was most excited about with 3e, but the one that worked the least, again, imo.

But I never understood why some 3rd lvl putz of a necromancer could have a hoarde of undead following them around but my PC never could no matter how powerful he got, or what he tried to learn.

You're not supposed to learn he's third level. Demanding explanations for metagame concerns doesn't sound like the secret to versimilitude to me. Now, if you wonder how he controlled all those undead... yes, that requires explanation, if the PCs want to know it. But that explanation doesn't have to be on pg. xx of the DMG. It's an ingame, story explanation. The real reason is "because I wanted him to, because it is cool, whatever." An evil talisman and some dark rite, a bargain with a devil, the necrotic pillar the the PCs destroyed to defeat the undead menace... It needs explaining.

In any event I don't think either of us are claiming that a GM cannot do whatever he needs to to a monster in either edition.

Word.

 

[justanobody]

You might not get a bonus, but if it is a class skill, you have can have more ranks than someone else. And, Diplomacy 15? That would probably be the spokesman/face or whatever?

You might say that person would be the leader of the party.

 

[Jack99]

Uh, just a math correciton here...

There were approximately 600 2E products released from TSR/WotC, and less than 200 for both 3E and 3.5 combined.

There's no way you had anywhere near the "official" number of products in 3E that were released in 2E since, well, that amount is very different.

Percentage-wise. Meaning I had 90% of the official WotC-stuff of 3.x. Not the same amount of books

 

[Windjammer]

The idea that an epic level demon lord can only do, throughout his entire day, throughout the millenia as he hatches his evil, cosmos spanning schemes, that the only things he is capable of doing are the few combat/encounter powers listed in his MM entry. That is so clearly not the intent. The evidence is in the simplicity of the stat blocks and the design style throughout the edition, which fully encourages the DM to, well, DM the game.

Again, that's a mindset I find laudable, but I see no evidence in the RAW for it. Appealing to the stat block's simplicity doesn't tell either way. And, as I said, I find it telling that the p.42 in the DMG is solely designed to cater for "actions" of the PC "the rules don't cover".

More direct evidence is coming in the Draconomicon or whatever its called this time around. Undoubtedly the book will contain whole chapters on things dragons do when they aren't slaughtering parties. The stat block is needed for a fight, it is not the end all be all of the creature.

Ah, here lies the source of the trouble. Where 3E erred on the side of covering every tedious bit of the game by the same rule mechanics, this leading to an extreme quantative inflation of rules, 4E is hard to digest because it provides rules only for combat, leaving the remainder of the game not integrated into the core mechanic; or, to put it otherwise, leaving the relation the remainder of the game bears to that "core part" unclear and up to the DM. I had never understood and grokked that until I read this mind-blowing review of 4E, which really sold me on 4E. You see, 4E critics are right that 4E is in a sense about "combat only": it only provides rigid mechanical rules for combat. (Note how much this argument relies on the 3E mentality of "if it's not codified in the rules, it's not in the game.") Every other aspect of the game is entirely left for the DM to administer, skill challenges being a case in point. Now that's what makes 4E liberating to DM. But I also find this design approach a pain in the back, since the complete separation of those two "halves" of the game - combat and non-combat - causes a high level of arbitrarity (and hence, of arbitration on my part) when I retroactively insert new elements into the game. Because the relation of those new elements to the mechanically defined "core (skirmish) game" isn't just left uncodified (which is a blessing, compared to 3E), I'm not given any sort of guideline whatsoever. To be honest, I think a great amount of DMs will be discouraged by this complete shift of responsibility from 3E to 4E. 1E, to mention another creature, was much better in that regard, in that its core mechanics was much more general in approach, so when you added rules you didn't feel you altered the tone of the game. With 4E it definitely feels that way - I arbitrarily stick arbitrary elements onto the game as written.

And it's here that I find this type of response to the problem I raised (with Graz'zt limited teleport ability) deeply unsatisfactory. I raised a problem about the RAW, because simply that's the only common ground we'll ever get on a board to discuss the merits and demerits of an edition. So to bring in "but you can forego/delete/arbitrarily add on to the RAW" isn't a defense of the RAW in my book. Not by a long shot.

The section of the DMG detailing NPCs has this as #10 on their steps to building NPCs:

Good point there. It would be nice, though, if this aspect of the game were mentioned in the entries of the respective "monster" or "demon" or what have you. See above: 4E's disintegration of what happens on the battle map and what happens off the battle map is both a blessing and an obstacle.

 

[Psion]

The fascinating thing about pre-4e editions of D&D is that they did, in fact, have a range of both combat and non-combat roles.

They term they used back then was "Class".

Really? What non-combat role did a Fighter have?

I think (a) you are taking a joke too seriously, and, (b) even if it were meant seriously, your response doesn't correlate to what Simon said:

Previous EDITIONS had COMBAT ROLES and NON-COMBAT ROLES. They're called CLASSES:

COMBAT ROLES IN 1E: Fighter
NON-COMBAT ROLES IN 1E: Thief

Get it?

The answer to "what non-combat role does a fighter have" would, by Simon's definition, be "none... unless he's multi-classed."

 

[Tetsubo]

I think we can agree that there are differences between 3.5 and 4E.

For the people that like the direction that 4E has taken the game, these differences are a positive move and are being eagerly embraced.

For the people that don't like the direction 4E has taken the game, those differences are absolute deal breakers. They have taken the game into a direction that (to some) it ceases to be D&D.

I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.

For me, 3.5 is D&D done right. It isn't perfect but it is as close as the game has ever come to being perfect. I lament that my favorite edition of the game is no more. I won't ever again see an official new D&D book in print. All future new players are going to view 4E as the default version of D&D. And I pity them for that. They don't know what they are missing.

 

[Tetsubo]

Uh, just a math correciton here...

There were approximately 600 2E products released from TSR/WotC, and less than 200 for both 3E and 3.5 combined.

There's no way you had anywhere near the "official" number of products in 3E that were released in 2E since, well, that amount is very different.

But 2E didn't have the third party support that 3E did. There was some, but nearly on the same scale.

 

[JeffB]

I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.

I started with the LBBS. I support 4E, and the only previous edition of D&D that "failed" for me was 3E.

I played all of them to have fun. I played/play other games too. 3E was tons more work and very little fun, so I stopped playing it.

I feel pity for gamers who think their pet version of a game, is the only "true way" and somehow others will be deprived because they dont feel the same way. It's a *GAME*, ya know? I don't take games all that seriously.

The only thing I actually feel deprived of was all the countless hours lost prepping for 3E games

 

[DaveMage]

Percentage-wise. Meaning I had 90% of the official WotC-stuff of 3.x. Not the same amount of books

Ok then.

But 2E didn't have the third party support that 3E did. There was some, but nearly on the same scale.

Yes, but he used the word "official" which is why I made the comment.

I did some checking and did you know that there were over 70 BOX SETS for 2E? I think in 3E (including 3rd party) there were about 10. Ah, the good old days.