No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, you can only really test whether the results are the same by running the 'same' characters (as close as you can get converting from different editions) through the same situations with the same dice rolls and seeing whether you get the same results. And that's not what you're describing.
The fragmentation of the D&D community... was it inevitable?
- Thread starter Dungeoneer
- Start date
No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, you can only really test whether the results are the same by running the 'same' characters (as close as you can get converting from different editions) through the same situations with the same dice rolls and seeing whether you get the same results. And that's not what you're describing.
If you're asking me whether we've re-run adventures, the answer is no.
However, since we as a group have found the game experience to be essentially unchanged- PCs casting same spells, using same items, efficacy versus analogous foes, etc.- in subsequent adventures, I stand by my statement.
However, since we as a group have found the game experience to be essentially unchanged- PCs casting same spells, using same items, efficacy versus analogous foes, etc.- in subsequent adventures, I stand by my statement.
This is all mechanics though.
No doubt you can no longer use Great Cleave and 3e power attack in a non-3e edition. Nor can you make the hilariously terrible druid/ranger/wizard which would be utterly useless in 3e.
But you know what?
If you want to make a drow nature-wizard who has shapeshifting and lightning bolts? I can do that. Heck, that's basically yet another simple druid, albeit probably more of a Guardian then a Predator.
In fact, that's a theme I'm seeing. For all the complaints that 4e is too mechanical, whenever the comparisons are brought up, it's pure mechanics.
Know what? I did it earlier, I'll do it here. Tell me about your 3e character without using mechanics, and I can replicate it in 4e. Tell me about the multiclass character without refering to it by the multiclass mechanics.
As much as I like 3e, I think it did something horribly vile to the game - it's not 4e that killed creativity, it's the insanely overranked rules of 3e. Suddenly you aren't dual wielding unless you're specifically using a dual wielding power. Suddenly you can't be a pirate unless you have the one specific pirate class. You can't change how the spell looks unless you have this one certain metamagic. It's this horrible idea that I simple cannot agree with that states "You need mechanics to do something." As if not having a "rope tying" skill suddenly means everyone in the universe lost the ability to tie ropes.
So yeah. Give me characters. Give me characters without being metagaming about it. Describe a character without using the mechanics - something you should be able to do in any edition, and something you had to do in earlier editions. I gurantee you can make a 4e character. Or a 3e character, or a 2e character, or so on, and so forth. But if all you see are mechanics and if you truly feel that everything needs a mechanic to go with it, then yeah, you won't like 4e. But you also won't like older editions, either. That's a 3e-ism through and through. And I gurantee your druid/wizard/ranger who polymorphs and throws lightning and dual wields wouldn't work too well in earlier editions, either.
(I'm not even sure druid/wizard/ranger was an acceptable multiclass, at that.)
So, ranger/wizard/druid.
Let's use 2e as we're going from 2e to 3e.
We'll say average party level 10, that puts us at about 7/7/7.
Moving to 3e, that makes us about 4/3/3
So, we aren't polymorphing.
We aren't dual wielding to any degree of skill.
We don't even have lightning bolt.
Level ten was pretty dang high in 2e, too. Just how much higher do we need to go?
I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something, your example doesn't hold up.
In fact, let's look at attributes.
Ranger/druid/wizard means you need some REALLY hefty stats. Wizard means 9 intelligence. Druid means 12 wisdom, 15 charisma. Ranger means 13 strength, 13 dex, 14 con, and 14 wisdom.
That means, at the LOWEST, you need 13/13/14/9/14/15. In 2e? That's damn rare indeed.
Ah, but we're throwing lightning bolt, so that means int has to be higher. 13/13/14/13/14/15.
Now we hit 3e. Strength is your damage and your hit. Dex is your armor, since you aren't wearing any. You can't cast any wizard spells while polymorphed, as I'm assuming by polymorph you are using Wild Shape. You need Constitution because everyone does. You need wisdom for druid spells. Intelligence for wizard spells. And you need that 15 charisma to be a druid from 2e.
This is not a "good" 3e character. This is not a 3e character that can throw lightning bolts and dual wield and polymorph. It's a 3e character that flounders along, utterly useless.
I find your example suspicious.
Let's use 2e as we're going from 2e to 3e.
We'll say average party level 10, that puts us at about 7/7/7.
Moving to 3e, that makes us about 4/3/3
So, we aren't polymorphing.
We aren't dual wielding to any degree of skill.
We don't even have lightning bolt.
Level ten was pretty dang high in 2e, too. Just how much higher do we need to go?
I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something, your example doesn't hold up.
In fact, let's look at attributes.
Ranger/druid/wizard means you need some REALLY hefty stats. Wizard means 9 intelligence. Druid means 12 wisdom, 15 charisma. Ranger means 13 strength, 13 dex, 14 con, and 14 wisdom.
That means, at the LOWEST, you need 13/13/14/9/14/15. In 2e? That's damn rare indeed.
Ah, but we're throwing lightning bolt, so that means int has to be higher. 13/13/14/13/14/15.
Now we hit 3e. Strength is your damage and your hit. Dex is your armor, since you aren't wearing any. You can't cast any wizard spells while polymorphed, as I'm assuming by polymorph you are using Wild Shape. You need Constitution because everyone does. You need wisdom for druid spells. Intelligence for wizard spells. And you need that 15 charisma to be a druid from 2e.
This is not a "good" 3e character. This is not a 3e character that can throw lightning bolts and dual wield and polymorph. It's a 3e character that flounders along, utterly useless.
I find your example suspicious.
Last edited:
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
AC for fighters still mainly developed by buying and wearing armor. The direction changes, but relative distance from 10 quite close. Not drastic.
To hit changes. Get better at hitting any given AC by +1 every level. Not drastic.
Hit points change for fighters only after 9th level. Not drastic.
Initiative moves from d10 to d20. Not drastic.
Weapon specialization (and required weapon focus) yields +1 to hit, +2 damage. Additional number of attacks is lost. But net effect isn't particularly drastic.
Experience - recommendations were to translate characters based on level not XP. Level 10 fighter becomes level 10 fighter. Not drastic.
Drastic is in your mind. But WotC did a lot to make the transition as easy as possible... and it really was.
Last edited:
Darkethorne was versed in the ways of arcane magic, as well as The Old Faith. He also took time to patiently learn the woodcraft and combat techniques of the wilderness men of the surface, and applied them to environments other than the piney woods above his home city. Eventually, he left the Underdark to live full time among the surface dwelling humans, dwarves and yes, even elves.
Still, though, he did not linger in the cities of the world, preferring the wild to walls. And even that became too limiting for him, and he discovered how to wander the planes. With transformative magics- innate and external- from both of his mystical traditions, he found he could blend in anywhere. Likewise, both paths provided the power he needed to escape whatever trouble he found in his journeys. And even when stripped of all his mystic resources, he remained a formidable enough warrior to give anyone pause.
Your guarantees are utterly meaningless in the face of the actual experience of running the PC.
It appeared in a Dragon article back in the 1980's, when the mag was "100% Official."
Be suspicious all you want- Darkethorne IS a real PC with 23 years of play behind him.
druid/ranger article issue 100 page 9
must be elven/half-elven
can add magic-user
must be neutral good to cover the alignment violations
pretty much before/without the article the alignment conflict would have many to think it was not right to do so with consideration to druids being the big part.
This "official" article pretty much did what the AD&D DMGs told people to do. "Do what feels right and not have your head buried in the letter of the rules as they are only guidelines, but follow the spirit of the game instead." To paraphrase them both together.
Another part of the cause of fragmentation is exclusive material such as magazine articles. Not everyone has them, so those using DDi now or Dragon now or then, might be playing a different game than those not using those accessories and only using the books.
The more you add, the more splintered you make the community in terms of what they use as each diverges from the same path onto their own path and direction their games lead.
Your experience is totally opposed to mine, then.
I remember converting my character when we went to 3E. My 2E character was a mage/thief... half-elf, I think. She had no trouble pulling her weight in the party. Then I converted her to a 3E wizard/rogue--split down the middle, as seemed logical--and dear Lord, was she ever useless from then on.
Not that I'm bitter.
I will, however, point out that the same character would have converted quite easily to 4E. Multiclass feats tend to be sub-optimal, but they don't turn your character into teh suck. And now that we have the hybrid option, you can get much closer to a 1E/2E-style multiclass than 3E allows.
*bounces up and down awaiting multiclass rules for Essentials characters*
*remembers that the book those rules were going to be in has been canceled*
*goes off and mopes*
Last edited:
Mercurius
Legend
1. Hell yeah - to take one from Dungeoneer, listen nerds, don't be so pessimistic!
Now 90% is a bit high of a number, but if we replace it with "the larger portion of current D&D players" then yes, I think so. There is a small portion of grognards that are happily settled into the OSR ghetto and will likely never leave, but we're talking about less than 5% - probably much less. Negligible, at least in terms of the overall community. Anyways, everyone needs and eccentric old uncle 
But to really bring the community back together would require a Herculean effort on WotC's part, including admitting their mistakes even to the point of saying "We stand by 4E as a superior game to 3.5, but we admit that we should have playtested it more, should have opened it up to the fan-base, and should have gone a bit further with Essentials and really improved on the game, and we also realize that we left some really essential things behind with 3.5 and other editions." Etc. A little pandering to the diehard core fan-base would be rather timely at this point.
2. First of all, it wasn't nearly as fractured in 2007, afair. Sure, there were tons of d20 stuff but it was all under the umbrella of 3.something. In some sense you could say it was more of a differentiation, a healthy fracturing, whereas now we have an unhealthy fracturing - not just the relatively minor in-fighting and squabbling, but the weakening of the core product (4E) which de-stabilizes the entire montage of D&D variations.
3. For one they could hire me as a consultant
. But I do think it is possible, just very, very difficult. What I would do would be to get to work on 5E, but cast a wide net through the D&D fan-base--with a focus on the diehard core, like the folks here at EN World--and find out what they (we) want. As some have said, the rules themselves are secondary to the feel. People want to feel like they are playing D&D, their D&D. A suitably flexible rule system should be able to accommodate that and be a template for other variations, even 21st century ones like tabletop World of Warcraft or however WotC thinks they might be able to appeal to the young 'uns.
Ithink that 4E is both a positive evolutionary development from 3.5was, overall, an improvement on 3.5, but also a less finished and more imperfect product. It was like taking a more delicious cookie out of the oven too soon - it was a better cookie but it wasn't done cooking yet. WotC needs to recognize this fact, even admit it publicly, and then take it a step forward. It is time to really start work on 5E and make it the Edition of the People.
Similar Threads
