What did we loose updateing a game from 2e to 4e

[Rechan]

This is also something that is a matter of player/DM choice, rather than something inherent to the rules. Just because the system provides rules to create a warforged hybrid vampire/monk, doesn't mean that you have to have warforged hybrid vampire/monks in your game...

-KS

Yep. The DM can say "No". Hell, you can preemptively say no by saying "These races aren't allowed" or "You have to play these things".

What I have been doing lately is that I say to the group "The races you chose for your PCs? Those are the common PC races in the game." This lets me slowly introduce new options with story elements - that race just showed up on the scene, that race has been buried under a mountain in stasis, that is the only member of his race, etc. This was very useful when I had a "explore the lost continent" game, where the continent lacked many of the typical PC races but had other exotic ones.

 

[Barastrondo]

Thought exercise? I'm actually still running the same campaign world that I was running in 2e, and although the longest-running game set there has slowed to a "every few months, maybe", all the other D&D games I've run have been set there as well.

I find I have less trouble with it than described, overall. Now, a certain number of caveats certainly stand out: I was mucking around with demon-blooded PCs almost from the beginning, and adopted tieflings as soon as they hit Planescape; I have always liked fighters, and never went with the "9 out of 10 named NPCs are casters" approach; and I've always preferred the approach of "give the NPC/monster the mechanics that make sense for its in-world role, not for its rulebook role." We were what they call ahead of the curve in some ways, I guess.

I think it's a matter of approach. To my mind, I'm still fleshing out the same world, and few things have changed; all of the mechanics is behind-the-scenes stuff. A fighter kills an orc with a single blow: doesn't matter if it it was a 6-hp orc before or a minion now, what the characters see is what matters. And what the characters see is not significantly different. A thousand warforged didn't suddenly descend on the world -- but in that Al-Qadimish area of the world, I was already using copper automatons, and why not let a player play one? There may not be large populations of shifters, but I already had lycanthropes and humans, and there's no reason they couldn't make babies with one another here and there. Player characters are definitely singular sorts -- but that's how I ran 2e, too.

Yes, there are definitely changes in approach that have been necessary. But changes in style, in how the world feels? For some of us, not a lot is different.

 

[FireLance]

can you gve me an example of this...not that I dont belive yu, but to point out to others please.

Well, if I wanted an opponent who could only be (seriously) hurt by [plot device], I'd give it Resist 20 (or higher) all except attacks from [plot device]. I'd be sure not to go overboard with it, though, and communicate the resistance in advance.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

what makes battle mind or invoker non core? They are in core books...

What makes the Elven Two-Weapon Fighting Chef kit non-core?

and I dont' need to go out of PHB1... Dragonborn might as well be half dragons (infact chris just pointed it out last night...change the flavor txt and they fif fine as half human half dragon.

If you allowed anything in 2e, did you allow half-giants and thri-kreen away from Athas? (You could, depending on how you made your setting, but I don't think it's a good idea.)

my artafacts give inherent bonuses...fixing it nicely.

I don't think those are inherent bonuses. If it's coming from an item, it's not inherent to the PC.

now try to make a wizard...with wzard powers (re name but not refluff) and convince someone you are a bard...

I could. Especially if I focus on charm and illusion effects. I really could. All I need to do is strum a guitar while casting spells. Said guitar having an orb in it or something

look at my PCs again... the problem was most dont use swords at all..

And my problem were the swords being required. (Come to think about it, it doesn't do much for a 2e wizard unless they multiclassed/dual-classed.) That's why I think said adventure had some problems.

there were WAY less races/classes and most were presented as campiagn world... in 4e they are all core. It is a diffrence in how they are written, showcased and used...

No, most of those races are not core. Just because warforged are in the Monster Manual does not make them a core PC race. Vampires are in Heroes of Shadow ... that is not core. Neither were arctic dwarves, star elves and bariaur in 2e.

Get into a fight in 2e with a fighter then a wizard... fighter will be swinging his sword you know what the fight is...

That was kind of the problem. "I hit to attack. I hit to attack. I hit to attack. I knock over a bench. I hit to attack..." In 3.x: "I Power Attack for 3. I Power Attack for 5. I Power Attack for 3..."

the wizard could be 100 diffrent fights, and it might be over with Save or Die round one.

The wizard could still do many different fights (in 4e, you can switch your dailies up some) and if you have some nasty (save ends) spells you can lock an opponent down for the entire combat.

Now 4e 2 diffrent fighters use very diffrent tactics and very diffrent powers...so do wizards, but neaither is going to end the fight in the suprse round.

Are you talking about a duel? Or as part of a party-based combat system? I think in a duel, the wizard could (especially if they're an orb wizard) reliably freeze the fighter in place. With Sleep, even!

there was no fight in 2e and I dont mean there to be in 4e...just you see him awaken and walk off.

You can still do that. His 4e version could brush them off (literally, if he has any pushing effects), letting him demonstrate his power both in terms of offense and defense.

I disagree, part of the social contract between DM and PC is I work for hours on this item/dungeon ect, you go to it and get it/beat it ect. If you make a PC that doesnt want to play this game, then make one that does.

Adventuring is certainly part of the social contract, but I think being required to find five specific swords is bad writing. If the PCs find another way of doing things, why should they be punished for choosing the "wrong" way?

um except my game doesn't stop...it just means it will get to a bad ending some day...when the PCs can't win.

That game continues. The campaign continues. The adventure doesn't. That's bad writing.

Read harry Dresden...some fights he uses "Feago" more then that...let alone days...his whole book normaly is only 1 or 2 extended rests...

I've actually read two of his books. The combat scenes were surprisingly well-written. It's too bad he's not part of a party Well, not most of the time.

being able to craft is another big change... it use to cost con points to do.then it went to Xp, both requared gold and time... now just gold and time

I'm glad you don't screw yourself over making an item for the fighter. I'm not sacking my Constitution to make a fighter a vorpal sword, no matter how much he begs.

Can "Fights over I spend 3 surges and am back to full" be boreing: Yes

I should hope what knocked down the fighter 3 surges wasn't boring! (Unless it was just charging orcs.) I would rather go through difficult, nearly-being-killed battles than "creep around the kobolds due to having only 3 hp and no Stealth skill" encounters just because no one could be bothered to play a cleric.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What makes the Elven Two-Weapon Fighting Chef kit non-core?

Um, I am not sure where you are going with this...so let me say again. PHB1-3 are all core.

If you allowed anything in 2e, did you allow half-giants and thri-kreen away from Athas? (You could, depending on how you made your setting, but I don't think it's a good idea.)

WHy are we compairing a PHB2 race to a world book? Becuse again I allowed lots of things...but people never said "of cource I can play a half dragon" but in 4e...dragon born.

I don't think those are inherent bonuses. If it's coming from an item, it's not inherent to the PC.

what ever you know what I ment.

I could. Especially if I focus on charm and illusion effects. I really could. All I need to do is strum a guitar while casting spells. Said guitar having an orb in it or something

and when a PC asked for a buff, or a heal? now compair that to taking the same spells.

And my problem were the swords being required. (Come to think about it, it doesn't do much for a 2e wizard unless they multiclassed/dual-classed.) That's why I think said adventure had some problems.

The adventure went just fine the first time, and everyone loved it...so much that one of those players wanted me to rerun it now in 4e to finish it. The swords were needed to hurt the corruption spirit becuse the swords were +3/+5 vs X (each one +5 to a diffrent creature) and they had a cool spell like ability and a breath weapon like attack (once per month). If the PCs had found other +3 weapons (witch I just did not include in the world) they would have worked.

No, most of those races are not core. Just because warforged are in the Monster Manual does not make them a core PC race. Vampires are in Heroes of Shadow ... that is not core. Neither were arctic dwarves, star elves and bariaur in 2e.

Ok half orc is in PHB2, shardmind are in PHB3, Dragonborn and teiflinf are in PHB1 all core.

That was kind of the problem. "I hit to attack. I hit to attack. I hit to attack. I knock over a bench. I hit to attack..." In 3.x: "I Power Attack for 3. I Power Attack for 5. I Power Attack for 3..."

fine it is a problem...but it is something that changed.

in 2e if I brought 4 swordsman and an archer to fight the party eveyone expects that...if I brought a cleric, 2 wizards, and a 2 swordsman I bet 9 out of 10 PCs would be WAY more worried about wizards.

The wizard could still do many different fights (in 4e, you can switch your dailies up some) and if you have some nasty (save ends) spells you can lock an opponent down for the entire combat.

Yes but now so can fightter or Rouge...

Adventuring is certainly part of the social contract, but I think being required to find five specific swords is bad writing. If the PCs find another way of doing things, why should they be punished for choosing the "wrong" way?

ok, so what way are you thinking? I know we once killed a vampire with a war horse (if you want to know just ask)

That game continues. The campaign continues. The adventure doesn't. That's bad writing.

What adventure? the adventure is/was find the swords...if you choose not to find the swords you must want the adventure to end. the story of the angle is still going...but with you having no way to stop him.

I've actually read two of his books. The combat scenes were surprisingly well-written. It's too bad he's not part of a party Well, not most of the time.

I think the dresden books by jim butcher are some of the best writen wizard stories ever.

I'm glad you don't screw yourself over making an item for the fighter. I'm not sacking my Constitution to make a fighter a vorpal sword, no matter how much he begs.

I could do a whole blog on this. In 2e I can name every item I or someone playing as I DMed made...I just counted 28...

In 3e I can;t even count how many Pcs made items...

In 4e I have not played a game that someone did not make items...

So again it is very diffrent.

I should hope what knocked down the fighter 3 surges wasn't boring! (Unless it was just charging orcs.) I would rather go through difficult, nearly-being-killed battles than "creep around the kobolds due to having only 3 hp and no Stealth skill" encounters just because no one could be bothered to play a cleric.

I like both, BUT stories and encounters run very diffrent in both.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, if I wanted an opponent who could only be (seriously) hurt by [plot device], I'd give it Resist 20 (or higher) all except attacks from [plot device]. I'd be sure not to go overboard with it, though, and communicate the resistance in advance.

20 is way too low. Our slayer throws 1d12+22 when power attacking in the right stance... The hexblade can throw xd10+14but at that point I just gave them the god immunity

"Immune to all attacks from anyone under level 21 or who have a primal crystal"

 

[Spinachcat]

I love not having to choose 0e vs. 4e. I treat each as a separate RPG and enjoy both of them. It's like deciding what I would "lose" between playing Warhammer or Exalted. Both great fun, both totally different play experiences.

As for what is "core", the 4e DMG gives great advice for noob DMs about crafting their campaigns and I believe limiting PC options is discussed.

Right now I am prepping a new 4e campaign that will be Primal and Psionic heroes only (so PHB 2 and 3) and only a limited number of races from those two books. Some players will balk and they won't play. And that's 1000% cool because if I am going to put the effort to DM the game, I want players who will go with the theme I have created.

 

[Pentius]

Not going to the trouble of quoting and dissecting, but on the topic of 'oddball races' I have this to say: If you didn't want them, why did you allow them?

 

[Spinachcat]

Not going to the trouble of quoting and dissecting, but on the topic of 'oddball races' I have this to say: If you didn't want them, why did you allow them?

Most GMs feel they should not limit player choices. I have been running an all human Swords & Wizardry game (0e retroclone) where dwarves and elves are NPCs and "monsters" who are no more friendly to humans than any other non-human creature. The players initially found it odd their choices were Fighting Man, Cleric and Magic-User, but they really got into it.

 

[Pentius]

Most GMs feel they should not limit player choices.

I understand that. Heck, I do that. But the point remains, if you are actively doing something that causes you frustration, you have only yourself to blame.