4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Obryn]

I agree that he needs some sort of evidence to claim that 4e and Essentials are not the same thing. The variance between them is minor, Essentials improves a few flaws of 4e, but does not, on the whole, significantly alter the product to make the two incompatible. It presents a slightly different design perspective for some already-presented parts(races and classes) but is more a variance than a completely new thing.

But he's right that HoS tried to be a little bit of both, the structure of the included material, the way classes and races are presented, but it game in a more traditional 4e packaging. I don't think there's anything wrong with that really.

More like a take-or-leave subset of classes that integrates very well with any other class in the game, but which can also be used as a standalone rpg if one desires.

Apart from item rarity, which really needed like a whole book and a year of updates to gel, and the MV directly replacing the immensely crappy MM1, there's little in the way of fixes except for, "You can use this instead, if you want to." Everything else was already done through errata. It's a really weird sort of product line - the stand-alone supplement.

-O

 

[Balesir]

Remind me, how many skill points does a 3e Fighter have, and which of the above are class skills for them? I accept that AD&D is a very different matter,

I'm not saying Robin i'the Hood could be done as a D&D Fighter (any edition) - I'm saying he would make sense coming from that background if he existed in real history. Yet another example of where D&D is not and has never been anything like "real life", so trying to model "real life" with it is something of a fool's errand...

I think it became clear to me, that the HPE series was built with a dungeon crawling D&D paradigm, and they poorly highlighted 4e for what 4e does very well. One of the biggest problems, IMO, was the use of the Dungeon Delve format for each encounter. This format "ate up" so much real estate on the page that a lot of "other" cool things could not compete for space. A 32 page adventure in that format would have a 2 page spread for each encounter, and a lot of space was used for combat. It made it look like the adventure was only combat.

I have quite enjoyed running the whole HPE saga, so far, but it's certainly true that I have been putting increasing amounts of work into the non-combat side as I've gone along. I think your observations, here, are basically sound. I have found, though, that 4e is very amenable to having the non-combat side significantly expanded on using the systems given - even if I do wish WotC had expanded much further in that area.

Apart from item rarity, which really needed like a whole book and a year of updates to gel

Each to their own - it needed a complete rewrite, as far as I'm concerned. The whole idea of "magic items are candy for the DM to hand out and the players to be glad of whatever they get" was overdue for excision, as far as I'm concerned. I actually liked the "magic items are a party-shared character building resource" concept; if you want DM-only goodies or maguffins there were (and are) Artifacts - the very best of both worlds.

For my next 4e campaign, I think I'll likely go with "Residuum" as a separate resource (i.e. no free exchange with money, no loss on disenchantment) for player control of the party magic item pool (with configuration changes costing gold). Artifacts will still be the "DM's toys" option.

 

[D'karr]

Yet another example of where D&D is not and has never been anything like "real life", so trying to model "real life" with it is something of a fool's errand...

True, approximations is usually all you get. Some are closer than others, but they are still approximations.

I have quite enjoyed running the whole HPE saga, so far, but it's certainly true that I have been putting increasing amounts of work into the non-combat side as I've gone along. I think your observations, here, are basically sound. I have found, though, that 4e is very amenable to having the non-combat side significantly expanded on using the systems given - even if I do wish WotC had expanded much further in that area.

An expanded, and revised DMG pg. 42 with good examples of how to "stretch" the system certainly would have done wonder to make the "out-of-combat" much more supportable. I would have liked to see an entire chapter devoted to that "Teach the DM how to fish kind of thing."

I've been having a blast with my group because they are "masters" of the unconventional. The 4e framework lends itself fantastically to that "expansion."

Each to their own - it needed a complete rewrite, as far as I'm concerned. The whole idea of "magic items are candy for the DM to hand out and the players to be glad of whatever they get" was overdue for excision, as far as I'm concerned. I actually liked the "magic items are a party-shared character building resource" concept; if you want DM-only goodies or maguffins there were (and are) Artifacts - the very best of both worlds.

For my next 4e campaign, I think I'll likely go with "Residuum" as a separate resource (i.e. no free exchange with money, no loss on disenchantment) for player control of the party magic item pool (with configuration changes costing gold). Artifacts will still be the "DM's toys" option.

I'm of two minds on the subject. I flat out did not like the mechanical aspects of magic items. They felt more like mundane tools rather than magical items. I understand the balance issues that the designers were trying to address with them, but I would have liked something much better/different. Even if it had been a lot of advice for the DM on how to "modify to taste".

In my current campaign I've been modifying magic items heavily to tailor them as somewhat unique items. Almost as if they were artifacts. I've introduced a mechanic whereas all the abilities of a magic item are not know to the character when they first get the item. As the character advances in level, the item advances also, and reveals more "powers". I work with the players to get their characters at least one "signature" item in that fashion. I liked the idea, if not the implementation, of "wish lists." I use inherent bonuses, and work with the players to get the flavor we like.

On the "residuum" front, I also divorced it from gold. It is a separate resource and can be found, or extracted from magic items, and certain creatures. I've also made Ritual Casting much more usable/accessible for my group. I add a lot of ritual scrolls and books to treasure finds so that they are much more visible to the PCs. I've decreased the casting time for many rituals, and increased it for some. More on the grounds of thematics than anything else. We don't have a traditional ritual caster so the Warden PC has become the defacto ritual caster for the group, and we are having a lot of fun with it.

I don't like the idea of magic emporiums for flavor reasons, so I've worked closely with the players to provide things that will be cool for them, without having to go buy them. It's definitely a work in progress. So far it's been working rather well.

 

[Obryn]

My own preference is "inherent bonuses + rare items", so to each their own! There's no crafting in my Dark Sun game, and it allows me to be lazy with treasure while keeping it believable for the setting.

I've never cared for the magic item systems of 3e/4e where gold just becomes a secondary XP track used for purchasing power-ups. The treadmill is easy enough to switch off in 4e, though.

-O

 

[Deichgraf]

There's no crafting in my Dark Sun game, and it allows me to be lazy with treasure while keeping it believable for the setting.
-O

hm...

Same here, only I extend it to all settings. The idea didn't even come from me as the GM, but from my players who felt it lessened the impact of magic items alltogether.

I find the idea of treating them as artifacts intriguing and will discuss it with my players, thanks for that input

 

[Remathilis]

I agree that he needs some sort of evidence to claim that 4e and Essentials are not the same thing. The variance between them is minor, Essentials improves a few flaws of 4e, but does not, on the whole, significantly alter the product to make the two incompatible. It presents a slightly different design perspective for some already-presented parts(races and classes) but is more a variance than a completely new thing.

While they're not incompatible (much like 1e/2e or 3e/3.5), I firmly believe that Essentials was 4e "done right". It built on the two years of math fixes (esp monster math), tried to improve magic items and spell-powers, broke the ADEU for all mold, and tried to dial back the sweeping setting changes to be more in line with old D&D as well (such as allowing elves to be good mages, rather than giving that solely to eladrin). I firmly believe a 4e built off the Essentials version would have been a larger success than the 4e we got in 2008. The changes would not have been so radical and jarring.

Live and learn.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Doesn't the current Character Builder incorporate all those Essentials changes anyway or am I wrong? (Haven't played in a year or so.)

 

[Balesir]

I'm of two minds on the subject. I flat out did not like the mechanical aspects of magic items. They felt more like mundane tools rather than magical items. I understand the balance issues that the designers were trying to address with them, but I would have liked something much better/different. Even if it had been a lot of advice for the DM on how to "modify to taste".

The "magic items as fancy gear" element I had no issues with at all - it fits right into the "magic isn't some sort of outside presence that is separate from the world, it's a natural part of the world that impinges on how the world works" that I've posted about hereabouts. I do think it should have been made clearer in the published materials, though. The split of "magic items" into gear that characters could buy or make ("magic items", in 4e) and DM plot elements intended to let the DM give players world elements to play with for a bit while remaining - as world elements - within the DM's control (Artifacts, in 4e) I thought was genius. It resolved a dichotomy that had been growing in D&D for years - with calls for "magic item creation" systems countered by "magic (items) aren't special any more" complaints that started with 3.X, not 4e.

Such a simple answer - give a category for each. The only problem was that they didn't make this crystal clear in the published books and they didn't give anywhere near enough examples of Artifacts.

Take a look at the original rules for Artifacts and you will find that they are almost identical to the Essentials "Rare Items". Some of them have Concordance and all that guff, but even early on it was clear that this was not a mandatory part of an Artifact. They can't be made, they can't be bought or (without specific DM permission) sold; they don't generally take "slots", they don't have daily power use limits, and they certainly aren't constrained by balance or fairness considerations. And many of them are darned cool!

Had WotC explained this properly and published a load of the "Rare" items as Artifacts I really don't think the whole mess of "item rarity" would have been necessary.

In my current campaign I've been modifying magic items heavily to tailor them as somewhat unique items. Almost as if they were artifacts. I've introduced a mechanic whereas all the abilities of a magic item are not know to the character when they first get the item. As the character advances in level, the item advances also, and reveals more "powers".

Sounds a lot like Artifacts, to me - why not just label them that?

I don't like the idea of magic emporiums for flavor reasons, so I've worked closely with the players to provide things that will be cool for them, without having to go buy them. It's definitely a work in progress. So far it's been working rather well.

I don't really use "Emporiums" or "Magic Shoppes" - I have more of a concept of a market in rare items. The PCs can usually get what is appropriate for their level, but they do it through a network of contacts and friends. This explains, in part, why what they can get is (generally) appropriate to their level - it's because their array of friends and contacts are generally appropriate to their level!

I find the idea of treating them as artifacts intriguing and will discuss it with my players, thanks for that input

If you don't like magic items as player-controlled, party-shared character building elements then I recommend using inherent bonuses, removing magic items (apart from consumables, perhaps) altogether and using Artifacts (including converted magic items - especially rares - and modified or made up ones of your own) wherever you want a "magic item". If WotC had made this approach clear to DMs early on I think much hassle would have been saved; all the rules are there, but the advice/guidance was missing.

 

[Obryn]

I firmly believe that Essentials was 4e "done right". It built on the two years of math fixes (esp monster math), tried to improve magic items and spell-powers, broke the ADEU for all mold, and tried to dial back the sweeping setting changes to be more in line with old D&D as well (such as allowing elves to be good mages, rather than giving that solely to eladrin). I firmly believe a 4e built off the Essentials version would have been a larger success than the 4e we got in 2008. The changes would not have been so radical and jarring.

For what it's worth - and I know I'm not altogether typical of a 4e fan here - I agree. I think that if Essentials had been the first release with the PHB-style stuff released shortly thereafter, it would have solved three issues. (1) A more recognizable structure with dramatically less 'condition warfare' and fiddly stuff like marks, quarries, and curses; (2) cleaned-up math with minimal errata necessary; and (3) a sliding scale of complexity for classes combined with more flexible advancement.

Don't get me wrong - when I'm playing, I tend to lean towards the greater options of a typical AEDU class, and 4e's not the same to me without Warlords and PHB-style martial classes in the mix. But Essentials got a lot of stuff right, and I was thrilled at what it added to my 4e game.

hm...

Same here, only I extend it to all settings. The idea didn't even come from me as the GM, but from my players who felt it lessened the impact of magic items alltogether.

I find the idea of treating them as artifacts intriguing and will discuss it with my players, thanks for that input

I think both artifacts and rares are good starting points. And non-Big-3 magic - that too. I love boons; they're my favorites right now. One of my main wishes for 4e was making magic items non-essential - and with inherent bonuses, they finally are, moreso than in any other edition right now.

Every 4e game I run from now on will use inherent bonuses, too, Dark Sun or no.

I still toss magic weapons and armor in sometimes, but quite frankly, they're 16th level right now and they really don't need it.

-O

 

[Hussar]

Well using a bow you won't be a very good Defender, will you? You'll be a weak Striker.

Oh, fair enough. But, then again, a Charisma based paladin isn't going to be dealing piles of damage with a melee basic attack is he?

It's a fairly easy fix. Either let the paladin use arrows a la Legolas and stab people, or change the concept slightly, use a crossbow (which personally I think fits the image of paladin better - no peasant's weapon for him) and count the crossbow as a club in melee (something that came from a 3e Dragon Magazine).

In any case, it's not exactly a huge issue. Paladins have ranged powers at virtually every single level. Choose ranged powers, and you've got a bow (or crossbow possibly) using paladin.

Will he be the very bestest paladin? Probably not. Will he be totally ineffectual? Again, probably not. It's a concept that possible to do. Which is what I was responding to in the first place.