4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[D'karr]

I don't want to give up classic sandbox exploration either, and a system that works well with both styles of play would be great.

In my games I've been able to do both within the system. To great success I might add. It's just that I don't use combat as the sole means, or even an important tool, to enhance the exploration. There are other tools that work better for it. In all games it really boils down to a matter of pacing. But 4e also gives me tools to do it, and reward the efforts.

When I was young I had hours upon hours upon days to play. Which meant that I could take hours upon hours upon days to get to the point. As an adult, my time, as well as my player's time is way more limited. So spending several hours in minutia that doesn't really advance the goals of the players becomes a drag in the end. We're not getting anywhere. Now I can give the sense of them not getting anywhere by using a mechanic that eats up their resources but doesn't eat up our "real life" time.

Think of a movie like Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring. It was quite a long movie, but in a 3 hour setup you got quite a bit of information and all of it moved the protagonist's story forward. To achieve this, the pacing was the most important aspect of getting all that done. The goals of The Fellowship are still the focus, but the movie only shows you the "interesting" parts. It alludes to the rest, but does not focus on it. When Gandalf goes to "research" the ring, you don't see hours upon hours of him going through books, or his hours upon hours of travel to the library, or "random encounters" on the road. You see him leave, you see him riding a horse, you see him looking at books, and finding the information. You see all of this in about 30 seconds to a minute. That is pacing. If every bit of the travel day-by-day, every person he talked to, every book he pored over/through had to be mapped out the movie would have been 5 hours long just on that scene.

When the party leaves Rivendell, you see various short cut scenes of them traveling, you see a short scene of the ring affecting Boromir's mind and you see a camp scene. But you don't see every campsite they spent time in, you see one short scene of it. Then you see them in the Misty Mountains, then you see them in Moria. All the travel between these places is obviously alluded to, but there is no long drawn out focus on it. There is one important but short scene at Caradhras, one important but short scene at the gates of Moria, and one significant encounter with the dweller at the gates. All of that doesn't take very long, even the combat with the dweller is rather short. The dweller takes several hits, he goes "bloodied" and retreats. The travel through Moria is supposed to be 4 days long IIRC but the entire travel can be described in a few short sentences until they reach the Tomb of Balin. Then an important encounter occurs. All these scenes are obviously important to each other, and each is informed by the ones that have gone before, but combat is not the pacing mechanism used to propel the "game" forward.

 

[S'mon]

Even when I know better, I start to forget that I can ignore the "monsters immediately attack and fight to the death" statements in many of the encounters.

It would probably be worth going through every WoTC adventure I own and deleting that line whenever it appears. I suspect that single line may have done more harm to 4e than any other one element.

 

[Bluenose]

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...

Well, in 2e AD&D I'd take Riding, Etiquette and Hunting NWPs, lance, sword, bow, and quarterstaff WPs. He rides, like a knight should, he knows how to behave in polite company, and he can hunt. 1e didn't have NWPs until later, but if they're included take the same ones. BECM has a different set of Skills, but I'd still pick up Hunting and Riding, probably Leadership, and Acrobatics if I wanted an Errol-style Hood. Seems easy enough to model him.

 

[Neonchameleon]

* A paladin/sorcerer (3.5), yes this pc is mildly disrupting to party dynamics,

Post the character sheet? But I'm thinking of an apprentice wizard theme for the splash of arcane power added to a sorceror. A bladesinger or swordmage with a paladin multiclass feat might also work - it all depends on exact implementation.

*A priestess of love (2e). Needless to say this particular priestess is completely pathetic on any form of combat that doesn't revolves around a bow or a lasso, yet she has managed to be valuable on a fight without having any weapon, spells preppared, or even any gear to speak off. The only reason this priestess isn't a pacifist is because that would preclude her from using a lasso for called shots (and that is too way damn fun to pass out). Any idea on how to have this kind of character work on 4e?

I'm hearing something based on a Lazy Warlord here. Again post the character sheet.

* the general non-killing healer (I have played many of these kind, rogue and bard are common multiclass combos) Actually I have received some advice on this same forums about how to convert this general concept to 4e. The only thing that keeps being missed is the lack of temporal/subdual/non-lethal damage and it's related set of feats and merciful weapons. This might not seem like a big loss, after all in 4e you just determine if you kill or subdue when you last hit an enemy. But it is a huge change, before you could take part on the battle knowing that short of massive damage (which would kill anything anyway) you were still contributing to the party winning without also contributing to the party slaying of another creature, now in order to get the same effect on 4e I have to tell the strikers how to paly their characters!. Needless to say that never before 4e I found someone telling "no thank you, your healing isn't welcome I'm just taking a long rest now"

Honestly this second part tells me "Disruptive characters are disruptive and the Cleric no longer gets a free ride. Before 4e people would put up with a disruptive cleric because few wanted to play the healbot but everyone liked having one around." You don't have to tell the strikers how to play their characters. You just have to get player rather than in character buy in to the conceit that people you have damaged don't die.

 

[FireLance]

It would probably be worth going through every WoTC adventure I own and deleting that line whenever it appears. I suspect that single line may have done more harm to 4e than any other one element.

No, I'm fairly sure that "Edition warriors immediately attack and fight to the death." was a lot worse for 4e.

 

[D'karr]

No, I'm fairly sure that "Edition warriors immediately attack and fight to the death." was a lot worse for 4e.

So true, and funny.

 

[Ratskinner]

This style of play is a novel concept to me. I've paid virtually no attention to the indie RPG scene, and one quick reading of some Forge stuff years ago convinced me that it was a bunch of pretentious nonsense.

Much like the mechanical overhead of the WotC editions, I find that it was more work than was needed for the task at hand.

They're probably the same reasons that I would list. I can get people to play (or try playing) Dungeons & Dragons. Trying to branch out into less well-known games dramatically decreases the size of the pool of potential players (even ones who haven't played RPGs before, for some reason).

Ain't that the truth. I haven't tried in a few months, but I doubt I could even drum up a 4e group to try out all this stuff. (Pathfinder appears to have killed 4e and took all its stuff, locally.) I haven't ever had success creating a group that focuses explicitly on any of the "indie" games. Instead, I content myself with running a few sessions here and there to give the regular DM a break.

 

[MoonSong]

There are posters here with better build-fu than me, but here are some ideas.

For your paladin sorcerer I might try a STR/INT swordmage with paladin multi-class (requires 13 WIS - not too expensive) - you can build this as a dual-wielder, not necessarily tripping but other forms of control coming from your swordmagery, and you can be weapons first with your magic providing utility (though not via explicit buffing, but rather by giving you weapon attacks extra effects via your swordmage powers). Your armour would be leather by default, but Unarmoured Agility can give you the same AC in cloth for a feat. Your CHA won't be that high, so you won't have much in the way of Bluff; and your archery will suck. (You'll have to pick up Acro from a feat or a background; likewise Bluff.)

A bladesinger (from the Neverwinter book) has DEX/INT, and so good archery as well as melee attacks that are enhanced by at-will utility attack-buffs. Your CHA will still be low, and you'll have trouble with paladin multi-class (both the STR/WIS mins of 13+, and the stats for any other powers you ended up taking).

A paladin/swordmage hybrid (STR and INT) might be a little underpowered but not completely unviable, I would think. If your paladin at-will is Valiant Smite then even though you have it from 1st level there'd be nothing about it that would betray your paladin-ness. Then if you don't take paladin encounter, utility and daily powers until 3rd, 6th and 5th the whole "growing into it" story would be preserved. You'll have the same limitations as the swordmage/multi-class paladin as far as DEX and CHA are concerned.

Post the character sheet? But I'm thinking of an apprentice wizard theme for the splash of arcane power added to a sorceror. A bladesinger or swordmage with a paladin multiclass feat might also work - it all depends on exact implementation.

Ok basic details on this human paladin/sorcerer:

Str 12
Dex 15 <- highest stat
Con 10
Int 13
Wis 8 <- designated dump stat, this pc wouldn't be the same without a wis penalty
Cha 14 <- second highest stat

Trained skills
Appraise +4
Bluff +6
Concentration +6
Diplomacy +4
Handle animal +4
Ride +4
tumble +4
UMD +3
(notice k:arcana and spellcraft aren't trained at all, this is a major aspect of the character)

Feats
1- Two Weapon fighting
Human- Martial Weapon proficiency [Halberd] (didn't know this pc was going to eventually multiclass, this chracter evolved organically)
3- Weapon Finesse

Spells
0 level :
Detect Magic (I know this is a part of arcana in 4e, but this character shouldn't get training on it)
Ray of Frost (hasn't actually come up at all wouldn't be an actual loss)
Dancing Lights < Favorite spell
Light < Used very often
1st
Mage Armor
Magic Missile (not seen too much use, only a couple of times at all)

Basically on 4e terms, this guy fights like a ranger, sees evil, lays on hands and smashes like a paladin, uses inborn uility magic and some small self buffing, while also having the ocassional MM, And is very social and switches between tanking and battlefield mobility.

For your priestess of love I'd try the lazy warlord route with cleric multi-class; or a hybrid pacifist cleric/lazy warlord, perhaps. The idea is that your cleric powers don't do damage, and your warlord powers buff and/or activate allies rather than involve you doing stuff yourself. The lasso is hard to build in, unless you go for powers that involve forced movement and reflavour them as lasso called shots - which might be a bit of a stretch (boom boom!). The archery you can get via Archer Warlord and STR, or if your lazy warlord can be built around the WIS you're using as a cleric (I don't know all the warlord options well enough), then you can just pump DEX as your second stat.

Pacifist builds for clerics are mostly in Divine Power - if you look through it the elements are pretty clear. You're correct that in 4e if others are attacking to kill then the fact that you want to subdue won't help. I personally like this change, as I think it makes the stake and the intra-party dynamics a bit more clear. That's just my taste, though.

I'm hearing something based on a Lazy Warlord here. Again post the character sheet.

Don't have it at hand, but as far as i can recall:

Highest stats Dex, Wis & Cha, dump stat Str. This PC was very invested on the Lasso, being a very usefull weapon for tripping, disarming and crowd control (not to mention going nuts with knots),
SPheres: Animal, healing, Charm, protection, summoning
Granted powers: inspire berseker rage, turn undead, soothing word, charm, inspire fear
However this pc was primarily meant for interaction, not for combat, I cannot think of a good way to have meteorology, cooking & 100 uses for rope represented on 4e without a heavy reliance on page 42

Honestly this second part tells me "Disruptive characters are disruptive and the Cleric no longer gets a free ride. Before 4e people would put up with a disruptive cleric because few wanted to play the healbot but everyone liked having one around." You don't have to tell the strikers how to play their characters. You just have to get player rather than in character buy in to the conceit that people you have damaged don't die.

The point is, never before I felt this character concept was disruptive, 2e's "I will help you to get there, in combat I'm not very useful so I will limit to keep you on fighting condition and out of problems acting more in self defense" or "I will keep you patched, in combat I will help you defeat enemies but not to kill them, in return I will provide as much as four times the regular healing which even accounting being a little more hurt by me not being that combat effective will allow you to fight twice as many fights as you'd normally be, and In a pinch I can hurt mysself to heal you even more, not to mention I'm not taking away your spotlight as a combatant", in my experience those were very enabling roles. In 4e that becomes disrupting because you have very limited healing resources every fight and you only prolong what are very long fights to begin with, and you aren't that effective at healing if you don't contribute to the slaughter, and there is no way to change that, even the pacifist healer feels like a copt out, it only punishes you for not being pacifist, instead of giving you the ability to act like one. Temp damage was good, it gave you the ability to spare your enemies regardless of who did the final attack, but I guess there are too many things to track already

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

HoS has wonderful fluff, but poor mechanics. It introduced 3 races, but only gave feat support to 1 of them. Plus it tried to be both Essentials and 4e (no, they are not the same thing).

What's different about them? Essentials IS 4e, so yeah, they are the same thing, lol. HoS has a lot of perfectly fine and very thematic mechanics. It has the binder, which is sort of just blah and useless, so it isn't perfect. Its pretty good though and while the dependency on more than the core books is a little weird you can get a lot out of it with or without Essentials.

Where is the feat support for the monster races allowed as PCs in the Monster Manual?
Rather than putting out new races in each book (Shardmind? where did that come from?) I would much rather they put more into what they had.

But monster races were NEVER supported or ever stated to be supported as PC races, so there's no reason they should have gotten support. In fact slowly they've added support for many of them. Gnolls got it long ago, then a couple of others, and finally the DSG added some more.

2nd ed had books for each class, and then for the races. And for the most part they sold well. Yeah, the Priests' Handbook was a little lame, unless you were planning on building your own pantheon. The fighter's and rogues' books were great.

I thought the 2e books had some cool stuff in them. They were filled with cool fluff and RP ideas. OTOH the mechanics were pretty rough. A few of them had some good ideas, but a lot of it barely worked at all or was totally over or under powered. I liked 2e, but I think the overall quality is less than 4e in several ways.

I'm old fashioned. I expect my books to be printed, and I expect the content to be right the First Time, and not to need constant errata. Nor should I need to pay for a subscription in order to get the information on updates and the character builder program. Print the book. I'll flip through it at the store and decide whether or not I want to buy it.

Isn't there a theme or background for the disgraced noble or fallen noble that would suit Robin Hood?

Honestly, that whole "should have got it right the first time" makes me want to ask if people are kidding. Did 2e EVER GET ANYTHING mechanical right the first time? Not in my opinion. Did they ever fix anything? Nope, not even once. I could only wish that 2e got the errata that 4e got.

I think there is a disgraced noble, yes. It is in the BoVD though, so it isn't really appropriate. There are themes that would work though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Actually, from a building characters standpoint, Essentials just ADDS options. For instance you have an additional stat you can put +2 into instead of just fixed racial bonuses. Some races got alternate features, you can choose the PHB1 feature or the Essentials feature, both are legal. CB will let you do a few things. You can restrict yourself to Essentials-only, or use all the options. You could also choose to exclude stuff that is in the Essentials books if you wanted (it is a bit more involved than doing Essentials only).