Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4030189" data-attributes="member: 162">Howdy, all. I've been lurking here on the 4e boards for awhile now, and I think that now - with a bit more information, and some more hopefully coming in the next month or so - is a good time to begin contemplating the big question: do I convert to 4e?My <a href="http://www.comradesmack.com/trinitywiki" target="_blank">setting</a> is a hodge-podge of concepts. The basic premise is that there are nine "forces" in the world: magic, psionics, technology, the blue (world memory), time, chaos (entropy, free will, and randomness), divine, nature, and the void. These nine are then divided into Trinities - three groups of three forces, with each force in each Trinity opposed to the other two (so magic is opposed to psionics and technology, and so on).Currently, I have thirty-some races allowed, and fifty-some base classes - and there are more yet to be written. I know it's a mess, but I'm slowly working on cleaning it up, to make it cleaner and more internally consistent.I'm a fan of the simulationist view. In my mind, the world is alive, and I try to convey that in games. Monsters are relatively rare, and most combats are with humanoids of some kind or another. NPCs aren't there just to kill or be killed, and I try to ensure that anyone the party interacts with is at least not entirely two-dimensional. Their skills outside of combat can be just as important as their skills in combat.So far, I'm not really certain what my personal opinions towards 4e are. There are a few things I like, but there are a number of things that I really am not a fan of (what they've done to halflings, removal of gnomes, the pit fiend only having combat-relevant abilities). However, I am willing to overlook my personal opinions when it comes to my setting: if it will fit better, if it will make more sense, if it will make the division between the various forces more defined... I'm willing to convert.Here is a short list of what I view as pros and cons.Pros<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> "Power Sources" make the divisons between forces more definable, and might give each force niche protection.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Lots of options for melee classes. While I'm not a fan of the magic parts of Bo9S, the non-magical disciplines were rather nicely done, IMO.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Race matters. With so many races in the setting, making them different is sometimes difficult. I haven't heard much beyond "race matters," but if it does, that would be nice.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Reduction of magic items. In the past couple years, I have become rather irritated with 3e's reliance on magic items. I like that that's (mostly) going away.</li> </ul>Cons<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Monsters have only combat-relevant abilities. Since I don't use monsters often, this is alright, but if I ever decide to change that, I want the creatures in the world to be a little more dynamic than simply there to be killed by the PCs.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Halflings changed, gnomes gone. While the fluff on the halflings can be changed (and most definitely will be), the removal of gnomes hurts.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Restriction on class design space. With the four roles, I think it will be difficult for any given power source to have more than four classes; while that should be enough, it sometimes just isn't. I like to tinker with the system, so this restriction on design space somewhat irks me. I haven't heard or read anything to contradict this point, but I'll be pleased if there is.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Restriction on rings. In my mind, this is a ridiculous restriction; there is a solution that some other poster made that I really like (if I can find the post, I'll link it), but the "RAW" seems indicative of a general design philosophy that I don't like.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> "Per-encounter" abilities. From a design standpoint, I love the idea; from a world-building standpoint, I can't stand it. I know there are ways to rationalize them, but I don't like any of the solutions I've come across. If appropriate fluff can be made to explain it, I'm definitely down with it, but at the moment, not so much.</li> </ul>Regardless of what my stance is right now, and regardless of whether or not anybody out here manages to change my mind (one way or the other), I'll give the system a chance - I'm planning on a playtest when it comes out, and seeing if it suits me or not. But I am not excited about it, and I am not looking forward to the idea of a 4e game.Anybody care to try to convince me?</blockquote>

Verification