4th EDITION

[Thezdemeus]

wow..lots of angry opinions...as i expected there would be...and mine, is only and opinion as well...most of what i have read reminds me of old people set in thier ways unwilling to change..but as everyone is entitled to thier own opinion..i will submit to all of your ideas and with that, please close this thread..thank you very much everyone...

 

[Xen_Tiras]

I like the dragonborn and tieflings way more than the eladrin. I just figure you could drop them altogether and leave the gnome. I don't really care about the half-orc, as I prefer the new fullblooded orc entry in the MM (Never saw why you had to play a halfbreed). I mean, if they wanted an arcane spellcasting race so badly, why not use the gnome? I seem to recall gnome illusionists fondly as far back as 1E.

Either way, I like the new edition, but seeing two elf species in the PHB was just annoying for me. Now I think I'll go make a full write-up for the gnome and orc, like there should've been.

 

[Jeajea]

My two words of wisdom, why not? I'm unsure about 4e. I haven't bought the books, and if I ever do change over it won't be for at least two or three years - until it has reached a certain maturity, or perhaps until 4.5 has come out.

I'm not overly keen on the core races presented in the PHB, though to be honest getting rid of the ones I don't like is trivial to do. On the other hand, I find the loss of the gnome and the half orc no loss at all - I've personally never seen anyone play either, tabletop. In general, I think I'm in favour of the way they've done the actual rules, their choice of what's core for races aside. Oh, and the skills thing aside too, I'm really not sure about that. What happened to a bit of freedom about how to allocate things? But there are good changes; two stats increased at once, the way it's been divided into three ten-level 'tiers' incorporating epic gameplay more sensibly into the starting rules and having per-encounter abilities... these are all good, and a step forward in my mind. I might well end up playing some kind of mish-mash of 3.5e and 4e, call it 3.75e - the step beyond. Like a star wars movie... okay, I'm rambling...

 

[Reshak Delanier]

Everyone seems to be so caught up in the "this is now this way" and "that is no longer like it should" etc etc etc, that you have forgotten a very major point. The only reason that WotC created 4E, was to MAKE MORE MONEY. Its a business, not a game, not something for giggles and s**ts any more, but a way to make more money.

They saw how popular crap like WoW is, and changed a perfectly good system to something....less. Sad, really.

As to the Greyhawk matter....Personally, I say dump it, and put the tavern back where it belongs, in FR, and quit with all the xenophobic (read that as racist) garbage.

WotC is going to drive themselves right out of business, and I could care less. I have all I need for 3.5, and I'm happy with that.

*steps down off of soap box, and points to tag line as he walks away*

 

[Mortonia]

It is a sad sad day when I find myself agreeing with Reshak. Uh...no offense, scary drow vampire dude!

 

[Jeajea]

The fact that this edition came out about eight or ten years after the last (major) edition did not escape my notice. Plus, 3.5 in the middle... where before that, there was more like a 15 year gap between editions. My warhammer playing friend (boo, hiss) insists that it's nothing to make a big deal about - warhammer is now on it's fifth? Sixth? Seventh? edition, and it's a good thing when a new edition comes out - updated rules, better gameplay... but also bear in mind, children, that WotC can't make money on things like models. The books are the only way to rake in the dorras, so it becomes completely necessary for them, if they're to pick up what was not so long ago a wavering and dying industry, to update the rules more frequently, and make more gimmicks to get more pounds and pence from us. As you say, it's a business, and we should make no illusions that their primary goal is ever going to be anything other than profit. Still... that doesn't preclude the possibility that any given publication is going to be a good one, does it?

 

[Tharivious]

wow..lots of angry opinions...as i expected there would be...and mine, is only and opinion as well...most of what i have read reminds me of old people set in thier ways unwilling to change..but as everyone is entitled to thier own opinion..i will submit to all of your ideas and with that, please close this thread..thank you very much everyone...

Resisting needless, poorly reasoned change for change's sake =/= "set in their ways".

If the changes made had legitimate reasons (other than the money) and actually solved problems that a smaller, optional rules-set could have fixed (and, gasp, continued to sell existing published products to new gamers)? Or better yet, if the changes were limited to the rules-set alone instead of changing the definition of things that have been in the game for 30 years? I doubt if anyone would complain about 4E because it would purely be irrelevant abstracts (the rules), and you could choose not to convert while still enjoying continued support for your favourite setting of choice. The hitch is, they took to many liberties with the source material to the point where it only superficially resembles a game with 30 years of history. "Sacred cows" should not get "a bullet to the brain" just because it makes it easier to force a new edition on the customer base.

They changed too much on the flavour side at the intrinsic core level of the game, which should only have been changed for a specific setting, making every other setting either face official retcons, or be full of partial retcons of the core material. That's why the Realms are facing a 114 year time jump, the death of 95% of their NPCs, losing multiple cities, 60-75% of their deities, 90% of their racial deities, and yes, even a few entire nations.

 

[Kinetti]

Anti-capitalist "profit is ebil!" rhetoric aside, I will actually concede my own ambivalent-at-best attitude toward 4E. Primarily for reasons already discussed by ol' Tharivious. I also don't necessarily mind the simpler rules, what little I've read about them. What I also dislike greatly is the "change for the sake of change" tone of much. Using same names but greatly-different beings such as fiends, celestials, and the Eladrin, the further gutting/fracturing of the Planes, and so on. Then again, I'm less horrified about what they did from 3E to 4E with the planes, than I was with what they did to destroy the greatness of 2nd Ed Planescape in the change-over to 3E. heh. I guess I'm just less surprised this time -- to me they're just finishing the destruction 3E did to the planes. At least with this new set-up, it's easier to facilitate "each world using its own planes" now.

Is it "too soon" for a new Ed? I guess it depends on if you also count 3E and 3.5E as two separate Eds. True, AD&D 1st Ed lasted 12 years and 2nd Ed lasted 11 (my research showed it was released in 1989, and 3E in 2000, after all), and 2nd Ed had its own "half an Ed" if you want to call it that with the Player's Option series, though that was seen as quite optional, unlike 3.5E. It did see a revision of the core rulebooks as well, but not till '96, and if I remember right that was just more rearranging the content for easier reference, than actual overhauls of what the content was. But this shows us that even those two Eds didn't remain static. My theory is that a new Ed is proposed when a current Ed seems to be getting too cumbersome for new players to easily delve into. That does beg the question on if this is one reason (beyond the "mo' money!" hypoethesis of course ) that 3E was tossed aside. I don't know if I think it got so cumbersome so quick, but perhaps the designers thought so. However, as they started planning 4e already in, what was it, '05? '06? I doubt it. It's a thought though.

On the other hand, some of the changes aren't so bad, primarily rules-set stuff. I like how they mainstreamed the Warlock, seperation of Powers so that each class has its own niche to lessen overlap, and so on. Is it too MMORPG? Maybe, but with the rise of those games, whether we like it or not, I find myself hard-pressed to blame WotC too much. They fear losing more market-share to these online computer games. After all, when some player from this very community vanishes for a while, and we ask them where they were, if it's not work or family, more often than not it's "oh, I was hooked on [insert MMORPG here]".

 

[Shasf]

They changed too much on the flavour side at the intrinsic core level of the game, which should only have been changed for a specific setting, making every other setting either face official retcons, or be full of partial retcons of the core material. That's why the Realms are facing a 114 year time jump, the death of 95% of their NPCs, losing multiple cities, 60-75% of their deities, 90% of their racial deities, and yes, even a few entire nations.

Woot! . . .

One of the better things to come about from 4th edition. I say this because I simply do not like 3.0 and 3.5 edition Forgotten Realms setting.

This will make it easier to justify why there are adventurer's in my opinion, how so some might ask. The answer is, with the removal of so many high level NPC's (which I hope many of them are removed) and quite possibly the chance that the Deities of the Realms will be less inclined to "walk the earth" so to speak, the players will feel like they actually achieve success on a grand scale rather than feel like they just cleaned the rat infested cellar of the town's inn since it was too beneath the high level NPCs who turned up their nose at the prospect of actually doing anything similar. Also, the emply spaces created by such a renovation could also lead to the characters created by new players to fill that now present void.

If Lantan wasn't removed from the setting, I really want to see what became of it and see how far that area has advanced in the time jump.

------------------

As for the rest of 4th edition: I consider the update like any new patch for an existing computer/console game, the changed warrented a new edition instead of having another expansion pack like what they did between 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed.

Character creation is now simplier, easier, and faster (well for the most part), that is until the splat books start to cross the finish line. I like the setup of at will, encounter, daily, and utility based powers and how they are posted right next to the class that they belong to, the only two classes that have a bit more complexity to them are the fighter and rogue (mostly the fighter though).

I like what they did with the skills and skill checks, this speeds up game play, character creation/leveling, and makes it easier to spot the sneaky rogue who wants to sneak attack the guard. This goes hand in hand with the feats, you now get more and they give more bonuses that sometimes increase with level.

Combat now runs much more smoothly than it did in the previous edition, and now at higher levels, each character gets to do something before the encounter is over before it even began. Combat is no longer about power gaming, but much more inclined to how well you can work with your chosen party to take down a powerful creature (much more so than in 3rd and 3.5 editions; excluding encounters involving Big T).

I like the different roles that different monsters fill (such as the cannon fodder: minions), as well as the how the different classes fill similar roles. Thankfully they got rid of the level adjustments, that just drove me nuts when I had players wanting to play vampires (no offense to you +7 level adjusted critters) or other monstrous races, I'm sure it'll change when they release a few more books.

A few downsides to this new edition: they got rid of my favorite class, the druid from the core book, the druid would make a great class to fill the controller role. I didn't care to much for the barbarian, monk, or bard, so I was glad to find them removed from the player's handbook. Other downsides, no playable psionics (at least for now)!

--------------

Now as far as updating the settings goes, it doesn't need to happen on the site since 4th edition still mentions Sigil and practically leaves it (and the Lady of Pain) alone, and from Sigil we can have new edition characters meet old edition characters and vice versa. So as far as that goes, I really see no problem with leaving the current rooms the same unless someone is so inclined to update the rooms.

This about sums up my quarter of cents about 4th edition with a last word or few of them.

Have fun with whatever Edition of D&D you're comfortable with, and if you're going to compare one edition to another please do it just on rules instead of fluff.

 

[Tharivious]

Woot! . . .

One of the better things to come about from 4th edition. I say this because I simply do not like 3.0 and 3.5 edition Forgotten Realms setting.

This will make it easier to justify why there are adventurer's in my opinion, how so some might ask. The answer is, with the removal of so many high level NPC's (which I hope many of them are removed) and quite possibly the chance that the Deities of the Realms will be less inclined to "walk the earth" so to speak, the players will feel like they actually achieve success on a grand scale rather than feel like they just cleaned the rat infested cellar of the town's inn since it was too beneath the high level NPCs who turned up their nose at the prospect of actually doing anything similar. Also, the emply spaces created by such a renovation could also lead to the characters created by new players to fill that now present void.

And this is precisely the sort of selfish and shortsighted perspective that has so many people in violent opposition to the 4E Realms. You don't like the NPCs, the deities, the depth of the setting - then the setting isn't for you, and another one likely is. The problem with that point of view, is that in changing those aspects of the setting, they've changed a lot of what the biggest supporters of the setting did love about it. To satisfy the people that weren't buying the Forgotten Realms products, they've sacrificed what the people that were buying wanted, and jeopardized the entire product line in the process.

Just to go at the points that you've chosen against it: If your biggest problem with the setting is the number of high level NPCs stealing the thunder of the PCs, then you or your DM has a bigger problem. It's not the job of the setting to keep its NPCs in check, because, gasp, your party were not the first adventurers to walk the continent, and they aren't the only ones, either. Those NPCs have other matters to attend to, other places to be, and often enough, different motivations from what the party has. If they're stepping on the toes of the PCs and wrecking suspension of disbelief, someone is sabotaging their own game, and it's not the setting's fault.

As for the deities, that's been part of the setting's flavour since, at the least, the Time of Troubles. And I've got some bad news for you: Killing off 120 gods won't do anything about the other 30 still being featured prominently in the novels as characters in their own right. If anything, it's likely to get worse, because Mystra's death was purely to cue up a new Cyric plot arc where he escapes from the 1,000 years of divine imprisonment a few centuries (nine, in all likelihood) early. But ultimately, even that is irrelevant, because to quote Ed Greenwood when A Grand History of the Realms came out, "Those aren't my gods". Your problem there isn't with the setting - it's with WotC's writing staff. Guess which one is still very much part of the setting.

Now, as many people know, I loathe the Forgotten Realms setting for many reasons, and while I do take some measure of morbid gratification from what's been done to it, I also loathe how WotC has decided to treat one of their largest fan bases. The Realms were a huge seller for them, one of the biggest selling product lines they had, and it was successful because it had history and background. Slapping your customers in the face is a bad move for a company, no matter who you are or what edition you support. Worse yet, so much of the changes made have been arbitrary and completely out of character for the NPCs and deities involved, that they don't even make sense from an internal perspective.

Have fun with whatever Edition of D&D you're comfortable with, and if you're going to compare one edition to another please do it just on rules instead of fluff.

Unfortunately, WotC has made that impossible to do (especially as it concerns a free-form community like this), by committing so much of the old flavour text into hardlined rules and using the new edition to mangle one of the topselling settings in their catalog. This is the heart of the problem with the changes: In many cases, what used to be flavour has been turned into rules, and those rules are often contrary to the original flavour that has existed for up to 30 years. So, yes, the new edition will cause problems between existing players, and new players who only know 4E, because 4E players won't know what the hell players of old editions are talking about.

The Eladrin are no longer exemplars of benign freedom of self, no longer fey-like celestials that had a unique place in the system; now they're just another PC race with advanced examples that can do things your PCs can't (a trend that goes beyond Eladrin, I'll add). Archons and Guardinals don't even exist at this point, and with the opinions of the WotC staffers as of Worlds and Monsters, never will. Angels... yikes, no longer universally good servants of the benign gods, winged humanoids meant to be wholesome and beautiful representations of real world myth; now, they're faceless servants of any deity, because "the Evil gods didn't have any servants of their own". Bollocks.

Devils went from being the exemplars of tyranny given flesh, to being a race of fallen angels that slew their own god; y'know, because the Catholic church doesn't mind having their mythology plundered by a game that their fundamentalists already decry as Satanic, especially when they now let the devils win. Demons are no longer scheming and intelligent foes (so long Graz'zt, we hardly knew ye... except that we did... for 30 years); they are now mindless destroyers that can't manipulate unless it's through fear (oh, wait... they don't use that, either according to 4E). Slaadi are no longer embodiments of chaos; they're just as destructive as demons, without actually being demons, making them utterly superfluous and pointless to the 4E cosmology that so readily picked them up. And the Yugoloths... alas, the Yugoloths, are no longer even a manipulative race of fiends of their own, but mercenary demons that are more interested in coin than in rampant destruction.

That's just out eight out of ten planar exemplar races. The Modrons were effectively dead thanks to 3E because someone "Thought they were too goofy" (not saying they weren't, but they still had history to them, and were far better examples of LN than the Formians or the Inevitables). The Rilmani won't get converted, since Neutral no longer exists. And I'm not going to even bother with the contradictions they've caused to freeform environments like ours using material plane natives.

There are many, many reasons that myself and others have said "4E is not D&D". The flavour is just as valid as any other, because without the flavour, it's just a game called Dungeons & Dragons, which can be anything as long as you own the trademark and copyright for it.

 

[Kinetti]

Archons and Guardinals don't even exist at this point, and with the opinions of the WotC staffers as of Worlds and Monsters, never will.

I thought they were making elemental-type archons -- didn't I see a stat-block and write-up somewhere for a "fire archon"? Unless you just mean archons as in the celestial-type. These are more of the "same name, totally different being", like what Eladrins are.

The Modrons were effectively dead thanks to 3E because someone "Thought they were too goofy" (not saying they weren't, but they still had history to them, and were far better examples of LN than the Formians or the Inevitables).

I still mourn the loss of the modrons and the once-greatness of Planescape. Heck, what they did to the Planes was part of why I almost didn't even upgrade from 2nd Ed back in the day. haha. Not to mention codifying in the "Clueless" names for the fiends and Planes. Baatezu and Tanar'ri might be harder to say, but they sound so much more... unique and creative from a writers' point of view. And more sinister and evil. "devil" and "demon" just sound so ... generic. boring. dull. Everyone knows what they are, to the point of "ooh. big deal". or at least imo. *shrugs*

~~ KC

 

[Tharivious]

Yep, there are chaotic evil (apparently, anything elemental related is chaotic evil now if it's intelligence is past a certain level, at least from my look over the material) Ice and Fire archons, because WotC thought that a "cool name" like Archon was better used on something other than the exemplars from Mount Celestia. Also worth noting, is that those are the only single-element Elementals in the Monster Manual, because they felt the Fire/Air/Earth/Water elementals were too boring. Frankly, I find the elemental archons more boring than the old monoliths any day, considering that the main purpose of the monolithic-style elementals was to serve summoners, not as sapient masterminds. So instead, we get two types of slightly more intelligent monoliths that wear armour for some reason.

Go figure.

 

[Bhryn]

On a random nitpicky note:

Resh, leave WoW outta this, or so help me! *fist shake!*

 

[Infernal Scribe]

4e is no way like WoW.

As for settings, the FR campaign setting book hasn't even came out yet, so I've hold my judgement til it does. As for old school FR, I ran a few campaigns in that setting and the main focus of any campaign should be the PCs. You're telling the story, they're the key characters of the stories, the NPCs are just guest stars that are making a cameo in your story.

Most of the time, half of the players won't even know who the NPC is, unless they're a certain drow with two scimitars with a alignment issue or a old sage from a little farming town that has a harem of seven silver haired ladies that he helped raised and had a little something something with.

The deities of the FR setting are pretty much like the Greek Gods of old, watch lots of Zena or the Adventure of Hercules for inspiration, and ya got the FR Pantheon pretty much.

There are tons of adventures and stories that can be told in the FR setting, despite the other group of adventurers running amok. Like Bard's Tale, The future of the town hung in the balance. And who was left to resist? Only a handful of unproven young Warriors, junior Magic Users, a couple of Bards barely old enough to drink, and some out of work Rogues. You are there. You are the leader of this ragtag group of freedom fighters. Luckily you have a Bard with you to sing your glories, if you survive.

________________________________________

As for the design philosophy behind some of the monsters. I understand the direction they went with. The elemental archons are pretty much the followers of the fallen Elder Elemental God of Evil (*cough, Greyhawk reference, cough*) or evil elemental princes of old lore. The reason why they're included in the monster manual and CE, is mainly because they're adversaries and they want to keep things simple. Compare to some of the more odd elemental monsters that had really bizarre ecologies and backgrounds (planescape monstrous compendium 2, and you understand what im talking about).

As for the other monsters, its up to you as the DM to make up their origins and fluff about them in my opinion, because whatever you make up will more likely than else be better than what is provided for you. The monster manual is pretty much a guideline, the rest is up for the DM to design for his setting or to modify if he/she purchases modules to run.

As for Eladrin being PCs, they're always been PC playable. 3e Savage Species/Planar's Handbook to 2e Warriors of Heaven. It should only irk DMs that prefer their setting to be Tolkien (they only want hobbits, pretty elves, scottish accent dwarves, tanis half-elven, 101 flavor human who is the dominate race of the campaign, travelosity gnome, and the questionable half-orc with its non-PG birth) compare to the DM that allows a adventuring party consisting of two dragon hatchlings, a half-dragon half-diamond golem mongrel, a trumpet archon, a whisper gnome, a planar displaced elf, and the 101 flavor human who always carries a towel with him and never panics.

And like any edition, what you don't like, you bring back and update for the setting. (examples include: all the 3e fansites out there of old settings) Or stick with the edition your happy with.

For technical DMs that like design, they're going to dissect it and take it apart and use what they like. For the campaign/follow the novels/diehard DM, they're going to wait until better story fluff is developed or develope their own story fluff.

 

[Shasf]

If you still have your 4th edition books, I do hope that you take them back and get a refund. I also hope that the opposition to 4th edition doesn't let their shortsightedness and selfishness get in the way of new players coming to the genre and scaring them off with their fanatical and vehement enthusiasm against the updated 4E Realms and other components of 4th edition.

I dislike the high level NPCs who just sat there stagnant out of fear of the other high level NPCs (which is what I got mostly from their flavor text, and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Player's Guide to Faerun), the only one I really liked was the guy from Undermountain just because he was crazy. I disliked the deities, for much of the same reasons and the more there are the more overlap you have and the more cumbersome the entire cosmology gets, with the removal of so many deities from there, it allows for more growth both in history and gameplay for the remaining deities. Now as far as the depth of the actual setting for Forgotten Realms, if it didn't rely as heavily as it does on Novels as it does to have depth and history, in my opinion, it would have made it more appealing since the story telling part (to give depth) is the job of the DM, the history could have (and was in part) written more in the actual setting books and the various other splat/accessory books for the setting. Now about that bad news, how's it bad?

I am also wondering how much of the changes to 4E realms will actually happen without having anything physical to hold and read with the release date sometime in August for the actual book reather than listening to speculation after speculation of what might be coming and what might not be coming in the near or distant future for any particular product until previews and the actual product are released. I could have missed articles relating to the 4E realms, I might have assumed that anything that is out before the actual product would just be speculation and what could be, an example of this would be the release of the rules and a few other paperback books released to tell people what might happen in 4th edition a few weeks before the actual release of the product.

Now as for 4E being a money grab, I'll also quote Ed.

The cheap and easy answer to what I'd like to see from Realms fans is of course that you folks buy everything, in ever-increasing numbers, so that everyone ends up rich (uh, except your wallets), and TSR continues to publish the Realms with enthusiasm forever.

That was the short version, this is a little bit more to what he wants from the Realms

The real answer is that I'd like to go to my grave (preferably a long time from now) knowing the Realms will outlive me and carry on giving enjoyment to many people after I'm gone. I desire this not out of a deep need for immortality (I don't care if folks remember ME, just that they go on using the Realms), but to know that a creation intended purely to give joy is soldiering on...because that means an ongoing fellowship of shared joy, a Good Thing to brighten the lives of some folks, in a way that gives imaginations fire and workouts, not (for instance) being a fan of a sports team, where one just watches and pays money to do so, and can't really participate actively.

That was just to be fair.

Could you site the source for that quote by Ed "Those aren't my gods", I have spent about nearly an hour in all of article searches, even went to wiki and D&D wiki without much luck, it would be nice to see if there is any more to that article, thanks in advnace.

Shifting Demographics, the article here within is interesting to say the least, it mentions the same opposition from 2E to 3E amoung other things

Unfortunately, WotC has made that impossible to do (especially as it concerns a free-form community like this), by committing so much of the old flavour text into hardlined rules and using the new edition to mangle one of the topselling settings in their catalog. This is the heart of the problem with the changes: In many cases, what used to be flavour has been turned into rules, and those rules are often contrary to the original flavour that has existed for up to 30 years. So, yes, the new edition will cause problems between existing players, and new players who only know 4E, because 4E players won't know what the hell players of old editions are talking about.

Just to make sure, how and where do you mean they changed fluff into hard-lined rules? Besides the complete overhaul of how the general new world was created between the primordial forces of untamed elemental nature and the ordered gods and beings of the astral sea, with the new creation myth the monsters of older editions needed new beginnings as well with the abyss sitting at the center and bottom of the swirling chaos and the nine hells thrown else where in the astral sea.

----------

Now then, I will begin to wonder how long it will take for a few things to sink into everyone's skull. 4th Edition is D&D, a newer and more stream-lined D&D, but D&D just the same. With the new rule set, system changes, and the new creation myth behind the general setting with civilization being point's of light in a world of darkness, people will be afraid to take the plunge into the new edition's waters and test them out because they are so set in the ways of the old edition and want to call the new edition witches and have another Salem Witch trial happen, perhaps the new edition are heretics and the old guard wants to have a crusade/jihad against it, frankly I say "Bollocks to that!" What I have just wrote may or may not get your blood boiling, take it in measure and ask yourselves what makes Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeon and Dragons. Is it the edition that makes D&D? No, what makes D&D is the illusion of fantasy that everyone can get into after a long hard day of work, sitting around a table eating cold/warm pizza and drinking soda. It is having fun with a group of friends or strangers, being someone or thing that you are not and having (generally) a good time as you sit back and listen to the narration of the Dungeon Master behind his screen with suspense hanging in the air, the thrill of excitement, the dread of almost certain defeat, and the long lasting memories of a good time with friends or strangers who are now friends after one session of gameplay.

We all know that D&D is a fantasy Roleplaying Game, this means that the campaign settings, any of them are not D&D. We could argue that point if you'd like, but its a fact that a campaign setting does not make D&D, it helps with the story since it gives you a setting for which you can tell your story, it can give you characters/places with which to populate your with. With that said, if one does not like the new edition than stay in the old edition that you are most comfortable with (which is repeating what a few others have stated). Now as far as more flagrant disruptions and cries against 4th Edition, its like disrupting a movie, if you don't like it, why hang around? Is it so that you (those against 4E) can ruin the experience for anyone else?

Now if you still don't believe that 4E is not D&D, that means that any edition after 1E is not D&D, since every edition after would not keep to the original to a T, my arguement goes with this list: Specific Differences. The list is of course the differences both in rules and in the general outline of the game. I care more about the cohesion of rules to gameplay than fluff to gameplay, since fluff does not a d20 system make.

----------

Now to tackle this WoW issue, D&D is not WoW, that's completely wrong in so many respects. World of Warcraft is Dungeons and Dragons made online and interactive. Its based on the same principles of D&D, it is a game that bases itself around equipment, experience points, dungeons (and it even has dragons!), magic, and a fantasy setting. WoW has random encounters littering its world (they even respawn so you can farm to your hearts content), its every critter that can be attacked and every person that you can talk to in towns (yes, there can be noncombat random encounters). WoW has dungeons that players can form parties with and go crawling into, with rogues there to disable traps, paladins and clerics to heal the party, fighters to take damage and keep the enemies attention on them, as the mage/warlock/hunter pelts them from afar, in the end the party comes out on top and goes back to town to talk about their done deeds with their friends. (How does this not sound or resemble D&D?)

----------

What else can I include about 4th edition, I have yet to DM a session with 4E, still reading the rules on water and combat therein and referencing back to Stormwrack.

I am currently playing a Human Wizard, now level 2 who travels around with a Dwarven Paladin of Bahamut. We've faced many a Kobold together with two fire beetles and a stirge.

Our latest battle, at level 1 (the encounter brought us up to level 2) was against a 3rd level elite brute whom we called OJ (due to it being an Ochre Jelly, tastes just like marmalade). As combat ensued, it took the dwarven pally a little over 4 rounds of combat to succumb to the wounds inflicted by OJ, my wizard was hanging back and pounding the creature with Freezing Cloud, Icy Terrain, and Ray of Frost. It took it a few rounds and a lot of move actions to get close enough, but then with Thunderwave I moved it out of the way so I could rescue the dwarf with our last remaining potion.

The ensuing battle got even more confusing when another paladin rushed in and was summarily taken out of battle with two critical hits. In the end, our group won the battle and got a safe cave to sleep in for the night. We all had fun and still talk about the encounter.

I like the static (mostly anyways) defenses and how they simplified the saving throw and armor class system, since now all saves are made when a 10 or higher is rolled and failed when you roll below a 9, this gives you a 55% chance of success on saves with different abilities and items changing this number for better or worse. Fortitude (Str or Con), Reflex (Dex or Int), and Will (Wis or Cha) defenses are now more like an Armor Class with the higher values of two ability scores determining which one you use, not only that but with light armors or no armor at all a character can add either their Dex or their Int modifiers to the total value.

With Blast X, Burst X, its now easier to figure out which squares and how many squares are affected since you no longer count two diagnal moves as two squares (example of diagnal movement before 4E: 5, 10-15, 20, 25-30). Combat is now more stream-lined and much faster, more along the lines of how combat is in D&D miniatures.

 

[Thezdemeus]

Shasf, you are a bit confusing..in the beginning you say you hope everyone takes thier 4E books back. then towards the end you are defending 4th Edition..lol..anyways, i hope this post soon gets closed because i would very much like it to be closed since everyones opinion seems to be highly fanatical as the one before it.. ..

 

[Tharivious]

As for the design philosophy behind some of the monsters. I understand the direction they went with. The elemental archons are pretty much the followers of the fallen Elder Elemental God of Evil (*cough, Greyhawk reference, cough*) or evil elemental princes of old lore. The reason why they're included in the monster manual and CE, is mainly because they're adversaries and they want to keep things simple. Compare to some of the more odd elemental monsters that had really bizarre ecologies and backgrounds (planescape monstrous compendium 2, and you understand what im talking about).

Oh, I understand it, too. But what I don't like (and what bothers me) is the hypocrisy of "Elementals that are just walking walls of a single element are boring" turning into "Here are elemental archons that are walls of a single element wearing armour and are really cool". I don't even have a problem with the whole Tharizdun thing... in its context, I can even admit that I kind of dig it. I'm not big on the angle that everything needs to be adversary-ready for every sort of party, but that's a flaw in the thinking of the writers

{Realms stuff}

And you continue to miss the point. If you don't like the major aspects that made the setting what it was, then look for another setting. It's no different from the people that complain because they can't play their eight-armed, dragon-winged, avatar of heavy metal incarnate in the CRT when Sigil is right next door. The setting isn't for you - the ones that the setting is already suiting just fine shouldn't have to lose the setting that they've followed for decades as a result. WotC fail to understand that the changes they've made will only gain an infinitesimally small segment of the anti-Realms crowd while losing a far great part of the pro-Realms crowd. If they had taken a more thoughtful route, they'd have put all the effort that they did into mangling the Realms into its current state, and put it into a core setting that stood alone, rather than forcing its flavour on everything else that will be printed in 4E.

As far as doubting the changes, I don't have the time to explain how I've been watching them like a hawk since August, so I'll just link you to where others who have been doing the same have collected the confirmed changes:
Convenient FAQ at Gleemax. It covers everything confirmed thus far, including many spoilers. Unless you doubt what has been confirmed by WotC articles, novels, and staffers, in which case, I'm sorry to hear that. And this is just what's been confirmed, mind you - far, far more is expected based on the answers of writers such as Rich Baker in other threads.

Now as for 4E being a money grab, I'll also quote Ed.

And? He wants to see the business thrive, just like anyone else would in his position. He also knows that the odds of the liscence ever returning to his hands are slim to none, and that even if it did, he'd be unable to publish on his own at this point. He knows which side his bread gets buttered on, and he always has.

Could you site the source for that quote by Ed "Those aren't my gods", I have spent about nearly an hour in all of article searches, even went to wiki and D&D wiki without much luck, it would be nice to see if there is any more to that article, thanks in advnace.

It was part of an "Ask Ed" thread on Candlekeep last August/September, where Ed Greenwood was answering letters sent to him by his fans asking about the final events of A Grand History of the Realms (the Mystra/Shar/Cyric incident and the Sune/Tyr/Tymora/Helm/Ilmater debacle). I honestly have neither the time, energy, or motivation to dig through a site that I don't frequent for it, nor the bog that is the Gleemax forums for the initial 4E reaction threads in the Realms section. It was highly publicized there, however. If I stumble across the link (it might be kicking around somewhere), I'll get it forwarded to you somehow.

Just to make sure, how and where do you mean they changed fluff into hard-lined rules? Besides the complete overhaul of how the general new world was created between the primordial forces of untamed elemental nature and the ordered gods and beings of the astral sea, with the new creation myth the monsters of older editions needed new beginnings as well with the abyss sitting at the center and bottom of the swirling chaos and the nine hells thrown else where in the astral sea.

I've addressed this already. The lengths to which they went were too far of a reach for what is meant to be the "generic default setting" when it means that it will then impose on every release of an existing setting to come after it. Evidence is already shown in the Realms of the cosmology shifting yet again, this time to suit the core setting, it's logical to expect it in every other setting as well. Even something as seemingly minor as the changes to demons and devils starts a ripple effect.

Now if you still don't believe that 4E is not D&D, that means that any edition after 1E is not D&D, since every edition after would not keep to the original to a T, my arguement goes with this list: Specific Differences. The list is of course the differences both in rules and in the general outline of the game. I care more about the cohesion of rules to gameplay than fluff to gameplay, since fluff does not a d20 system make.

A d20 system, no; a d20 System is a generic set of rules that can apply to generic fantasy games, and therefore has no 30 years of publishing history establishing a context for the games it supports. Dungeons & Dragons, a game built on the backs of successful settings that have comprised a more than healthy amount of their sales, yes, yes the flavour does make a difference (hence why I refuse to use the term fluff - it implies that the flavour and context of the game is meaningless, empty filler, which it should never be seen as outside of pure hack and slash FPS style gaming). Even homebrew settings still had an understanding that "These are not necessarily the expected nature of things" if they diverted from what was printed.

Devoted fan-speak aside (witch hunts, crusade/jihad, and other inflammatory remarks - yes, clearly anyone who opposes 4E is a religious fanatic out to cleanse a region in the name of a holy war and a murderer that targets anyone the least bit different! We kick puppies too! Consider the weight of those comments before using them again, please - such exaggeration is uncalled for), you've cited a list of changes that shows nothing regarding flavour text, but only regarding the rules. So once again, I will say this:

I don't care about the new game's rules. They are not for me, as I have explained elsewhere. I do, however, care about consistency that should transcend editions of the rules - the flavour and the context of the game that no longer syncs up.

From 1E on to 3E, even as WotC tried to split up the cosmologies, there was consistency (Eberron aside - but that was an entirely new setting, and entitled to being distinct as it didn't force a time jump or a retcon on the existing players of a world with 30 years of publishing history). Metallic dragons were agents of good, instead of being made morally ambiguous just so they're more likely to be fought. There were distinct groups of outsiders that had diversity in their motivations instead of arbitrary "Those outsiders act this way, these outsiders act this way" that sounds like a Carlos Mencia skit about racial stereotypes.

While it may seem small and insignificant to you, this is the heart of the problem: Those inconsistencies will lead to problems in any environment where players of 1E-3E and players of 4E attempt to discuss the basics. They may seem innocuous, but think about how people react to characters that break stereotype in ISRP, and put that onto a scale where both sides claim canon. And I'm not just talking about ISRP, there, but in general - players of previous editions prior to 3E could still discuss and blend flavour text between editions with relative ease, because the names still meant the same thing, even when names changed, you could still recognize the conversion; not so with the changes to 4E.

And just to be extra clear: I don't care to hear about 4E's game play. It's irrelevant in the context of this thread, and in the context of ISRP where stats have never mattered.

 

[Thezdemeus]

henceforth..close the thread already..i started it,i want it closed..thanks

 

[Bari]

Shasf, you are a bit confusing..in the beginning you say you hope everyone takes thier 4E books back. then towards the end you are defending 4th Edition..lol..anyways, i hope this post soon gets closed because i would very much like it to be closed since everyones opinion seems to be highly fanatical as the one before it.. ..

The first part means that "if you don't like the books, no need to have them". Also, on closing the thread, I'd ask why? I mean, 'hot' arguments or not, some really interesting things are being posted. So far it's a debate - which is good, 'cause, we all learn from a good debate. At least I am learning from both sides's posts