WhimsyTheFae
Explorer
I'm somewhat neutral on 4e...I like some of the stuff I've read, and don't like other stuff. I'm willing to play it if someone else runs it.
A Thread For Those Somewhere In The Middle
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
BASHMAN
Basic Action Games
Mustrum_Ridcully said:I am sceptical about magical items - as long as there remain +X items, I don't see the Christmas Tree going away (maybe that's good at this time of the year?)
Any easy way would be to reduce the number of "slots". Just say "A character can have 3 worn magic items" and "A magic item must be worn for 24 hours before it grants any effects" and you pretty much end the Christmas tree effect right there.
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
I was pretty gung ho about 4e at its initial release. Since then I've been repeatedly underwhelmed by many of the changes. While I still expect good things, I think I've developed a healthy dose of skepticism for now.
Though I think I will do what one poster here suggested: reserve judgment until I can examine the whole package.
Though I think I will do what one poster here suggested: reserve judgment until I can examine the whole package.
megamania
Hero
I did not start out as being neutral but I am somewhat now.
My main gripe has been the cancelation of the magazines. I understand the rational for it and thus treat it as the loss of a friend. Can't do anything about it- cherish what you have.
The same goes for the edition. It was time for a new edition and some of what I have read sounds good to me. However, I have invested a great deal of money into 3.5 product and can not afford to restart.
I am bad at the wording and phrasing of things and fear I may have added to the fire. Thus my signature comment and my sincere attempt at staying out of it.
It bothers me that this has affected EN World as a comminity so much. I don't want to lose it. My apoligies to any I have affended or PO'd.
My main gripe has been the cancelation of the magazines. I understand the rational for it and thus treat it as the loss of a friend. Can't do anything about it- cherish what you have.
The same goes for the edition. It was time for a new edition and some of what I have read sounds good to me. However, I have invested a great deal of money into 3.5 product and can not afford to restart.
I am bad at the wording and phrasing of things and fear I may have added to the fire. Thus my signature comment and my sincere attempt at staying out of it.
It bothers me that this has affected EN World as a comminity so much. I don't want to lose it. My apoligies to any I have affended or PO'd.
I'm in the middle as well. I won't change right away. I have too much invested in my 3.5 campaign right now. I like some of the changes, but not all of them. At least from what I have read. the real question is are you going to have fun.
The original idea of D&D was that you could spend an afternoon around a table with some friends and enter this fantastic world of monsters and treasure. If your character was lucky enough he would come out of it a hero and be rich, most just ended up dead. All you needed was some pencils, paper, dice, and your imagination. It didn't cost much and was tons of fun.
I played some Basic D&D with my son the other night and we had a great time. Roll 3D6 six times and thats your character. Elf and Dwarf were classes and clerics didn't get spells until Lvl 2. He had three characters and I ran him through the sample dungeon from the Blue box set rule book. The cleric died on the first random encounter in the hall and the thief succumb to the bites of a rat in the first room. The fighter left the dungeon with a +1 sword picked out of a tomb and 900gp in treasure. It was quick and dirty and it was fun, that's what it is all about.
The original idea of D&D was that you could spend an afternoon around a table with some friends and enter this fantastic world of monsters and treasure. If your character was lucky enough he would come out of it a hero and be rich, most just ended up dead. All you needed was some pencils, paper, dice, and your imagination. It didn't cost much and was tons of fun.
I played some Basic D&D with my son the other night and we had a great time. Roll 3D6 six times and thats your character. Elf and Dwarf were classes and clerics didn't get spells until Lvl 2. He had three characters and I ran him through the sample dungeon from the Blue box set rule book. The cleric died on the first random encounter in the hall and the thief succumb to the bites of a rat in the first room. The fighter left the dungeon with a +1 sword picked out of a tomb and 900gp in treasure. It was quick and dirty and it was fun, that's what it is all about.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Then here's to hoping they've learned the lesson and such unnecessary devotion to legacy be condemned to oblivion. I mean, it'd be one thing to decide that classes have to go entirely to be entirely skill based, but its another to consider for even a moment that because Bless and Prayer always stacked before that they NEED to continue to do so.MerricB said:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yep! 4e has a lot of solid design ideas, IMO, but the fluff is at risk of being too entirely too intimate with it, or, alternately, just uninspiring. So I'm breaking out my shears for 4e very quickly. I'll crib it for a PS game, and I'll mostly be swiping it for FFZ, but I DO NOT LIKE being told to play their game instead of mine.
In other words, I'll probably hold off 'till 4e's options equal 3e's at release.
IMO, they might have learned their lesson a bit TOO well here. It's like they decided to get rid of legacy issues, and then, like kids in a candy store, started on a Sacred Cow killing spree that leaves the game very changed on not just a rules front, but a flavor/fluff/feel front.
I don't know that for sure, but it's a concern.
On the other side, I ADORE the Unified Progression, the fast combats, the fighter manuevers, and the per-encounter abilities. It's loads of genius.
allo
i'm cautiously neutral (good)
while i'm nervous about many of the changes and additions i've heard about, i try to remind myself that it's early still, and who knows what the final version will look like. besides, with all the talent working on it, they can't possibly screw it up, can they?
can they?? :\
messy
i'm cautiously neutral (good
)while i'm nervous about many of the changes and additions i've heard about, i try to remind myself that it's early still, and who knows what the final version will look like. besides, with all the talent working on it, they can't possibly screw it up, can they?
can they?? :\
messy
Hussar
Legend
I'm neutral as well, although I tend to come down more on the positive side than negative just because I like to argue. 
Take the whole flavour issue. 3e's flavour was locked incredibly tightly into the rules. Wealth/level, CR/EL predictions, demographics, buy and trade of magic items, just to name some of the biggies. What 3e didn't have in core was any actual flavor to go with all that crunch.
So, it looked like you could do all these weird and wonderfully different campaigns with D&D 3e right out of the box. Until, that is, you actually tried to run campaigns which deviated from baseline norms. Suddenly vast swaths of problems crop up. Go too low on magic items and casters dominate. Lower the powers of casters and you suddenly make the game so lethal at higher levels that it's unplayable because you don't have healers. Allow the clerics to get their healing spells and something else goes screwy. On and on.
D20 can be used to do all sorts of wierd and wonderful games. 3e D&D can't. Not without lots and lots of rewriting. Heck, in the other thread, I brought up Oriental Adventures - 300+ pages of rules that entirely rewrote the classes, spells, alignment, monsters, equipment and feats. Is that really D&D anymore? Maybe, but, it's certainly not core D&D. Mongoose's Conan is not D&D. It uses d20, but, it's NOT D&D. Trying to port a Conan character into a straight core D&D game would be difficult to say the least.
The flavor arguement is one I honestly understand the least.
Take the whole flavour issue. 3e's flavour was locked incredibly tightly into the rules. Wealth/level, CR/EL predictions, demographics, buy and trade of magic items, just to name some of the biggies. What 3e didn't have in core was any actual flavor to go with all that crunch.
So, it looked like you could do all these weird and wonderfully different campaigns with D&D 3e right out of the box. Until, that is, you actually tried to run campaigns which deviated from baseline norms. Suddenly vast swaths of problems crop up. Go too low on magic items and casters dominate. Lower the powers of casters and you suddenly make the game so lethal at higher levels that it's unplayable because you don't have healers. Allow the clerics to get their healing spells and something else goes screwy. On and on.
D20 can be used to do all sorts of wierd and wonderful games. 3e D&D can't. Not without lots and lots of rewriting. Heck, in the other thread, I brought up Oriental Adventures - 300+ pages of rules that entirely rewrote the classes, spells, alignment, monsters, equipment and feats. Is that really D&D anymore? Maybe, but, it's certainly not core D&D. Mongoose's Conan is not D&D. It uses d20, but, it's NOT D&D. Trying to port a Conan character into a straight core D&D game would be difficult to say the least.
The flavor arguement is one I honestly understand the least.
