Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Jack99]

I am playing D&D. It just happens to have no wizards, paladins or elves.

You are weird. Funny but weird. Does the fact that mearls included elves and wizards in 4e not affect how your wee-wee feels about him?

 

[hong]

You are weird. Funny but weird. Does the fact that mearls included elves and wizards in 4e not affect how your wee-wee feels about him?

Crap.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If what you want D&D is so different from what it's been, then why are you playing D&D and not some other game?

I think D&D 3.5 is the best rpg ever published, it's certainly my favourite and I've played dozens and dozens and own a pretty extensive collection. But I think 4e will be even better because it's taking 3e and attempting to fix what's wrong with it after 8 years of experience and market research.

You probably think your houseruled 3e is better than RAW right? Well 4e is like if someone had spent three years and a million dollars coming up with the best 3e houserules they could.

 

[Henry]

I think D&D 3.5 is the best rpg ever published, it's certainly my favourite and I've played dozens and dozens and own a pretty extensive collection. But I think 4e will be even better beacuse it's taking 3e and attempting to fix what's wrong with it after 8 years of experience and market research.

You probably think your houseruled 3e is better than RAW right? Well 4e is like if someone had spent three years and a million dollars coming up with the best 3e houserules they could.

How about those of us who had maybe a quarter-page of house rules, if that much? The reason I'll probably be splitting my time between this and other versions is because it looks like it's going to change things so extensively from the older editions. It's like the steak was dark pink, and to make it light-pink to got cooked an extra two hours.

But sadly, because I like games like a besotted fool, I am coming to appreciate quite a few things about this version - the DMing changes, the defenses, the emphasis on archetypes again - all on their own merits. But because so much of it seems to be so far away from the D&D I've been playing for decades, I still have an attachment to the older games, too. I just don't know if I'll be buying a lot of supplements for this one.

 

[Wormwood]

I know you two are being sarcastic...

I'm not being sarcastic in the least.

I was hoping to see a lot fewer 3e artifacts.

 

[Wormwood]

So why would you prefer if Dungeons & Dragons changed even more from what it has been in the past?

Because I want it to be closer to the way I actually play it. I'm selfish in that regard.

What do you want D&D to be?

Cleaner, faster, and more fun. Specifically: Fewer bits of unfun.

If what you want D&D is so different from what it's been, then why are you playing D&D and not some other game?

D&D is just one of the many games I regularly play and enjoy. The fact that I've managed to make D&D work doesn't mean that I think the system isn't in need of some improvement.

4e seems to be heading in a Wormwood-friendly direction. I'm only slightly concerned that it's not going far enough.

 

[Lizard]

I'm not being sarcastic in the least.

I was hoping to see a lot fewer 3e artifacts.

I'm curious as to what artifacts you see, that could reasonably have been changed while still keeping the game arguably D&D.

Skill points are gone.
Skills are truncated dramatically.
Hit points are fixed.
Sneak attack damage is now 'tiered'.
There's no apparent default attribute for attacks -- different attacks use different attributes for 'to hit' and 'damage'.
Etc, etc, etc.

Other than very basic concepts -- classes/levels -- and the D20 mechanic (which was never going away), I'm not sure what you see that's a 3e holdover. Really, it's SWSE:Fantasy, so if you liked that, I assume you'll like this.

 

[ferratus]

This turn of conversation, of whether change for change's sake in edition changes is rather interesting. I myself am looking forward to 4e precisely because it is a change. I have become comfortable enough with 3e that I know how to do optimum builds, that certain classes, feats, and races suck, that certain rules make no sense, multiclassing has clumsy mechanics and there really isn't a good system in place to handle social encounters. Now, one could shell out for another errata set, but why not try out new things like spellcasting classes without Vancian magic, martial powers, a new cosmology and a couple new races?

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

Somewhat of an Epiphany

Call me crazy, but all of us (including me, I'm guilty too) of speculating in the positive, are only getting our hopes up for something that is possibly much different than the reality of it, and those that are speculating in the negative are just trying to find any scrap of evidence (whether it's concrete or not) to bash the new game?

Sure, I've been disappointed, and I've perceived a bit of munchkining, nerfing, and crunchy goodness, but come on.... making a definitive opinion before the game even comes out does seem a bit silly (at least, it does when it's based on speculation and limited, not to mention, incomplete data.) The ones who've got the best grasp of what's going on are the playtesters - and so far they've been fairly generous about their continuing experience with the new system.

With that being said, No, I'm not happy about everything I've read for the rogue, but I'm not so disgusted that I'm going to make some comment about how crap-tastic it is. It's all a matter of familiarity and the general fear of change that blankets humanity.

Just because we're comfortable with how 3e or 3.5e worded things, described things, and layed it out for us, doesn't mean that 4e is busted automatically just because it's layed out differently, it just means changing and redefining things.

Keep an open mind, isn't that what the game is all about?

I'm glad players are concerned about 4e, but doesn't it make more sense to be able to actually playtest the final product(s) in a real game situation before praising or damning it?


That is all, Carry On.

Peace, Love and Bloodstains,
~ Me.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm curious as to what artifacts you see, that could reasonably have been changed while still keeping the game arguably D&D.

Skill points are gone.
Skills are truncated dramatically.
Hit points are fixed.
Sneak attack damage is now 'tiered'.
There's no apparent default attribute for attacks -- different attacks use different attributes for 'to hit' and 'damage'.
Etc, etc, etc.

Of the five points you mentioned, three are specific to 3e only (skills & sneak attacks). Altering those doesn't make 4e less "D&D" . . . just less "3e D&D".

We've used fixed hit points since 2e, so I consider that part of the D&D experience.

Just because 4e Rogues appear to have Weapon Finesse hardwired into their powers doesn't break D&D for me either.