D&D 3E/3.5 Does 4e sound more D&Dish to you than 3e did?
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Setting-wise? I'd say Yes, but don't really need any core setting myself.
Rules-wise? It's half and half. They are actually reinstalling old mechanics in some ways and including more divergent ones in others.
Game Play-wise? It's a wait and see. It's hard to imagine a game more obstructive then 3e to playing D&D.
Rules-wise? It's half and half. They are actually reinstalling old mechanics in some ways and including more divergent ones in others.
Game Play-wise? It's a wait and see. It's hard to imagine a game more obstructive then 3e to playing D&D.
The Little Raven
First Post
Celebrim said:
Well, if you paid attention to things like the GenCon videos and the podcasts, you'd have already known this was started in 2005, and the various development stages (including the big 4E preview that is SW:Saga) were playtested, both by developer-run games, and normal playtesting.
Unless, of course, you're saying that WotC is flat-out lying to you about the time in development and the playtester credits they list in Saga? But I don't think you're that much of a tin-foil hat lover.
Mercule said:
Nice post, Mercule.
Yeah, I hear you on the ToB manuevers. I've always worked on the premise that ToB really gives three styles of manuevers & classes.
The Diamond Mind & Iron Heart, which are Warblade schools, are for the Martial power source.
White Raven & Devoted Spirit, which are Crusader schools, are for the Divine power source. (I've just suggested to the party cleric he take one level of Crusader - I think the result will be very close to the 4e Cleric).
Desert Wind and a couple of other disciplines, which are for the Swordsage, give the Arcane power source.
So, Swordsage = Fighter/Wizard, Crusader = Cleric, Warblade = Fighter.
That way it doesn't bother me that much. (Although some of the flavour of the Bo9S is wrong for my version of D&D, I think that flavour will change with any manuever-like abilities that make it into 4e!)
Cheers!
mmu1 said:
Mike Mearls.
Actually, and I speak as someone who's run "Encounter at Blackwall Keep", the big thing about this is not about sending 5 or 6 orcs against a 1st level party.
It's about sending 20 or 30 orcs against a 6th level party and them still being a threat, because they can hit the PCs without needing natural 20s.
In 3e, AC and attack bonuses go up very, very quickly. (I'm going to guess between 1-1/2 and 2 per level). In EBK, the foes are Lizardfolk, no, wait, I'm an AD&D-fan. Lizardmen. Lizardmen have a +1 attack bonus. Sure, they get to attack lots, but they miss *all the time*. For any party above, say, 3rd, they really don't do much.
Vanilla orcs in 3e are better, but even they run out of puff quickly. Sure, you can advance them, but then you lose the fun of the fighter and barbarian cleaving through orc after orc while still being at threat from the rest of the horde. (Does anyone take Great Cleave?)
Note that whilst you can send 6 orcs against a 1st level party in 3e, after that they're likely to need to rest... that's not Keep on the Borderlands.
Cheers!
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
That many orcs should take their cue from the OD&D FAQ's combat example, which pitted 10 orcs against a single 4th level Fighting Man): grapple the PCs, pin them, and then capture them or finish them off with knives.MerricB said:
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
MerricB said:Mike Mearls.
Actually, and I speak as someone who's run "Encounter at Blackwall Keep", the big thing about this is not about sending 5 or 6 orcs against a 1st level party.
It's about sending 20 or 30 orcs against a 6th level party and them still being a threat, because they can hit the PCs without needing natural 20s.
In 3e, AC and attack bonuses go up very, very quickly. (I'm going to guess between 1-1/2 and 2 per level). In EBK, the foes are Lizardfolk, no, wait, I'm an AD&D-fan. Lizardmen. Lizardmen have a +1 attack bonus. Sure, they get to attack lots, but they miss *all the time*. For any party above, say, 3rd, they really don't do much.
Vanilla orcs in 3e are better, but even they run out of puff quickly. Sure, you can advance them, but then you lose the fun of the fighter and barbarian cleaving through orc after orc while still being at threat from the rest of the horde. (Does anyone take Great Cleave?)
Note that whilst you can send 6 orcs against a 1st level party in 3e, after that they're likely to need to rest... that's not Keep on the Borderlands.
Cheers!
And yet at the same time, if instead of advancing the levels you change the strength scores, (orcs get +4 to strength right), you can have orcs with 18-22 strength which increases their chance to hit tremendously.
It depends on how we want to define D&D....
The short answer to the question of whether or not 4E feels like D&D......
No.
However, what is "THE D&D" we are comparing to? We cannot compare it to a specific edition of D&D's rules, since each edition has made significant changes compared to the previous. Some of us recognize 1st Ed. as "our" original D&D, some see 2nd Ed. as our original, and so on.
So...what "feels" like D&D?
The adventure, the intrigue, the risk, the rewards, the devious villains, the magical artifacts, the mystery, the personalities, and most of all.....the Options. Fighters use weapons and tricks to defeat or annihilate enemies, Rogues provide useful support in less scrupulous areas (even if they happen to have scruples), Wizards grow from minor tricksters to powerful magicians, and clerics act as agents of their gods. Surrounding these general statements are the hordes of options, feats, player-preferred skill choices, and toolkits of monster stats/templates/classlevels that allow for truly unique antagonists.
The game setting does not need to be as detailed and intricate as the Forgotten Realms, but one should be available that gives the players and DM a feel of the world the fictional characters are living in. To "feel like D&D", I think the players should know about strange and mundane things like the kingdom's proximity to the giants of the northern mountains or that the elves far to the south founded the arts of crafting mithril.
The rules of the game are not really important when I think about what they SHOULD include. However, the rules are important when I want my games to have the versatility to do what I want. Sure, we all house rule a little bit here and there. But I'm too busy with life, family, and work to do much re-tooling and redesigning. Some days call for simple and straight-forward rules, and other days call for more complex options.
Thus, I'll point out a couple of the most important reasons that 3.5 feels the most like D&D to me.
I played some 1st ed. D&D, a LOT of 2nd., and a LOT of 3.0/3.5...3.5 was the best so far because it opened up the avenues of possibility so that I could tell my stories without bending, breaking, or creating rules.
So....why do I say that 4E does not seem like D&D to me? Character roles and monster roles bug me. Don't tell me that my fighter is supposed to be a leader or defender or whatever. Don't tell me my rogue is supposed to be an acrobatic sneak attacker or anything. I like my rogue who used his skills and feats to be a master manipulator and con-artist. And clerics could be across the board, seeming like nearly any sort of person, depending on the god they worship. Additionally, things are simplifying....a lot. Maybe too much. I admit that character creation can be a bear to new players. But that is why you have a circle of friends and fellow players.....to help each other out. After character creation, most of it runs pretty smoothly. And...I never figured out what was all that complex about grappling (unless the players tried to reflect realism too much....in that case, any game will break down and trip all over itself).
I could go on, but this is not supposed to be a big 3.5 vs 4E topic. I'm going to keep reading and wait for 4E. 3E was such a phenomonal jump in fun from 2E that they might just capture the magic again. But for now....all I see are game crunch tidbits that remind me of a video game-transferred-to-paper. Where is the soul of the game? Where is the spirit and essence that Inspires?
The short answer to the question of whether or not 4E feels like D&D......
No.
However, what is "THE D&D" we are comparing to? We cannot compare it to a specific edition of D&D's rules, since each edition has made significant changes compared to the previous. Some of us recognize 1st Ed. as "our" original D&D, some see 2nd Ed. as our original, and so on.
So...what "feels" like D&D?
The adventure, the intrigue, the risk, the rewards, the devious villains, the magical artifacts, the mystery, the personalities, and most of all.....the Options. Fighters use weapons and tricks to defeat or annihilate enemies, Rogues provide useful support in less scrupulous areas (even if they happen to have scruples), Wizards grow from minor tricksters to powerful magicians, and clerics act as agents of their gods. Surrounding these general statements are the hordes of options, feats, player-preferred skill choices, and toolkits of monster stats/templates/classlevels that allow for truly unique antagonists.
The game setting does not need to be as detailed and intricate as the Forgotten Realms, but one should be available that gives the players and DM a feel of the world the fictional characters are living in. To "feel like D&D", I think the players should know about strange and mundane things like the kingdom's proximity to the giants of the northern mountains or that the elves far to the south founded the arts of crafting mithril.
The rules of the game are not really important when I think about what they SHOULD include. However, the rules are important when I want my games to have the versatility to do what I want. Sure, we all house rule a little bit here and there. But I'm too busy with life, family, and work to do much re-tooling and redesigning. Some days call for simple and straight-forward rules, and other days call for more complex options.
Thus, I'll point out a couple of the most important reasons that 3.5 feels the most like D&D to me.
I played some 1st ed. D&D, a LOT of 2nd., and a LOT of 3.0/3.5...3.5 was the best so far because it opened up the avenues of possibility so that I could tell my stories without bending, breaking, or creating rules.
So....why do I say that 4E does not seem like D&D to me? Character roles and monster roles bug me. Don't tell me that my fighter is supposed to be a leader or defender or whatever. Don't tell me my rogue is supposed to be an acrobatic sneak attacker or anything. I like my rogue who used his skills and feats to be a master manipulator and con-artist. And clerics could be across the board, seeming like nearly any sort of person, depending on the god they worship. Additionally, things are simplifying....a lot. Maybe too much. I admit that character creation can be a bear to new players. But that is why you have a circle of friends and fellow players.....to help each other out. After character creation, most of it runs pretty smoothly. And...I never figured out what was all that complex about grappling (unless the players tried to reflect realism too much....in that case, any game will break down and trip all over itself).
I could go on, but this is not supposed to be a big 3.5 vs 4E topic. I'm going to keep reading and wait for 4E. 3E was such a phenomonal jump in fun from 2E that they might just capture the magic again. But for now....all I see are game crunch tidbits that remind me of a video game-transferred-to-paper. Where is the soul of the game? Where is the spirit and essence that Inspires?
