I don't get what you'all are saying

[moritheil]

Example:

At first, elves had to be fighter/mages.
Then, with 1E, elves could be multi-classed (a lot of things) but had level limits.
Then, with early 2E, elves could be multi-classed, with more classes open to them and higher level limits.
Then, with later 2E, elves could be multi-classed, in most classes with no level limits. And we had the bladesinger And High Magic. And lots of elven goodness (and even more good drow goodness.)
Then, with 3E, we had elves who could be anything they wanted to be, plus Prestige Classes and whatnot, and have all the elven goodness you could talk the DM into letting you have (in one variant of the bladesinger, she could cast ANY arcane spells she wanted AND fight simultaneously AND wear armor AND ... lol)

And so on. Dwarves could only be fighters, then they could be really nasty fighters, then eventually they could be anything they wanted to be (eat your hearts out, elves! )

Perhaps 4E will evolve like this?

Yes, that's accurate. And no, I don't think that 4E is going to continue the trend. WotC was worried that they gave too many options, too many choices, and that making an acceptable character was a labyrinthine process full of obscure feat and class selections (to be fair, it was, if you gamed with powergamers.) So they streamlined it.

In streamlining it they took away a lot of neat stuff, and dumbed it down a bit. There are bound to be those who miss the complexity of 3.x.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I think I understand now, and can put it into long-term perspective.
This is just my personal take, based on what I've read and heard.

Prior to D&D, we had Miniatures Games.
The idea came about to give certain miniature figures special powers and characteristics (hey, look at MY version of the starship design!)
Then the idea came of acting out the part of some of the miniatures (the captain of the Starship wants to talk!)

Then came the idea of the miniatures having their own unique powers, special and different from the other miniatures, and for this purpose they stopped being miniatures and became 'characters.'
It was discovered that running these 'characters' was a whole lot of fun, and a lot of people got into that, and the idea of roleplaying was born.

The concept was formalized when the first book of OD&D came out, and further enhanced with each new book.
But now, instead of miniatures, there was a setting in your head (Blackmoor, etc.) and not on the tabletop (although it could be on the tabletop still, if you wanted it to be.)
And so the Campaign Setting came into being, and the Adventure Module shortly after.

Something else came into being, then. Something crucial. Those who played these miniatures turned into characters ... wanted these characters to be ... special. Just ... special. In so many different ways.

-

Well, this drive towards 'special' took many forms.
In the beginning, it was attaining high level and lots of gold. It was defeating more and more powerful monsters until you beat the most powerful monsters of them all.
After that, it was in the nature of the character himself or herself (remember the infamous druid/ranger, anyone - how much uproar and controversy she caused at that time?)
And after that, it was revolt against the rules, rules deemed too restrictive, an ever continuing push of the envelope, both in terms of character power and versatility.

Restriction after restriction dropped.
Elves could be 9th level wizards (10th with Int 17, 11th with Int 18, and 12th with Int 19.)
Then elves could be 15th level.
Then elves could Slow Advance beyond 15th level, and had High Magic.
Then elves could be any class they wanted, and attain any level they wanted.

At first, there were only high elves and grey elves and Olvenfolk.
Then we had wood elves. Wild elves. Valley elves.
Then we had Qualinesti, Silvanesti, Dargonesti, Dimernesti, and Kargonesti.
Then we had Sun Elves, Moon Elves, Green Elves, and later Star Elves.
And later on yet we had Athian elves.

We started with evil, nasty drow as NPCs.
Then we had evil, nasty drow PCs.
Then we had good aligned drow PCs.
Then we had good aligned drow PCs accepted by the surface races, with great powers (and one of them, proved so popular he is still around today. )

Tieflings came into being. Aasimar came into being. We gained half-dragons. We gained warforged. And a lot of other nifty things. And it all started with that 2nd Edition Complete Book of Monsters, where the monsters could be PCs (albeit with heavy level limits.)

We imagined, we explored, we pushed the envelope.

The result was 3rd edition, where the possibilities were truly endless, and the DM's headache was also truly endless.

-

I've read the posts about 4E, and have learned a lot about it. Thanks, all, for sharing your thoughts.

I'll say this: the dreaming, the imagining, the min/maxing (you don't expect that to ever stop, do you? ), the conniving and scheming, the pushing of the envelop, will continue. Just as it has been going since someone first said: I think this miniature on the table should have some trait that miniature on the table doesn't have, back in the 1960s.

So, whether 4E simplifies, complicates, or merely changes - or, does not change - things, I think the game's newest incarnation will ultimately get swept up in the torrent of the roleplaying, the incessant and endless stream of the imagination, the dreams and desires and goals of Gamers.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[SSquirrel]

I will say beforehand that I'm not trying to pick any fights here on these first 2 quotes, I just don't see the continuity danny is implying exists in these areas.

For me, it boils down to these major things:

1) The 4Ed rules- particularly the multiclassing rules- don't support the way I've been designing my D&D PCs for 30 years. As a player, this vexes me greatly- my taste has been voided by game mechanics.

Well, dual class and multi-class merged into the dipfest that was 3E. So, I dunno about the same way of designing guys for 30 years. Unless you skipped 3E multi-classing and did things 2E style.

4) Some of the rules I'd like to use as a DM (since I've been using them for 25+ years) are simply absent, like rules for creating unique magic items.

What rules?
1E: DM Fiat
2E: DM Fiat
3E: Oh hey rules!
4E: Enchant Magic Item ritual

Again, not seeing a continuity there, except easy methods of player creation since 3E.

5) 4E is not backwards compatible. I play in several campaigns, one of which has lasted 10+ years, another which has lasted 20+ years. Because of the rules changes, some PCs are simply not creatable, meaning that to update those games to 4Ed would require retconning or waiting until some future date uncertain for a product which may never come. Understandably, I and the other players aren't too keen on ditching established campaigns merely to jump into the new system, especially with its known warts and all.

We scrapped our 2E game when 3E came out. Same world, new rules. If I was playing in a D&D game right now I have a feeling we would do the same. I view edition changes as a good time to try new characters and retire someone, esp if I've been playing them a long time. Obviously not everyone wants that

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, dual class and multi-class merged into the dipfest that was 3E.

1Ed Dual-classing became the model for 3Ed multiclassing.

1Ed Multiclassing is the model for 3Ed Gestalting.

4) Some of the rules I'd like to use as a DM (since I've been using them for 25+ years) are simply absent, like rules for creating unique magic items.

What rules?
1E: DM Fiat
2E: DM Fiat
3E: Oh hey rules!
4E: Enchant Magic Item ritual

What rules?
1E: DMG p114-118, including rules on non-standard items.
2E: DMG p117-122 , including rules on non-standard items.
4E: Enchant Magic Item ritual- which (as I stated before) says nothing about making items not in the core.

We scrapped our 2E game when 3E came out. Same world, new rules. If I was playing in a D&D game right now I have a feeling we would do the same. I view edition changes as a good time to try new characters and retire someone, esp if I've been playing them a long time. Obviously not everyone wants that

Obviously not.

Sure, I've made PCs that are unique to each edition, sometimes even within a given campaign. But in previous revisions, I could always stat out my previous PCs.

Forget my exotics, I can't even stat out a working version of my simple Human Ftr/Cleric of Tyr in 4Ed- started in 1Ed and updated into each successive edition.

That to me is the worst of it- forget updating or conversion, I can't even make a new PC and make analogous decisions (none of which I'd have changed, BTW), and have a similarly capable PC.

 

[rounser]

2E: DM Fiat

That's a bit unfair. I mean, you're correct, but Zeb threw in these bunch of impossible suggestions which included things like "capture the breath of the wind" and "forge it at the heart of a living mountain".

Now, it's not the "power to the players" that some of us prefer, and it is indeed DM fiat, but this does a few things:

Gives the campaign one heck of a good adventure hook. A really epic one, in fact, reminiscent of the OD&D Masters set paths to godhood, where you have to do similar such impossible stuff.

Maintains the mystique of magic items (which, although everyone read the DMG anyway such that it was doomed to failure, at least 2E had a shot at).

Made players give up on the idea of doing it at all, given that you had to jump through such hoops to get a lousy +1 longsword.

If it weren't for the third bit, and the evil of the fiat, I think perhaps that Zeb was actually on to something here. It's certainly more having a stab at keeping that D&D mystique about magic items than putting all the magic items in the PHB.

But between the attempts of Eberron and 4E to put D&D magic in an autistic little box (the psychology and rules needs behind which I am completely sympathetic to) and therefore bitch-slapping most of the actual magic out of it, I'm pretty sure WOTC doesn't prioritise the concept of keeping magic magical in rules and setting material. This is the trend at the moment - magic as a utility, versus magic as a vibe. MMORPGs come down firmly on the side of the former, so naturally this is being copied as a sign of the times.

I can see why the 2E approach was thrown to the wolves, though, because apart from the fact that part of 3E design philosophy was about killing DM fiat wherever it could be found in the rules, like a pig rooting for truffles, the 2E approach didn't jive with the fact that PCs were carting so much loot out of dungeons. The fifth +1 longsword you find isn't going to seem much more magical than the third (unless perhaps it has an interesting history, an evocative name, turns into a pizza slicer in the presence of phantom fungi, or other window dressing).

In fact, I've just realised something:

A major philosophy behind design 3E is that you couldn't trust the DM and his dumb fiat.

With 4E it's that you can't trust the players and their dumb character creation choices.

Where to next? 5E, where you can't trust the designers?

 

[Grazzt]

Where to next? 5E, where you can't trust the designers?

Likely. But remember.... "Trust The Computer. The Computer is Your Friend."

 

[rounser]

Likely. But remember.... "Trust The Computer. The Computer is Your Friend."

Only a commie traitor would have to remind me of that. Ergo, you must be a commie traitor.

(ZAP)

There was some goofyness in D&D, though, I remember it being there, and it was kind of fun. It's like a pendulum with Hackmaster at one extreme, swung through to 4E at the other, perhaps. Hackmaster is a bit unplayable though, and 4E a bit antiseptic.

Mind you, a table full of roleplayers can always be relied upon to BYO their goofiness without prompting from the rules.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

DM fiat - the player proposed an alteration where he traded his sneak attack ability for the sage like abilities. I don't remember the exact exchange, but I think he had something like bardic lore, all Knowledge skills added to his class skill list, and a bonus skill point every level that he could spend on a Knowledge skill.

So one of your previous main points is founded on what is, in essence, a house rule?

Why wouldn't you be able to swap out sneak attack for "something like bardic lore, all Knowledge skills added to his class skill list, and a bonus skill point every level that he could spend on a Knowledge skill" in 4e? It's the same thing. Furthermore, such substitutions are very easy since a character already has so many useful abilities; there's low risk of overpowering (or more specifically, underpowering) someone.

You argue that 3.5 provides this excellent framework for making characters with shabby combat abilities and lots of skill points, but in order to do that you had to make up your own rules. I really can't see that as a point in favor of 3.5, or a point against 4th.

Thinking that 3.5 was "all about noncombat" or something is just kidding yourself. The flexibility in this regard wasn't as great as many posters will lead you to believe. A level 12 rogue that focused on nothing but noncombat abilities will still have +8 base attack bonus, evasion, uncanny dodge, and 6d6 sneak attack.

If you want to house rule large portions of these combat abilities out for skill boosts, you are free to do so. In any edition.

EDIT Grammar

 

[Storm Raven]

So one of your previous main points is founded on what is, in essence, a house rule?

No, because the house rule isn't the basis for the point I was making. It was asserted that no group of D&D players would put up with someone as a member of the party who was "sub-par" in their ability to contribute to combat situations. I listed several examples from my own experience in which this was decidedly not true. I listed one in which the character was even more hampered by the inclusion of a house rule and low physical ststs and yet was one of the most popular characters in the party - so much so that when the player replaced him with a more "combat capable" character (a standard dwarven cleric) the party went out of its way to have the original character resurrected and brought back into play.

The existence of the house rule does nothing to change the point I was making.

Why wouldn't you be able to swap out sneak attack for "something like bardic lore, all Knowledge skills added to his class skill list, and a bonus skill point every level that he could spend on a Knowledge skill" in 4e? It's the same thing. Furthermore, such substitutions are very easy since a character already has so many useful abilities; there's low risk of overpowering (or more specifically, underpowering) someone.

Yes, you could in 4e, but according to the designers, this is an "unfun" choice, since you won't be a combat monster any more. Of course, they have protected you from making such "unfun" choices by ensuring that even if you do, you will have so many combat skills remaining that it won't matter. But that's not the point I was making by bringing up this character. I was specifically responding to this claim:

3.) False choice. Assuming your game spent equal time in and out of dungeons, how welcomed was a rogue without search/disable device? A cleric who negatively channeled? A wizard without evocation and/or conjuration? A fighter in only a chain shirt and rapier? A paladin loaded on mounted combat feats?

I pointed out that not only had I seen and had fun playing in or DMing for groups with such characters, but character with even less combat focused prowess than these were popular, well-liked characters.

Thinking that 3.5 was "all about noncombat" or something is just kidding yourself. The flexibility in this regard wasn't as great as many posters will lead you to believe. A level 12 rogue that focused on nothing but noncombat abilities will still have +8 base attack bonus, evasion, uncanny dodge, and 6d6 sneak attack.

I never said 3e was "all about noncombat". I said it allowed you to make character with a variety of abilities, not all of which are focused on ensuring that everyone is a combat specialist. This is different than 4e, because in 4e, no matter what, you are a combat specialist. 4e protects you from making the "wrong" choice where "wrong" is defined as "anything that makes you less effective at bonking monsters over the head". That's a step backwards to me.

 

[Felix]

I fell in love with Vancian magic when I read Rhialto the Marvellous.

Then I found Mostin the Metagnostic in Sepulchrave's story hour and jumped in love with Vancian magic.

Sepulchrave mentioned an electron valence theory of 3e spellcasting to validate the mechanics, and I thought it was so simple and elegant; it worked for me to make magic a part of the real physical world of the setting.

Now it's gone, and instead wizards have their choice of At-will cold or fire flavored Ha-do-kens.

And 4e changed distance from feet to squares. That just sticks in my craw. Don't know why; it's not reason that drives it, it just does.

And 4e alignment. It feels like they didn't want to have alignment, but were afraid to do away with it entirely, so they give us this amputated 3.x alignment. Pfaugh. Stick to your convictions next time and put this poor beast out of its misery. I'll keep playing my CN characters over here.