Nevermind
Last edited:
D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game
I don't dislike good fluff, but given what fluff we have in 4E, I am happy that there's not much fluff in the core books.
I haven't played a 4e adventure and I haven't read the 4e books yet. I really appreciate your experiences and your opinions. I think I have got an idea of the characteristics of the new 4e system but I will read the books in time to understand it better.
Beyond the discussion if the 4e is a better or worse system than the 3.5e (for D&D type of worlds) I believe that you all agree with some facts:
1) 4e is incompatible with 3.5e;
2) 3.5e is a flexible system and it could be upgraded by fixing its weak topics;
3) 3.5e is an open system (due to OGL) while 4e is controlled by one company. 3.5e could be supported for ever by companies or creative people;
4) 3.5e is currently supported (Pathfinder RPG);
Concerning the (1): I enjoy reading my current library of worlds and adventures (written in 3.5e format). I don't care that much about the system. The system is just the tool for our game. It has to be appropriate to express the D&D type worlds and characters; it has to be of a certain quality to support an enjoyable session; it has to be flexible to let us adjust it to our ideas etc. The system (as a run-time system) is going together with a specific format. If you change the system, you change the format and you are making your library obsolete. I don't like it. I prefer to add new worlds and adventures, not replace my old ones with new versions.
Concerning the (2): Note as an example, that the 3.5e was flexible enough to be adjusted to express the OGL Conan RPG.
Concerning the (3): Now that I have experienced the open air of OGL, I really don't like to be depended on the interests of one company. Note that sites like the www.d20srd.org, supplements like the Grim-n-Gritty, utility software like the HeroForge and hundreds of worlds, supplements and adventures wouldn't be there without the OGL. By the time that the owner of the 4e will decide to change it to 5e (and make your 4e books obsolete), the 3.5 could be there and fully supported (possible upgraded to incorporate new ideas and mechanics);
Concerning the (4): I think PAIZO Pathfinder RPG is a nice upgrade of the 3.5.
Dimitris
Beyond the discussion if the 4e is a better or worse system than the 3.5e (for D&D type of worlds) I believe that you all agree with some facts:
1) 4e is incompatible with 3.5e;
2) 3.5e is a flexible system and it could be upgraded by fixing its weak topics;
3) 3.5e is an open system (due to OGL) while 4e is controlled by one company. 3.5e could be supported for ever by companies or creative people;
4) 3.5e is currently supported (Pathfinder RPG);
Concerning the (1): I enjoy reading my current library of worlds and adventures (written in 3.5e format). I don't care that much about the system. The system is just the tool for our game. It has to be appropriate to express the D&D type worlds and characters; it has to be of a certain quality to support an enjoyable session; it has to be flexible to let us adjust it to our ideas etc. The system (as a run-time system) is going together with a specific format. If you change the system, you change the format and you are making your library obsolete. I don't like it. I prefer to add new worlds and adventures, not replace my old ones with new versions.
Concerning the (2): Note as an example, that the 3.5e was flexible enough to be adjusted to express the OGL Conan RPG.
Concerning the (3): Now that I have experienced the open air of OGL, I really don't like to be depended on the interests of one company. Note that sites like the www.d20srd.org, supplements like the Grim-n-Gritty, utility software like the HeroForge and hundreds of worlds, supplements and adventures wouldn't be there without the OGL. By the time that the owner of the 4e will decide to change it to 5e (and make your 4e books obsolete), the 3.5 could be there and fully supported (possible upgraded to incorporate new ideas and mechanics);
Concerning the (4): I think PAIZO Pathfinder RPG is a nice upgrade of the 3.5.
Dimitris
Last edited:
Oh, that? Well, I don't think that naming the feats and powers differently would have been enough to make the PHB exciting to read. Did griping about it scare the designers off, maybe, I sorta hope not because all the discussion at that time was based on parsing blog posts, my goodness, just ask me about 4E Warlock/Warlords.
But generally speaking I don't mind fluff even if I violently disagree with it because at least I violently disagree with it, and so I can be bothered to change it. The PHB fluff for the feats & powers is so perfunctory that it's very easy to change (thus opening up character concepts a bit) but on the other hand it's so perfunctory that it's very hard to get up the energy to change it and so far I have failed to do so. I dunno, I wish it grabbed me but it doesn't.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Don't know, the only "fluff" I didn't like was the name "Golden Wyverns". But then, the word construction follows the same rules as "Red Mage" or "Purple Knight". I just don't like this specific combination, and the word Wyvern itself is already stupid, anyway.Fenes said:
And peoples major complaint was not just the words, but that they didn't want any references to existing organisations or traditions - like Golden Wyvern Adepts or Emerald Frost Mages or what-you-have - in their feat names and stuff. And I still disagree with that. The theory that it would be a problem for board discussions if you rename the feats to match your own setting was a stretch, in my opinion. But well, things are as they are now. I hope WotC will re-use some of the fluff they have abandoned at a later time. There might be some nice inspiration in there.
What is it about Warlocks/Warlords?Oh, that? Well, I don't think that naming the feats and powers differently would have been enough to make the PHB exciting to read. Did griping about it scare the designers off, maybe, I sorta hope not because all the discussion at that time was based on parsing blog posts, my goodness, just ask me about 4E Warlock/Warlords.
Can't see I want to change any of the fluff, either. I think the book as written now is definitely intended for usability, not readability - even if that sounds like a contradiction at first: Usability* means when I am playing, I will find the information I need pretty fast, and each game element is a neat package easy to understand. Readability means I can read the book from cover to cover and don't feel bored or distracted.
*) There are a few things that could be better placed, though. For example, where's [W] explained? But then - who will ever want to look that up again after he has found out? But it would have a better place in the power description...
STARP_Social_Officer
First Post
Ooh, I get it!
My opinion differs from yours, so I suck!
And it's perfectly OK to say patronising and condescending things. After all, I have it coming because I think differently than you do!
Of course!
It was supposed to be the other way around. I wrote it just before I left for work. The site froze up and didn't post correctly thus the triple post. I had to get out the door to work, so I couldn't correct it until today.
I completely understand, I have had lots of connectivity issues as well, and your post makes much more sense now. I would however say that low level CRs aren't that great either, witness the Ogre or the CR5 Hydra.
Henry
Autoexreginated
While I'm glad Pathfinder is out there, slowly but steadily becoming the Galactica of the OGL Fleet, the more I read the discussed changes, the more it's looking to exacerbate the problems I had with 3e, rather than solve them, to the point where a character would be too complicated to play after 4th or 5th level or so, with the boatloads of extra feats and class abilities, the extra racial bonuses, etc. What's more, a monster more complex than the ones in 3.5 would be impossible to run for me.
Similar Threads
