D&D 3E/3.5 My first 4e run : It will be hard to quit 3.5.

[Jack99]

Yes but, have we seen a single wand, scepter or potion example? Not the kind of wand that grants a wizard a +2 to a single attack roll, but wands that mimic spells, like wand of mirror image or wand of cure light wounds (this one is certainly gone). That's the kind of items my players love to use, or at least, have available. One of them is influenciated by Jarlaxle, I'm sure and I can see why he likes it so much.


I bring Salvation [throws]!

I don't think it will be a stretch to acquire/create wands (or rods, staffs etc) which has powers usable by the wielder. In fact, I expect rods/staffs/wands with at-will powers as encounter powers and encounter powers as dailies to be available in the core rules. If not, it should be very easy to cook up. You could also have implements that increase your own powers, just as we saw with the holy symbol example.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I don't think it will be a stretch to acquire/create wands (or rods, staffs etc) which has powers usable by the wielder. In fact, I expect rods/staffs/wands with at-will powers as encounter powers and encounter powers as dailies to be available in the core rules. If not, it should be very easy to cook up. You could also have implements that increase your own powers, just as we saw with the holy symbol example.

Or, indeed, items that do both.

Holy Wand of Healing +1
Adds +1 to all prayers with the "Implement" keyword, and 1/encounter allows you to use Healing Word.

Don't know if this is balanced, though...

 

[Terwox]

Try playing the game without the guy who hated 4e. Sounds like you'd have a great time. It's hard to judge a game that sounds like it was having some outside drama, and a person dead-set on hating the game just shouldn't be there. If it's your friend and you want to play with him, just give up and play something else I would say.

But, if all your players are really into the giant bag of magic tricks from magic items -- perhaps 4E won't work. But hey, perhaps it will. As above -- perhaps rituals will be enough tricks.

 

[DM_Blake]

Not every game or every version is for every player.

That saddens me.

In ages past, D&D appealed to pretty much all players. Even to players who had some other system, say GURPS or Whitewolf flavors for example, that they liked more than D&D. Even then most of those players, IME, also liked D&D to some extent.

I could walk into a game store in a new town and usually find a bulletin board advertising D&D groups looking for players. I could advertise as a D&D DM looking for players. These ads generally found players very quickly because most people liked D&D well enough to play it, and enjoy it, even if it wasn't their favorite.

Now, from what I see, and from quotes like the one above, it's becoming evident that D&D has fallen from the be-all-and-end-all game it used to be, to just one of those games that is not for every player. How much it has fallen remains to be seen.

But I envision that, in the future, those gamestore bulletin boards will have more ads for non-D&D games than they ever did before, and that people advertising for a RIFTS game (for example) will find players faster than they ever did before, and that ads looking for D&D games will hang on the board longer before getting replies than they ever did before.

Which is what saddens me.

I did have a question, why did you think Magic users have less options then they did in 3.x?

Maybe for the same reason I do.

In 3e, a 1st level wizard has what, some 30 or so spell options from which he can choose. He picks a few of those and writes them into his spellbook. Then he prepares 1 of them to be his readied spell.

By comparison, I don't think a 1st level wizard in 4e has 30 powers from which to choose.

So, he has fewer options.

But, on the up side, that 4e wizard won't be firing crossbow bolts all day, which is a wonderful improvement.

 

[RefinedBean]

KFC is also just BETTER in other countries, I've noticed. Germany used to have Stacker sandwiches, or what-not, and they were...they were glorious.

I think it's a bit too soon to judge 4th Ed on Raiders of Oakhurst, or any other fan-made or D&DXP-based adventure out there. There's too many unknowns. Like other posters have said before me, variability in both encounter design, NPC choice, and the ability to actually make your own character with a full breadth of options will make a huge decision.

In your case, Cirex, you might want to give it another shot once it's come out and your group can make their own characters, and you can make your own NPCs and use whatever monsters you think are the most fun to throw in. It'll make a world of difference!

 

[Ranes]

In ages past, D&D appealed to pretty much all players.

I'm glad that's your experience but it is not mine. When I started playing in '78, there were already plenty of people who were familiar with D&D but wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. By the mid-eighties, I was the same.

To the OP: thanks very much for your insight. I find posts like yours very interesting. I'm not interested in 4e (yet), apart from in as much as I want those who are interested in it not to be disappointed, for their sake and for the sake of the future of the game.

I would also just like to add that I like your term 'salvation throw'. It's actually more apposite than the traditional 'saving throw'.

Finally, I hope that you and your players thoroughly enjoy your future games.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That saddens me.

In ages past, D&D appealed to pretty much all players. Even to players who had some other system, say GURPS or Whitewolf flavors for example, that they liked more than D&D. Even then most of those players, IME, also liked D&D to some extent.

I could walk into a game store in a new town and usually find a bulletin board advertising D&D groups looking for players. I could advertise as a D&D DM looking for players. These ads generally found players very quickly because most people liked D&D well enough to play it, and enjoy it, even if it wasn't their favorite.

Now, from what I see, and from quotes like the one above, it's becoming evident that D&D has fallen from the be-all-and-end-all game it used to be, to just one of those games that is not for every player. How much it has fallen remains to be seen.

But I envision that, in the future, those gamestore bulletin boards will have more ads for non-D&D games than they ever did before, and that people advertising for a RIFTS game (for example) will find players faster than they ever did before, and that ads looking for D&D games will hang on the board longer before getting replies than they ever did before.

I think it has a lot to do with the number of games out there, and what different tastes they appeal.
And also stigma. I never played OD&D, AD&D, BECMI and so on. And I most likely never will. A game without a consistent skill system (or any at all)? Without real consideration for short or long-term balance of classes and races? A game with little to no guidelines how to handle non-standard combat activities?

I am spoiled by D&D 3E, Shadowrun, Torg, heck even DSA (as little as I like it!). I won't go back there.

I would probably not want to play a World of Darkness game, either (though the chances are higher). Playing all angsty Vampires? And despite being supposedly dangerous, easy killable? If you want Vampire to work together, they all have to be of the same type (since the fluff implies deep hatred)? Doubt this will work for me or my group. (Definitely the latter.)

And in the end, even back in the old days, people still had their preferences. I am pretty sure that most people are quite willing to play games with a system they don't like that much. They might be less likely to run such a game (but in most groups, that is not a requirement for all members).

 

[Cirex]

KFC is super good here, maybe a tad expensive, but well, it was D&D 4e!

D&D is what my players really like. Call of Cthluhu was ok, but not enough for our gaming "rhytm". I only DM the Call for special times, like Halloween or similar. A single shot adventure, with the most horrific things I can imagine. Last time I gave a public personality to each one (they could pick), but a random and secret one and, as a team, they ventured through an abandonated nazi asylum. Past middle game, I encouraged player killing and at the very end, four battled to death. Two allied themselves to finish the other two and then fought one versus one. Each character had certain "magical" powers, in order to boost the otherwise fragile Call characters. That battle was certainly glorious and it's still in our memories.

White Wolf system had a similar problem. Not enough good for a combat driven game. I tried with Masquerade and Vampire Dark Ages. I solved many problems with our games by making the PCs humans, rather than vampires, but the game was quickly disregarded in favor of Lord of the Rings.
I DM'ed one of my best campaigns at LOTR. Sadly one of the PCs was slain just before the fight against the super BBEG by a minion. I had no control over that, and I hated the system.
I also hated limbless characters thanks to criticals. It wasn't heroic, it was a bloody carnage.

So, since AD&D, my players have been loving D&D. I'm not sure why the doubts about 4e, when it's enhancing the game.
There was NO doubt from 2nd to 3th, so no idea why from 3th to 4th. That player that refuses to play 4th makes me wonder what is going on. Although I should understand him...he has around 45 books (all official books released in Spain) and he's going to "lose" them. Even if I keep telling him that the fluff books (Forgotten Realms one) are still useful and that he can DM 3.5 if he wants (He's starting a Dragonlance campaign this Sunday).

But still, there has to be something that creates those doubts.


PS : I also DM'ed Pendragon. The lust/castity thingy got boring after a while

 

[cdrcjsn]

To the OP, keep in mind that you're playing 1st level characters. Do you give your 1st level adventurers flaming weapons and wands of fireball in 3e?

I suspect that a lot of your concerns will be addressed once the rule books come out.

Also, I heard through the grapevine that the the Black Dragon at DDXP used outdated mechanics for making a solo monster (AC too high, too many HPs). I don't know if it's actually true, but I heard it from someone I trust (I personally have no knowledge of how to advance creatures to solo encounters). I also don't know if the stats in the PHB Lite document is the old stat or the updated one.

I'll be running Escape from Sembia tomorrow at a game store in Oakland. I'll let people know what happens.

 

[pemerton]

In ages past, D&D appealed to pretty much all players. Even to players who had some other system, say GURPS or Whitewolf flavors for example, that they liked more than D&D. Even then most of those players, IME, also liked D&D to some extent.

As others have said, this has not been my experience. In the 90s I knew a lot of people (I was one) who might play 2nd ed AD&D if nothing else was going, but I'd hardly say it appealed to them (or me).

My current attitude towards 3E is fairly similar: it has some intriguing character build options, but they're pretty clearly not balanced, and its action resolution system is pretty unsatisfying. 4e is the first version of D&D I'm really interested in playing since I used to play 1st ed AD&D as a schoolboy.