-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Now that 4e is out, are you into it or sticking with a prior edition?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
Mercule
Adventurer
We're going to wrap our current 3.5 campaign. Given that I'm the DM and had grown to hate the 3.5 system even before 4e was announced, that may not be too incredibly long. I won't end it just because I want to change systems, but I will say that the hope of converting the campaign to 4e was one of the things that kept the game alive after last year's announcement.
The biggest issue is that some characters (gnome druid, for one) just can't be adequately converted. Strangely, it's some things that were originally viewed as baggage (arcane spells for the elven swashbuckler hitting a PrC, the wizard's wrack spell, or the druid's shape-shifting, for example) and have now become iconic to the characters that are keeping us from converting. Had the campaign started in 4e, the players would probably have been able to build their characters more to their original vision, and enjoyed it just as much. But, now, they are constrained by design differences between the editions.
That's not necessarily a sign of bad design for 4e. I would have had relatively little sympathy for the player who just loved to play elven fighter/mage/thief characters in 2e when he whined about the design of 3e cramping his style. Such is life in a class-based game. If you don't like it, go play Hero. D&D is not -- and never should be -- a classless game.
As far as 2e not having hold-outs.... If I remember right, 2e had so many die-hard fans that the company went bankrupt and was only purchased because someone with deep pockets wanted to do a new edition. And those deep pockets were originally filled by CCGs -- which was a sure sign, to some, that D&D was dead.
The biggest issue is that some characters (gnome druid, for one) just can't be adequately converted. Strangely, it's some things that were originally viewed as baggage (arcane spells for the elven swashbuckler hitting a PrC, the wizard's wrack spell, or the druid's shape-shifting, for example) and have now become iconic to the characters that are keeping us from converting. Had the campaign started in 4e, the players would probably have been able to build their characters more to their original vision, and enjoyed it just as much. But, now, they are constrained by design differences between the editions.
That's not necessarily a sign of bad design for 4e. I would have had relatively little sympathy for the player who just loved to play elven fighter/mage/thief characters in 2e when he whined about the design of 3e cramping his style. Such is life in a class-based game. If you don't like it, go play Hero. D&D is not -- and never should be -- a classless game.
As far as 2e not having hold-outs.... If I remember right, 2e had so many die-hard fans that the company went bankrupt and was only purchased because someone with deep pockets wanted to do a new edition. And those deep pockets were originally filled by CCGs -- which was a sure sign, to some, that D&D was dead.
dragonlordofpoondari
Explorer
I tried to approach 4e with an open mind, but I'm sorry to say that this game is not really for me. It might be fun for a few sessions ... as a player ... but 4e it in no way resembles the D&D roleplaying game I've been loving since 1982. I'd be willing to mix it in with my other board games if someone else decides to run it.
Where does that leave me? I'll be sticking with houseruled Pathfinder or a combination of Castles and Crusades and 1e in order to get my D&D fix from here on out. Luckily, Pathfinder Adventure paths and modules are uniformly brilliant and the PF RPG is ironing out most all of 3.5's remaining kinks. Thank the gods for Paizo.
Where does that leave me? I'll be sticking with houseruled Pathfinder or a combination of Castles and Crusades and 1e in order to get my D&D fix from here on out. Luckily, Pathfinder Adventure paths and modules are uniformly brilliant and the PF RPG is ironing out most all of 3.5's remaining kinks. Thank the gods for Paizo.
Basic/1st Ed/2nd Ed/4th Ed for me, baby!
DMing 3rd Ed wounded my soul.
DMing 3rd Ed wounded my soul.
fuindordm said:
My feelings/thoughts/experience/opinion exactly.
Donovan Morningfire
First Post
Diving into 4e headfirst and with no 3e regrets, reservations, or restraints. Especially seeing as how what 3e books I do have got very little use, having to give those up isn't a huge loss.
Haven't been this eager to play in a D&D campaign in a very long time... since the days of the Basic Sets.
Haven't been this eager to play in a D&D campaign in a very long time... since the days of the Basic Sets.
HeavenShallBurn
First Post
As would be expected I will be sticking with 3e.
However I will continue to work on my 3.x variant as I do so. Stealing ideas from wherever looks good. I think I may be on track to solving one of the biggest issues with it as well, AC progression, by mixing some elements from 3e - d20 AGoT and True20. Still needs tweaking though.
However I will continue to work on my 3.x variant as I do so. Stealing ideas from wherever looks good. I think I may be on track to solving one of the biggest issues with it as well, AC progression, by mixing some elements from 3e - d20 AGoT and True20. Still needs tweaking though.
Similar Threads
