pawsplay's dealbreaker list

pawsplay said:
Considering how many things have been completely altered, like succubi going over to the devil side, gnomes turning into some kind of reclusive fey and high elves changing their name to something hard to pronounce and learning to teleport, I think revisiting TWF would be fair game. Is/was/will be is not a convincing design argument for 4e. I am supposed to just accept a bad design decision and like it, because the designers didn't have a taste for sacred beef the day the day they looked at that?
So your saying that you won't pick 4th because they didn't do enough? Well I can agree with that argument, their are more things that could be changed. However how is that an argument for any edition over fourth? If every one has that same problem, why go back to 3rd for instance? It has been a bad game decision since 2nd edition, if it is enough to turn you away from D&D then GURPS is probably fine for you, nothing wrong with that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I agree that the naming conventions can be annoying. That said, I tend to ignore flavor if it stands in the way of mechanics I like.

In 3.5e, if I want to play a street brawler I play monk/swordsage for the throws, the unarmed fighting bonuses, the unarmored style-etc. The class called "fighter" might fit the flavor better but mechanically it can't compare. So I strip out the Asian flavor from the monk, avoid the supernatural powers of the swordsage, and try to remember that my character doesn't know that he is a monk 2/swordsage 5, he just thinks of himself as a warrior.
 

Baen said:
So your saying that you won't pick 4th because they didn't do enough?

Sounds pretty compelling to me. Throw in about three times as many changes that I would prefer to do without, and that's pretty much the end of it.
 

Hmmm, I would say that the changes they put in are finally in the right direction to truly mimicking fantasy outside of Dragnolance. But if you find the flaws of 3rd edition are more in line with your personal inclinations then the flaws of 4th, I won't argue with you. If 3rd's flaws are too much, then I hope GURPS is more to your liking. I individually don't see anything wrong with the changes you mentioned in this post, all they do is make it easier for D&D to be a story rather then a mechanics jumble. But then I like DMing grand epic stories, so I am a bit biased:P
 

Baen said:
Hmmm, I would say that the changes they put in are finally in the right direction to truly mimicking fantasy outside of Dragnolance.

Whereas my point of view is that 4e has finally taken D&D in the direction of being the RPG of the D&D poster. If said poster is especially bombastic, gratuitous, and unartistic. I really feel like 4e has abandoned many of the best D&D aesthetics, and left mainstream fantasy behind at the train station.

But if you find the flaws of 3rd edition are more in line with your personal inclinations then the flaws of 4th, I won't argue with you. If 3rd's flaws are too much, then I hope GURPS is more to your liking. I individually don't see anything wrong with the changes you mentioned in this post, all they do is make it easier for D&D to be a story rather then a mechanics jumble. But then I like DMing grand epic stories, so I am a bit biased:P

3e is more in line with my inclinations for playing D&D. 4e, to me, is hardly D&D at all.
 

pawsplay said:
Whereas my point of view is that 4e has finally taken D&D in the direction of being the RPG of the D&D poster. If said poster is especially bombastic, gratuitous, and unartistic. I really feel like 4e has abandoned many of the best D&D aesthetics, and left mainstream fantasy behind at the train station.

As I have previously said, mainstream fantasy never completely limits their spell casters (except in the case of Vance.) Wizards can always do wizard things as long as they don't knock themselves out from using a lot more power then they should. The powers system allows for more cinematic combat which is common in fantasy. The minions fill the role of the often encountered guards which are a danger to the characters (can damage them) but are easy to take out. Each class has far more leeway in design, so each class can fill more character choices without having to multiclass 10 times. The monsters actually fight very different, they are not all the same essential creature with different fluff and scaled to level. Players can actually use tactics beyond that of rogue flanking that do not rely on a mage. Fluff and restrictions have been lifted so people are not railroaded into LG Paladins or Wizards who can't stand up in combat. Where every single class is useful 90% of the time, and no choice is horribly wrong compared to another. Where your characters can actually do what they want in combat (as in have a decent chance of throwing someone off a ledge, jump over a table, etc.) Where your character is only good at one skill which has nothing to do with his back story anyways.

I simply dont see how 4th is not better for storytelling. 3rd is better if you want a videogame esque rpg where you gather classes and gain cool abilities from them through powergaming, but 4th seems to beat out on fantasy/roleplay.


3e is more in line with my inclinations for playing D&D. 4e, to me, is hardly D&D at all.
Well then what is D&D to you?
 

Baen said:
The problem is that simply, this isn't GURPS.

If I was a man of faith, I'd express my gratitude for this to my chosen deity every night in prayer.


pawsplay said:
That's mainly because of D&D's punitive view of weapon proficiency for wizards. Gandalf did just fine with a longsword, and the Grey Mouser was handy with rapier, staff, and dagger.

Gandalf was an -angel-, and the Mouser himself is only a dabbler in magic.

Magic users who also whump arse in melee combat are the exception rather than the rule in D&D and most fantasy that doesn't feature Mary Sues or people from the kingdom of Valdemar or Mary Sues from the kingdom of Valdemar.

pawsplay said:
Whereas my point of view is that 4e has finally taken D&D in the direction of being the RPG of the D&D poster. If said poster is especially bombastic, gratuitous, and unartistic.

You can pick your bonus condescension points up at our nearest distribution outlet.

These sort of things are great ways to render your entire point moot.

Also, are we really going to argue that boffer weapons and the SCA even remotely depict realistic combat?
 

Now I should once again clarify. I very much enjoyed 3rd edition. However I am likely different then most. I came to D&D fantasy books. In particular Wheel of Time. My first real introduction to pencil and paper RPGs was the Wheel of Time RPG that came out. From there I moved on to 3rd edition as my first. Throughout my entire experience, I have had a very big focus on story, on the world, if not entirely on roleplaying (may seem like a contradiction, but I like the plot to be good but the gameplay dynamic. Extensive roleplaying tends to be very constricting and takes time.) However I did always feel limited in 3rd, simply because of my player's impact on the game. It was almost impossible for them to decide to push someone off a cliff, or shove them out of the way without me arbitrarily deciding it happened. They always had to have cleric, even though the idea of a Priest walking around whacking things didn't make sense to the player or in my campaigns (I didn't have enough players to let the cleric character just ignore melee and roleplay as a complete priest.) The mage had to choose whether to be combat focused for the day, challenge focused, or some mix. We often had to stop at the silliest points so our mage could rest and be useful again. Most of my players couldn't be the character they wanted to be until several levels in, and even then they were subpar. It was also hard to create memorable encounters without throwing really tough enemies, throwing spellcasters around, or being really creative with terrain and traps.

All of these issues and more have been solved with 4th. Essentially, the ceiling on creativity has been lifted for both me and my players.
 

Kishin said:
Magic users who also whump arse in melee combat are the exception rather than the rule in D&D and most fantasy that doesn't feature Mary Sues or people from the kingdom of Valdemar or Mary Sues from the kingdom of Valdemar.

Every time this comes up, I can come up with more wizards who fight than ones who don't.

Wizards who fight: Gandalf, Grey Mouser, Galen (from Dragonslayer), Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Belgarion, Richard Cypher, Rod Gallowglass, Elminster.
Wizards who don't: Merlin, Miracle Max, Raistilin.


Also, are we really going to argue that boffer weapons and the SCA even remotely depict realistic combat?

Remotely, sure. And it can certainly demonstrate how useful it is to have two sticks to your opponent's one. But what does it matter? Historical combat systems already depict two weapons combat. I don't have to prove it's existence, or anything. I've made my case that two single-handed weapons are usually better than one, and I have little more to say about that.
 

pawsplay said:
Every time this comes up, I can come up with more wizards who fight than ones who don't.

Wizards who fight: Gandalf, Grey Mouser, Galen (from Dragonslayer), Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Belgarion, Richard Cypher, Rod Gallowglass, Elminster.
Wizards who don't: Merlin, Miracle Max, Raistilin.
I am sort of surprised you don't mention Rand Al' Thor in the top crowd, yet do mention Harry Potter? But I do agree, and their are actually several more. For instance the Protagonist of the Book entitled Wizard is one, Anasûrimbor Kellhus from the Prince of Nothing series is another. I actually have a hard time coming up with a wizard that does not fight with a sword at some point (actually, several interpretations of merlin have him as a warrior as well.) Their are a few from the last mentioned series, and Zed from the Sword of Truth fits I believe (can't remember, it has been a while, but Aggie does.) So yes, the majority of fantasy seems to have wizards that also use swords. The problem is that a large amount of these characters are completely overpowered to the point where they don't really work as anything put an npc even in a heroic adventure. How can you write a campaign for a party of Anasûrimbor Kellhus types and not have them just win all the time? Rand Al' Thor? He is already epic as of book 4 or so.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top