http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13451537&postcount=98Dragon Snack said:
Playtesting vs a .5 Edition
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
Gloombunny
First Post
This is pointless. The question isn't which game has the bigger damage penis. You said that SWSE has triple HP at first level because the weapons available at first level make it necessary. For that to be true, first-level SWSE weapons would need to do somewhere around three times as much damage as first-level D&D weapons. As people are showing pretty well, the damage figures are actually pretty close to each other. Certainly in the same ballpark.Dragon Snack said:
At this point you're pretty much saying "SWSE characters need to have about 200% more hitpoints than D&D characters, because they take about 50% more damage!" And that... doesn't follow.
Vigilance
Explorer
JoeGKushner said:
Um, no new edition of D&D has been backward compatible.
They're just now ADMITTING that.
1e to 2e? Ooo... sorry about your half-orc assassin. And you had a Bard? Oooo, sorry again. What? A Monk? And you had a Cavalier? Is that the Thief-Acrobat I see in the back?
2e to 3e? Sheesh, don't even get me started. Those conversion rules were a joke. And you couldn't convert XP for XP, and you couldn't convert level for level either.
So please try not to ding the current designers for being the first set to man up and TELL ME that any PC I convert I'm going to have to eyeball, guesstimate and fudge.
It's always been like that, but I appreciate the honesty.
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
The older editions of D&D are much more compatible with each other. I've very often mixed heavily rules from the two editions of AD&D and I'm currently running B2 for AD&D and doing the conversion on the fly.
ObsidianCrane
First Post
People are saying (including WotC folks) SWSE and TBo9S are previews for 4E. People in this thread pointed to those products being play tested as evidence for play testing of 4E. These are essentially false claims as far as can be determined by public knowledge.
First consider how many of you have played a SWSE game with TBo9S?
How many with the clearly altered racial rules? (See the Elf preview)
How many have played SWSE with ToB9S and wizards with at will and per encounter abilities in addition to spells (which are often per day at low level now)?
How many people have used Resurrection as a Ritual?
I'm sorry neither SWSE or 3.5+Splatbooks is in no way a true play test for 4E, and to lead people to believe so is to mislead them. (When taken literally - which I haven't been, but it has been used so in this thread.)
To say that SWSE and the 3.5 splatbooks were used to test many ideas that 4E is based on is a different thing, and clearly (based on public knowledge) not misleading (and how I have interpreted the WotC Staff's statements on the matter).
Any significant change to a rule set requires significant play testing. That doesn't mean 4E needs a public play test, and without knowing what the numbers are of play testers its impossible to adequately critique the process WotC is following.
Yes I want to be on the PT team, because drat it I am well and truely done with 3.X, and 4E based on the ideas and concepts evident in SWSE, and many splat books such as TBo9S looks a lot more exciting to play.
Yes I also recognise that no amount of play testing is ever like exposure to the public at large. 500 people will always find more problems than 50 people. But effective play testing is more likely done with 50 than 500 initially because of signal to noise ratio.
Basically public play test is a disaster for WotC, and there is no legitimate way, without WotC knowledge, to claim more play testing is required.
But to claim the change from 3.XE to 4E is not significant, I think is also misleading in the grand scheme of things. Elves certainly changed as much between 3.5E and 4E as they did between 2E and 3E (based on public information).
First consider how many of you have played a SWSE game with TBo9S?
How many with the clearly altered racial rules? (See the Elf preview)
How many have played SWSE with ToB9S and wizards with at will and per encounter abilities in addition to spells (which are often per day at low level now)?
How many people have used Resurrection as a Ritual?
I'm sorry neither SWSE or 3.5+Splatbooks is in no way a true play test for 4E, and to lead people to believe so is to mislead them. (When taken literally - which I haven't been, but it has been used so in this thread.)
To say that SWSE and the 3.5 splatbooks were used to test many ideas that 4E is based on is a different thing, and clearly (based on public knowledge) not misleading (and how I have interpreted the WotC Staff's statements on the matter).
Any significant change to a rule set requires significant play testing. That doesn't mean 4E needs a public play test, and without knowing what the numbers are of play testers its impossible to adequately critique the process WotC is following.
Yes I want to be on the PT team, because drat it I am well and truely done with 3.X, and 4E based on the ideas and concepts evident in SWSE, and many splat books such as TBo9S looks a lot more exciting to play.
Yes I also recognise that no amount of play testing is ever like exposure to the public at large. 500 people will always find more problems than 50 people. But effective play testing is more likely done with 50 than 500 initially because of signal to noise ratio.
Basically public play test is a disaster for WotC, and there is no legitimate way, without WotC knowledge, to claim more play testing is required.
But to claim the change from 3.XE to 4E is not significant, I think is also misleading in the grand scheme of things. Elves certainly changed as much between 3.5E and 4E as they did between 2E and 3E (based on public information).
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Vigilance said:
You and I completely disagree about this. The two games were almost identical in many ways.
Davelozzi
Explorer
Delta said:
I'm with Delta. The changes from 2e to 3e were mainly just simplification of the core mechanics...the overal feel of the game changed somewhat but not a lot. From what they've announced, 4e sounds to me like a complete rebuild from the ground up. The changes that Delta sites above, plus the changes to the implied world and assumptions make seem to be making for a completely different feel to me.
Time will tell, I guess, it's hard to say for sure until we see the final product. All I know is that in the ramp-up to 3e, every change I heard about seemed like a no-brainer, a solid improvement. The stuff I have heard about 4e has had the opposite effect. My opinion has slid from positive to cautiously optimistic to "I'm going to pick it up to check it out but I have serious doubts whether or not I am going to convert at any time in the near future".
Cailte said:
Well, maybe I did not explixitly state it in this thread (I have elsewhere though) that the CONCEPTS have been. Also read my sig. The CRUNCH has been playtested and all this is a revision and re-image of what exists. Between 2nd and 3rd the core mechanics changed. Btween 3rd and 4th the core mechanics are being tweaked (as well as based off another game). FEEL is different. FEEL cannot be tested. It is individual.
My only thing on 4th edition is 2 fold:
(1) The game has not been tested enough. I disagree based on previous product
(2) The has been little information on D&D 4.0. Again, I disagree based on prior product.
Last edited:
My thoughts on this:
2E to 3E was a mechanics improvement system. The main exceptions to this was Feats, Prestige Classes, and Attacks of Opportunity (and even AoOs were a sideeffect of an improved initiative system).
Examples of where game elements existed in 2E, but were mostly just improved upon: Initiative, Magic Item Creation, Saves, Spell School rules, +1 to ability bonues for every 2 ability points, Spell descriptions, etc.
Most of the stuff in 3E was "How do I improve the mechanics of what I currently have?", not "What new things am I going to add or what fluff elements am I going to remove or change?" Sure, since the mechanics changed, they were new to people. But, the mechanics (i.e. crunch) were new, most of the fluff of the game was pretty much the same.
The mechanics changes are somewhat true from what we know in 4E as well. Turn Undead will probably still be there, they just improved the mechanics. Skills will still be there, they just improved the mechanics. Most of the D20 math will be there, but they (hopefully) are just improving it.
But, 4E will probably have more fluff changes than 3E did. 3E has most of the same races as 1E and 2E. 3E has most of the same classes as 1E and 2E. I suspect that the feel between 1E/2E is closer to 3E than 3E will be to 4E.
And to some people, fluff is more important than crunch. The designers could change a mechanics rule in one of three different good ways and people won't care too much which one is chosen.
The most significant change for 4E is probably the change from per day to per encounter abilities. This is similar to a change from playing Wizards to playing Sorcerers. The game will be easier for players to play, hence, WotC hopes that more people will play it. There will be less "which spell should I prepare" and more "let's go". A good thing, but still a major paradigm shift in DND gaming and thinking.
2E to 3E was a mechanics improvement system. The main exceptions to this was Feats, Prestige Classes, and Attacks of Opportunity (and even AoOs were a sideeffect of an improved initiative system).
Examples of where game elements existed in 2E, but were mostly just improved upon: Initiative, Magic Item Creation, Saves, Spell School rules, +1 to ability bonues for every 2 ability points, Spell descriptions, etc.
Most of the stuff in 3E was "How do I improve the mechanics of what I currently have?", not "What new things am I going to add or what fluff elements am I going to remove or change?" Sure, since the mechanics changed, they were new to people. But, the mechanics (i.e. crunch) were new, most of the fluff of the game was pretty much the same.
The mechanics changes are somewhat true from what we know in 4E as well. Turn Undead will probably still be there, they just improved the mechanics. Skills will still be there, they just improved the mechanics. Most of the D20 math will be there, but they (hopefully) are just improving it.
But, 4E will probably have more fluff changes than 3E did. 3E has most of the same races as 1E and 2E. 3E has most of the same classes as 1E and 2E. I suspect that the feel between 1E/2E is closer to 3E than 3E will be to 4E.
And to some people, fluff is more important than crunch. The designers could change a mechanics rule in one of three different good ways and people won't care too much which one is chosen.
The most significant change for 4E is probably the change from per day to per encounter abilities. This is similar to a change from playing Wizards to playing Sorcerers. The game will be easier for players to play, hence, WotC hopes that more people will play it. There will be less "which spell should I prepare" and more "let's go". A good thing, but still a major paradigm shift in DND gaming and thinking.
Imaro
Legend
KarinsDad said:
Emphasis Mine...
I gotta disagree with this analogy. A sorcerer still runs out of all his spells and must rest at a certain point. In a per-encounter model this never happens. If anything I'd say it's way more similar to changing a Wizard into a True20 Adept (and even Adepts can build up fatigue and be unable to cast until they rest).
As far as preparation...not so sure about this one either. I played SW saga ed. where Jedi had per-encounter powers, but were still limited to the powers they had learned to use. In fact this model made preparation even more important (and more one-shot) because a Jedi couldn't trade powers out at the end of the day like a wizard but was stuck with the particular allotment and particular number of each he chose at character creation.
