thoughts on Everquest D20

[EarthsShadow]

That is unfortunately true Corinth.

For me, that's probably why I don't play DnD very often, for the simple fact that so many people will play DnD and not try other games. I am not saying any of you are really like that, but I know plenty that are like that. I still have a friend who swears up and down by AD&D and won't try 3E at all, no matter what we say to him about it. People are devoted to what they are used to.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I'm still not seeing what segment of the populace would pick up EQ over D&D.

Judging from a brief perusal of the forums at eqrpg.com, it looks like there are quite a few people playing this who never played D&D before. I picked up the book and was pretty impressed with it, but I don't think I'd play it instead of D&D.

That's not to say that I'm a D&D fanboy and won't play anything different. I've just never met anyone who was interested in playing anything else. Personally, I'd love to try more games, but I can understand how the casual gamer might not want to invest that effort.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

/me begins counting on fingers
Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard...

/me moves to counting on tentacles
Abjurer, Conjurer, Diviner, Enchanter, Evoker, Illusionist, Necromancer, Transmuter...

Oh! There are also the Adept and Witch in the DMG.

I think you need to reconsider your stance on this particular argument.

You must not be familiar with EQ. The caster classes in EQ are a LOT more unique than the specialist mages in D&D. A wizard and an enchanter have completely different spell lists, with almost no overlap. A D&D specialist, on the other hand, only has a handful of spells which set him apart from a normal mage.

 

[Tsyr]

Agreed. The difference between EQ int-based casters is far more akin to, say, the difference between a Cleric and a Druid in DnD... or, in a few cases (Enchanter Vs Wizard, for example) more like the dif between a wizard and a cleric. Specialists aren't really distinct classes. Just versions of the same class. Not the same as EQ.

And he wasn't counting the wis-based casters into his list either for EQ.

All told, EQ has

Druid
Shaman
Cleric
Wizard
Mage
Enchanter
Necromancer
Bard (EQ bards are NOT a hybrid caster, like a Ranger(Warrior-Druid), Paladin(Warrior-Cleric), Shadowknight(Warrior-Necromancer) or Beastlord (Monk-Shaman)... they are a distinct class in and of themselves. They get NO spells other classes have (similar, never the same exact spell though), have a different mechanic to them, and get spells from first level (as opposed to 9 for the hybrids in the MMORPG... can't recall what level it is in the PnP version))

DnD has

Wizard
Sorc
Druid
Cleric

And personaly, the dif between a wizard and a sorc is pretty darn minor. Each of the EQ classes are distinct... very little overlap between them at all. About all they share in common are a couple basic lines of spells... for example, all robe-type get a self-only armour buff line, and all priest types get a heal spell line (though at different levels, like in DnD)... after there, it gets different.

 

[Victim]

Well, obviously overlap in DnD depends on how the characters are built. An enchanter with barred evocation and an Evoker with barred conjuration will have very different spell lists. The evoker will blast things mostly, and the enchanter will enchant creatures, and either rely on Conjurations or Transmutations when Enchantment isn't appropriate. The main areas of commonality will be the good illusion, abjuration, etc spells - the same things that the classes have in common in EQ.

Also, EQ is really fond of giving spells different names. Like psions, you get new scaled up versions of spells each time you get a new spell level. And classes that will have almost the same spells get unique names. Wizards, enchanters, and mages all get pretty much the same crappy attack spell at level 1, but each class calls it something different - there are also minor differences. In many cases, there's only a little bit different between 2 classes' spells. Or wizards will get Shieldskin spells, and enchanters get Rune spells - both do the same thing, but the Rune spells can be cast on others. If you took about 1/2 the common spells between classes in DnD, and then gave them different names for each class, you'd have something similar to EQ spell lists.

How would you like to play a specialist wizard if, instead of barring 2 schools, you picked 2 schools that you could use.

 

[Tsyr]

How would you like to play a specialist wizard if, instead of barring 2 schools, you picked 2 schools that you could use.

Actualy, that is how it should be done, IMHO. "specialist" doesn't seem very "specialized" in DnD.

 

[Belares]

No, they aren't. The EQ users aren't motivated to play tabletop RPGs as a group because they don't want what tabletop gaming provides; they want what EQ provides. Those individuals that do deal with tabletop RPGs play D&D because D&D's gameplay is not EQ's gameplay. If they want EQ, they play online for reasons described above.

I do not want to get into a flame batlle with you Corinth, but I think you are totally wrong.

We have 3 of the 4 people in our group that plays EQO, EQrpg and 3E DnD. I know of at LEAST 10 other people that play EQO in my area (and many more I don't personally know, but are friends to the others) that are playing all types of table-top games as well as EQrpg.

I would argue that EQrpg would have no gamer base if they had put it out before/during 1st year of the online game. I think because of the popularity of 3E and the D20 systems as well as EQO that is why this game will be popular, at least for awhile.

 

[Fenes 2]

Actualy, that is how it should be done, IMHO. "specialist" doesn't seem very "specialized" in DnD.

It means even less in EQ, where you have class abilities duplicated by items and spells as the game progresses. Still, you can, especially with PrCs, duplicate any and all EQ classes in D&D. I somehow doubt you can do the same for all the D&D classes in EQ.

EQ is still installed on my computer, and the bills are paid for the next 1.5 years, but it lost its appeal to me - it became too much work, too much xp-grinding without fun. The thought of a tabletop version, where one could actually play it like it should have been, with one group of brave adventurers daring the dungeons, a good DM managing the fights, and plots that involved the PCs, and left changes through the world, has some appeal, but I do not need a different game system for that.

 

[Griswold]

I'm still not seeing what segment of the populace would pick up EQ over D&D.

As odd as this sounds, I know a few people who would play EQ online, but never touch a D&D book for various reasons. The EQrpg could very well appeal to them.

There are some folks, like my group, who played D&D regularly, and played EQ for our "roleplay fix" between our bi-weekly D&D games. After awhile though, sitting in a cave for an hour waiting for a monster to pop just to be KSed, gets old. Norrath grows on ya after awhile though, and the EQ rpg lets us revisit that land even if for only a short time.

The EQrpg graphics are better
The EQrpg features boasts low latency gameplay

Gris.

 

[ced1106]

Why is it, in this day and this kind of game where imagination and open mindedness should rule the day amongst us, do we constantly hear from people that if something is not strictly DnD, it's just not worth the attention at all?

Eh. Same reason why it is, in this day and this kind of game where imagination and open mindedness should rule the day amongst us, do we constantly hear from people that if something is remotely related to DnD, it's just not worth the attention at all.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^