Unintended(?) Consequence of No More X-Mas Tree?

[Voss]

There's one problem with Reynard's assumption.

He assumes that the level of capability of a character will remain the same. If the recent 4E scoop on the wizard holds true, then magic users have been SERIOUSLY nerfed in power.

As such, the opponents (monsters) will not have to be matched against a 1E-3E wizard capability and thus, the superheroic nature of PCs will not be needed.

And personally, I am rejoicing at spellcasters getting beat with the nerf bat.

Though it actually seems like the game as a whole is getting toned down. I looked at the 27th level paladin smite, and went, '27th? Really?' Its a long, long way from 27th level epic shenanigans in 3rd edition. Even the 13th level smite seemed on the weak side- double damage and healing ~10% of your hit points? Meh. The feats article too, thinking about it. If they were 3rd edition feats, I'd wonder who was writing such weak feats...

 

[VirgilCaine]

What, that you can't play D&D anymore with 4E? Or that 4E is driving some people away? i am not sure which of these is one of your "favorite things".

I'm glad that 4e will perhaps let some people get it into their heads that they need to find a system that works for them and not fold spindle and mutilate D&D.

So, yes "drive away" people that would be better served with other systems.

D&D as flexible and inclusive and generic is, I think, a "sacred cow" that shouldn't be slaughtered.

It doesn't exist. It never existed. D&D has not, is not, and never should be flexible, inclusive and generic. GURPS is flexible inclusive and generic. D&D isn't.

When I play D&D, I want D&D, not some crackheaded abomination of a low-magic world the GM came up with to get players to play something besides the usual straight D&D.



[ BTW, you aren't the "ninja Bodak" Reynard from rpg.net, are you? ]

 

[AllisterH]

And personally, I am rejoicing at spellcasters getting beat with the nerf bat.

Though it actually seems like the game as a whole is getting toned down. I looked at the 27th level paladin smite, and went, '27th? Really?' Its a long, long way from 27th level epic shenanigans in 3rd edition. Even the 13th level smite seemed on the weak side- double damage and healing ~10% of your hit points? Meh. The feats article too, thinking about it. If they were 3rd edition feats, I'd wonder who was writing such weak feats...

Quite true.

That said, I'm not sure people have really realized this. Magic in 4E looks like while it might be more "common" at low levels (a 1st level wizard has a magical at-will ability along with the other magic using classes), by mid to high level, that selfsame wizard doesn't look light he'll be anywhere near the capability of even a 1E wizard.

This of course makes balancing the classes much easier and thus, those feats may actually be decent feats for those levels when compared to what said wizard could do.

This also explains why the Forgotten Realms NEEDS a spell-plague. That setting, like many others, is based on the uber-wizard model but this is the most significant change in D&D for 4E.

 

[Njall]

What, that you can't play D&D anymore with 4E? Or that 4E is driving some people away? i am not sure which of these is one of your "favorite things".

D&D as flexible and inclusive and generic is, I think, a "sacred cow" that shouldn't be slaughtered.

Yeah, and it's so flexible that you had to open a topic saying that low magic campaigns just don't work under the current system, without heavy houseruling
Wouldn't "flexible" mean that the game can be played both as the high fantasy archetype D&D has been throughout 3.x or as the low magic, "grim & gritty" fantasy that's so common in S&S literature?

 

[KingCrab]

But if you remove the christmas tree effect and integrate those standard bonuses and abilities into the game math, you have essentially raised the lower end of the spectrum.

There will most likely be a 4th edition "E6" at some point after its creation for dealing with that.

 

[Reynard]

It doesn't exist. It never existed. D&D has not, is not, and never should be flexible, inclusive and generic. GURPS is flexible inclusive and generic. D&D isn't.

Really. So, what adjectives would you use to describe the game that supported play in traditional fantasy (FR, Greyhawk, Mystara), post apocalyptic sword and sorcery (Darksun), planes-walking wierdness (Planescape), pseudo-victorian horror (Ravenloft), elven spacepunk (SpellJammer), epic high fantasy (DragonLance), all at the same time.

When I play D&D, I want D&D, not some crackheaded abomination of a low-magic world the GM came up with to get players to play something besides the usual straight D&D.

You may believe that D&D is only good for hack-slash-loot-repeat gaming, but you would be proved wrong by 30 years of people doing other things with it, it working and them having fun doing so.

So yes, D&D has always been inclusive and flexible and generic. Believing otherwise says more about the gamer than the game.

BTW, you aren't the "ninja Bodak" Reynard from rpg.net, are you? ]

This should be fun: yes.

 

[Njall]

Really. So, what adjectives would you use to describe the game that supported play in traditional fantasy (FR, Greyhawk, Mystara), post apocalyptic sword and sorcery (Darksun), planes-walking wierdness (Planescape), pseudo-victorian horror (Ravenloft), elven spacepunk (SpellJammer), epic high fantasy (DragonLance), all at the same time.

Proving that D&D can support settings written with the AD&D ruleset in mind in the first place doesn't help your point, you know?
(Aside from the fact that most of these settings required heavy house ruling in the first place, even in 2e, and some of these aren't even officially supported in 3e)
So, I'll reverse the question: how do you define a game that cannot emulate LotR, the Wheel of Time, A Song of Fire and Ice, Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea, Conan, Leiber's or Moorcock's writings just to name a few?
This doesn't stop me from saying D&D is fun, but flexible? Not at all.

 

[Reynard]

Proving that D&D can support settings written with the AD&D ruleset in mind in the first place doesn't help your point, you know?
(Aside from the fact that most of these settings required heavy house ruling in the first place, even in 2e, and some of these aren't even officially supported in 3e)

You'll note I was referring to sub-genre and tone. And if 3E didn't support a vast array of different sub-genres and tones, why would we have hundreds of different d20 settings out there. Also, the need for "houserules" (or, more accurately, system modifications) to achieve that isn't the same as saying "Go play another game."

 

[Njall]

You'll note I was referring to sub-genre and tone. And if 3E didn't support a vast array of different sub-genres and tones, why would we have hundreds of different d20 settings out there. Also, the need for "houserules" (or, more accurately, system modifications) to achieve that isn't the same as saying "Go play another game."

Well, if I change a rule so the game fits my homebrew campaign I'm house ruling.
If I want to play Planescape in 3e and I'm not interested in unofficial material I have to resort to house ruling. Thus, I don't really see the difference between "house rules" and "rules modifications", in this case.
And yes, we have hundreds of different d20 ( and d20 is not D&D...it's just the "engine" that currently powers D&D...D&D is what's described in the rulebooks...wealth guidelines, item creation rules, CR system, combat system etc... ) settings, but that doesn't mean that they all work well.
Furthermore, the fact that you may resort to "rules modifications" in order to make a given setting playable doesn't mean the system is flexible, and in the case of d20, specifically, its success is probably tied to the fact it's free, well known and readily available rather than to its adaptability

 

[Reynard]

Furthermore, the fact that you may resort "rules modifications" in order to make a given setting playable doesn't mean the system is flexible, and in the case of d20, specifically, its success is probably tied to the fact it's free, well known and readily available rather than to its adaptability

I disagree. If those changes, whether house rules or "official" changes, are relativdely minor or rely largely on the addition or removal of certain elements (classes being the primary example), then I would say the system is flexible.