What did we loose updateing a game from 2e to 4e

[Barastrondo]

see in 2e if you were paying attention, you would see that the robed figure and the bard were never seen togather, and shot the same numbe of magic missles, and that the bard always seamed to have just one or two too many spells, and all of it could be back tracked to the PHB and looking up the spells and the spell charts. It was an ingame mystery with out of game clues to kinda act like easter eggs.

I totally respect that "the characters can be expected to understand that people come in classes as defined by the game, and to expect people's abilities to behave as denoted by said class" is a valuable thing for many groups. But man, that's one thing I tried to blur back in 2e myself. Just not fond of the idea that player characters see things in terms of class. Much happier now that a character is a necromancer in-game, but by rules might be a wizard, a reskinned vestige pact warlock, even a swordmage or psion.

Yeah, it does make things harder on the players when there isn't a clear way to anticipate an NPC's abilities from metagame knowledge. But I love the way they move to gathering information in-character instead.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I disagree 2e was set up to be PHB1 as core, and everything else added. 4e was set up to be everything core.
Example: 2e Mul did not get support in any non DS books (that I know of)
example: 4e genesi and swordmage get support in arcane power.

It is diffrent set ups. Did you see weird stuff in 2e, YES. Was the defualt assumtion that all of it was there, no.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think enhancing a non-core option makes it core. I would never consider psionics to be core, despite liking it, even if there's The Will and the Way, Complete Psionics or Psionic Power or what you backing them up.

now to the big one:

there was no skil or NWP or clue that was soo important missing it meant throwing the game away. Not in high school, not now. You are just makeing things up here.

No. I've gone through real adventures like that. Mostly in 3e though.

So let me get this straight. I designed a contanant and placed in it 5 artafact swords (In pentagram patern of cource) that made a cirlce of power that locked a giant evil away. Each of these items had there own feel, and powers, and each was more then powerful enough to take out the courption angel.

I don't think this is much different than having 5 well-designed NPCs in a setting. What if the PCs don't like them?

I would as well, but I also wonder if you could step back and see this a diffrent way.

try this one. In 2e my 2nd level wizard had 2d4 hp, and could cast 2 1st level spells per day.
In 4e my 2nd level wizard has 30hp, and has 2 at wills, 1 encounter, 1 daily, and a utlitiy power.

Are you talking about wizards or editions here?

If you're talking about editions, well, my 2nd-level fighter might have 15 hp in 2e (2d10+2, say). He died in two hits, not one.

If you're talking about a class difference, a 4e wizard is still easier to kill than anyone else. They tend to have bad ACs. All you need are bad guys to not approach from the front (where the fighter is swinging his sword).

they story of Linus the Evocer is very diffrent at level 2 in both. In 2e he needs to be very afraid (1d10 can kill him, and he only has 2 rounds at his best). In 4e he is part of the party from day one.

That's a big difference, although as part of playing more than "adventure writing". You were making it seem like a bad thing though, not being able to "randomly die".

at level 12 the worm has turned, and 2e wizard (still maybe with 30 hp) can put up buffs like stone skin that just negate attacks (I use to love waiting for a DM to call enough damage to kill me then say "Wow I only have X hp, but pink...thats one off my stone skin" there is just no equvalant in 4e to that.

No. They stopped that after 3e. Mirror Image was fun for that, you could cast it as early as 3rd-level, and IMO a better spell than Stoneskin by far Unfortunately, they went overboard with spells like Greater Invisibility, which is why they changed things. Although not entirely. The new Displacement is pretty similar; you can force an opponent to attack again (and possibly miss), and same with Shield. They're not as reliable as Stoneskin, but it's still an option.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think enhancing a non-core option makes it core. I would never consider psionics to be core, despite liking it, even if there's The Will and the Way, Complete Psionics or Psionic Power or what you backing them up.

I belive 4e said many time 'everything is core' but agree in 2e, and even 3e I assume psi was not in any game until told otherwise...today I feel it is until told otherwise.

No. I've gone through real adventures like that. Mostly in 3e though.

Yes so have I, but not THIS adventure you are compaining about. Infact it was not even hinted at...

I don't think this is much different than having 5 well-designed NPCs in a setting. What if the PCs don't like them?

I dont requare PCs to like anything... but if they choose not to use King samus the wise's help becuse they do not like him...they can't complaint he game is too hard, they made a choice to not except his help. If that means that the evil empire has an army, and they have none (having not liked the good king so wont use his army) then they may lose.

In the real world I may not like the guy in accounting, but I can't tell my Boss "I didn't want his help so I could not do my job" and I can't ecpect god to make a new way of getting what I need from him...

Are you talking about wizards or editions here?

in this case wizards in each edition.

If you're talking about editions, well, my 2nd-level fighter might have 15 hp in 2e (2d10+2, say). He died in two hits, not one.

Yes, and the same with everyone, witch lead to diffrent styles of stories then 4e.

If you're talking about a class difference, a 4e wizard is still easier to kill than anyone else. They tend to have bad ACs. All you need are bad guys to not approach from the front (where the fighter is swinging his sword).

I am going to try not to derail too much here, but with Int prime and little use of secondaries (in some builds no use) I have seen wizards with plenty of AC. They are within 20% of the best hp in the game, and in general everything takes 3-4 hits to drop.

That's a big difference, although as part of playing more than "adventure writing". You were making it seem like a bad thing though, not being able to "randomly die".

I never said anything of the kind. Maybe you are reading into it something that is not there.

No. They stopped that after 3e. Mirror Image was fun for that, you could cast it as early as 3rd-level, and IMO a better spell than Stoneskin by far Unfortunately, they went overboard with spells like Greater Invisibility, which is why they changed things. Although not entirely. The new Displacement is pretty similar; you can force an opponent to attack again (and possibly miss), and same with Shield. They're not as reliable as Stoneskin, but it's still an option.

things changed with each edition, but when you look back you see things you may miss.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yeah, it does make things harder on the players when there isn't a clear way to anticipate an NPC's abilities from metagame knowledge. But I love the way they move to gathering information in-character instead.

I don't know; in-character information gathering so often becomes "roll a die; okay, you know this and this." It's much more fun when you actually get to use your neurons and put things together. There's no way with in-character information gathering to ever get that point where people feel that a revelation was obvious and they should have known it a few levels ago.

Just not fond of the idea that player characters see things in terms of class. Much happier now that a character is a necromancer in-game, but by rules might be a wizard, a reskinned vestige pact warlock, even a swordmage or psion.

In D&D, the differences between arcane magic, divine magic and psionics are big enough that they amount to physics in game to me. Any of them could be a necromancer, but it should be pretty clear what type of magic they're really using once you meet them.

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't know; in-character information gathering so often becomes "roll a die; okay, you know this and this." It's much more fun when you actually get to use your neurons and put things together. There's no way with in-character information gathering to ever get that point where people feel that a revelation was obvious and they should have known it a few levels ago.

I disagree. You can have similar revelations, based on in-world knowledge. "Oh crap, that's what the red serpents were all about" is a recent one from a game of ours.

Whether these revelations are comparably meaningful depends on the players, of course. But players who have little interest in mechanics as the rules of physics of a game setting, and every interest in mechanics being twisted around to reflect the setting's style, are in my experience more prone to appreciate pure setting-based mysteries than metagame ones.

In D&D, the differences between arcane magic, divine magic and psionics are big enough that they amount to physics in game to me. Any of them could be a necromancer, but it should be pretty clear what type of magic they're really using once you meet them.

I mean heavy-duty reskinning. For example, the psion that is not using psionics. I played one like that -- not a necromancer, but essentially an air genasi wind-caller. All his "telekinesis" powers were reskinned as wind attacks, cyclones, pushing gales. Mechanically, he was a psion; in-character, he was a genasi with power to control winds, not drawing from the "psionic" power source. Rather, he was an air elemental, and that was pretty clear.

For some, it makes less sense if a character like that is not psionic -- for others, it makes less sense if he is.