Why Changes were made in 4e

[Raven Crowking]

I really think they made each choice in an attempt to "better" the game.

I think the incompatibility with OGL is, what we'd call, an "fortunate" accident.

So, do you think that the annoyingname monsters were accidentally different from the OGL names as well?

 

[Raven Crowking]

"reboot" D&D 3 party support to what it was supposed to be: modules and monster books.

BTW, this is simply incorrect. The intentions of the OGL were clearly stated at the time of release, and it was not to have third party support be merely modules and monster books. Indeed, it was stated directly that part of the intent was to proliferate d20-based games so that the core mechanics would be familiar to a greater number of potential players, because, to paraphrase, "All roads lead to D&D".

If anything, the GSL is an attempt to reboot third parties to something different than was intended with the OGL. What 3pp did with the OGL was exactly what WotC told them to do, in no uncertain terms.


RC

 

[drothgery]

Whenever I played a Magic User I always went in with dagger or staff when the spells were dry. Darts if I felt it was too much danger to get in close. I never really felt useless, but I seem to be in the minority.

I dunno. In 2e I usually started campaigns playing a thief, started to feel useless about 7th level or so (fighters were much more effective in melee; wizards were better at stealth), lost my character sheet over summer break (I was in college at the time), and built a wizard.

In 3.x, a low-level wizard with a decent dex can be reasonably effective with a crossbow when he's out of spells, but that's not particularly wizard-esque, and he'll only drop feats on point-blank shot and precise shot (which you need for decent missile combat skill in the long run) if he's planning on doing a lot with ray spells, and I did do some of that.

 

[Voadam]

My 2e wizard started a human fighter with good stats, went to 3rd level then switch classed to mage. At first like most low level mages his spells ran out quick and it came time to pull out weapons, but he was decent at it and had some hp to make it survivable when he soloed.

 

[Cadfan]

So, do you think that the annoyingname monsters were accidentally different from the OGL names as well?

I think they intentionally added adjectives to everything because they learned a lesson from Magic the Gathering about naming conventions in an environment in which you need multiple specific versions of the same general type of monster.

 

[The Little Raven]

I really think they made each choice in an attempt to "better" the game.

I view 4e as a kinda of "Greatest Hits of D&D" or an Ultimate Marvel take on D&D and its long and convoluted stories. There were elements in previous editions I didn't care for, but with the way they redid them in 4e, I really do like them. Like the distinction between demons and devils... previously, it was just a matter of Law and Chaos clashing, and Law/Chaos is not something that I personally vibe with. Now, with devils being the angelic betrayers and demons being elementals turned entropic, I find them much more flavorful and interesting, and have been using them extensively in my games.

 

[Voadam]

I like the condensing of the skill lists and the ease to become good at a non archetypal skill.

3e skills were very fiddly with cross class skills being double cost with half the class skill maximums. The lists were long and there were specific rewards for using points to get one rank to access certain skills, five ranks for synergies, enough to hit certain DCs (concentration for defensive casting and tumble to avoid AoOs), enough to hit certain prereqs (prcs), or maxing out certain ones (opposed role such as spot and listen versus hide and move silent). Skill points were few while the lists are long and the math gets messy if you multiclass. Choices had to be made at every level and strategies figured out to achieve minor mechanical issues.

4e does a good job of simplifying the system while still allowing easy customization.

 

[Mistwell]

I think Vancian magic could have been done well if it had been more Vancian.

Having just finished the book, I strongly disagree.

People talk about Vance's system like it was mostly about memorization of spells.

From my read, it was not. It was mostly about KILLING ANYTHING WITH MAGIC. Vance spells, 75% of the time in the book, either kill you outright (or the equivalent) or are avoided or blocked outright. Almost no wiggle room. Almost no utility. Vancian magic was mostly save or die.

In Vance's Dying Earth books, a wizard could essentially cast a handfull of death spells per day. And it was never dozens and dozens of spells...always a handfull at best, and usually only 3-4. Most were various gruesome ways of killing someone (teleporting them miles below into the earth, filling them with holes from multiple laser shots, etc...). A few were utility, like flight or invisibility (Phandaal's Mantle of Stealth) or time stop (Spell of the Slow Hour) or endurance (The Charm of Untiring Nourishment). Some others seemed like utility were actually similar to auto-kill, like summon something to fly a person across the planet (which in D&D would be nearly the equivalent of death, if a character is separated by a planet's width of space from the party and having no way to return).

So no, we do not want a system MORE like Vance's system. Vancian wizards are godlike beings that could slay any Fighter on a whim with a single spell if that Fighter does not have protection from magic.

 

[Voadam]

The alignment system reminds me of WFRP 1e where the continuum was:
Chaos->Evil->Neutral->Good->Law.

Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Still leaves open issues such as whether something is LG or G or CE or E or should be unaligned. You can still play the game of aligning fiction characters (is Voldemort E or CE)

The decoupling of alignment from mechanical effects however is IMO fantastic and makes the still existing alignment definition issues largely irrelevant.

 

[Minicol]

Honestly, at this stage, I don't think any explanation would make a difference to my opinions, or anybody in my group.