Why won't you switch?

[I'm A Banana]

you fought drow who were equipped to the gills and, when you managed to defeat them, the loot that helped them to beat the crap out of your party went "poof".

In some ways, 4e's return to "monsters and NPCs and players all follow different rules" makes me paranoid that this will crop up again in different forms.

"No, the NPC can't teach you the Killstrike of Doom because...er...his hands fall off after the encounter. OOPS!"

I have enough faith to see it through, but we've already seen hints of a little of it. The Bugbear Strangler can use you as a human shield, you can't use anyone as a human shield because it'd be "annoying if you did it in every encounter."

But the reality of the depth of dissatisfaction in the game seems much different to me now than it did then.

I think this is absolutely true. They didn't really have to sell me much with 3e. They had me at "AC's go up, and monsters have Charisma scores."

With 4e, they've gotta sell me. I'm content with my game right now, no matter how much they tell me that I'm really not. I'm harder to impress because I know if they don't do a very good job, that I can stick with 3e and continue it forever. So they need to show me that 4e is going to do something new that I couldn't do with 3e.

They're winning me over on some of the rules design, but some elements are very dissonant, and I can poach the 4e rules design as much as I poached the SWSE rules design, and keep intact what I want to keep.

 

[AllisterH]

If AC scales with BAB, then the monster is likely to be in the same boat as monsters near the bottom end of the CR scale (orcs, gnolls, etc.) - unable to effect a foe of much higher level at all.

I guess it comes down to a question of whether or not one believes a lower level monster should be able to affect foes and if so, for how long (I personally have no problem with level 1 monster say an orc being ineffective versus a buttnaked 10th level wizard in HTH combat).

re: 2E problems and the wider gamer audience

That is what I remember as well. Throw in the fact that TSR had stopped producing material for a while due to bankruptcy near the end, it allowed a lot of us to catch our breath with respect to buying so me and my friends were generally interested (although at its height, thanks to multiple campaign worlds, TSR was EASILY producing more material per month than WOTC ever did).

3E I figure for a lot of people is "good enough" which I suspect WOTC didn't factor in.

 

[Wolfspider]

Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?

I don't remember any SKR rants.

I can still use my 1e and 2e books to provide background and adventure seeds in v3.5.

I don't think I'll even be able to use my v3.5 books in this capacity for 4e. That much is changing. The nature of the races and the classes and magic and the gods is changing so much that I doubt that anything from the old editions would make sense in 4e.

In any case, I'm sure some people were offended by the change from 2e to 3e. What does this have to do with the current edition change and people's reaction? Could this be (gasp!) a straw man?

Why, it does appear to be.

 

[Scarbonac]

Oh, yeah, in order to be on-topic:

I have yet to see anything, from the developers, WotC or the outspoken 4e proponents among the fanbase, compelling enough to pick up 4e.

It is too freaking soon for a new edition of D&D.

I have been playing some form of D&D for 27 years, and I have been having fun for most of that time, regardless of what the devs may publicly think of previous editions.

I am disgusted with what appears to me to be a blatant money-grab by releasing yearly PHB's, DMG's, etc, with classic elements spread among them like bacon bits on a salad as an inducement to buy. As someone else said, "the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Don't mistake my claiming 'X is a problem' for the claim that 'Existing Y isn't a problem'. Yes, there are existing problems.

In particular, 3.x has a problem with 'glass cannons' partially due to just what you describe. My biggest problem with this is that it makes the initiative roll too important to the combat (in a close fight, the deciding factor in how tough it was will be who went first, which effectively has the same problem as 'save or die').

But scaling AC with level doesn't really fix the problem (although some other changes in the game do address this problem like reducing the damage from individual attacks and the number of attacks in a round), because the party is still likely to be able to overwhelm the AC of any lower level monster. However, since BAB scales but not AC, at least in 3.X any lower level brute that survived the first round at least had a decent chance of doing some damage. If AC scales with BAB, then the monster is likely to be in the same boat as monsters near the bottom end of the CR scale (orcs, gnolls, etc.) - unable to effect a foe of much higher level at all.

But AC scales with level. Spells and magical items ensure this. A 1st level Fighter can't afford a Full Plate, but a 4th level Fighter can. A 8th level Fighter might have a FUll Plate +1, and a 12th level Fighter a Mithral Full Plate +2 and Gloves of Dexterity +2. (And then add all the other "Big Six" items that are there to improve the AC)

Monsters AC increases a lot. Compare higher level monsters with lower level monsters. There is no formula guiding it, and there are barely any guidelines for it, but it still happens. It's inconsistent, yes, but that just shows that it's flawed, not that the general direction of scaling AC is wrong.
And try to reuse a low level (CR) monster against a reasonably well equipped higher level group - you will notice that it's AC and attack is too low.

So far, 4E indicates that the typical advancement by level is 0.5 per level. Advancement is probably a bit improved by magical items and feats to 0.75 per level. If you compare the 3.x advancement on BAB or skills, this is definitely slower. Which would mean a monster remains viable for a longer time, not a shorter time - thanks to explicit scaling rules that are applied all over the board...

 

[Celebrim]

In some ways, 4e's return to "monsters and NPCs and players all follow different rules" makes me paranoid that this will crop up again in different forms.

"No, the NPC can't teach you the Killstrike of Doom because...er...his hands fall off after the encounter. OOPS!"

I have enough faith to see it through, but we've already seen hints of a little of it. The Bugbear Strangler can use you as a human shield, you can't use anyone as a human shield because it'd be "annoying if you did it in every encounter."

I don't think you are being paranoid.

I think this is absolutely true. They didn't really have to sell me much with 3e. They had me at "AC's go up, and monsters have Charisma scores."

Ain't that the truth.

I could go on and on for pages just listing hundreds of small details of what they had me on, but just to keep it brief, they had me at the 'Scent' ability. It doesn't sound like much, but unless you really played alot of 1st edition you probably have no idea how much heated argument lay behind this one little blip in the rules. Reading the 'scent' ability was like confirmation that some designer had had the exact same experiences as a DM that I had, and was looking for the exact same sort of solutions I'd always wanted.

So much of 4E has kinda blindsided me in a way that the 3E changes just never did. I didn't find myself reading the 3E PH, and ever going, "Huh? Where did that come from? That's not a problem I'm having!" Instead, every single thing I read in the PH or the previews, I was saying to myself, "Oh. Yeah. I so wish I'd had this in the rules back when..." It was like having common experience with Cook and Tweet. I felt like I'd gamed with them. With the stuff coming out now, its more like I'm reading about someone's 20 year old somewhat interesting homebrew that's radically departed from the more common sort of D&D and has developed its own arcane house rules. It's more like reading Dark Sun, Spelljammer, or Eberron for the first time than it is like reading a new edition. I feel the same about it as I would if Mearls was bring Defilers and warforged into the core, and making giff a core race. Might make an interesting game, but what does that have to do with the rest of us?

 

[Lackhand]

In any case, I'm sure some people were offended by the change from 2e to 3e. What does this have to do with the current edition change and people's reaction? Could this be (gasp!) a straw man?

Why, it does appear to be.

Tangent alert! Maybe it appears to be, but not all who wander are lost not all that glitters is gold.

It is a fact that there was a murmuring in the court before 3rd edition took the stage (ow, my metaphor-mixer is set on "stupid"!); it's not an argument to state that this is a similar phenomenon and therefore everyone should love 4th edition. It's more like a dismissal or an appeal to a sense of history; to question whether this is fear/dislike of the new mechanics (Or of the politics around them. Or the flavor around them. Or the people involved, timing involved, or price of fish), or a fear/dislike of change.

It's really irrelevant to how any given person feels about the new edition, and more a bit of commentary about the community at large. In other words, it's more "off-topic" than "straw-man".

I now return you to your discussion already in progress

 

[AllisterH]

I don't remember any SKR rants.

You're kidding right? SKR at the time of 3E was basically the only WOTC/TSR guy that seemed to have net access and from his spiels on rec.games.frp.dnd (yes, I remember SKR just after he became TSR's netrep), he was NEVER quiet about what he thought was wrong

I can still use my 1e and 2e books to provide background and adventure seeds in v3.5.

I don't think I'll even be able to use my v3.5 books in this capacity for 4e. That much is changing. The nature of the races and the classes and magic and the gods is changing so much that I doubt that anything from the old editions would make sense in 4e..

Not necessarily. It depends on how much work it requires I'd assume. For example, I don't see why running adventures in any edition as long as someone did the conversions of monsters for you.

In any case, I'm sure some people were offended by the change from 2e to 3e. What does this have to do with the current edition change and people's reaction? Could this be (gasp!) a straw man?

Why, it does appear to be.

Any edition change IME is going to cause people to be offended but worse to me, is an edition change that doesn't really change anything. CoC I always thought was a bad example of "edition" change for the sake of getting people to buy it again. Pre-Internet, I didn't realize there wasn't that much of a difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition CoC and yet I bought each subsequent book because I thought it was totally different...

 

[Celebrim]

Not necessarily. It depends on how much work it requires I'd assume. For example, I don't see why running adventures in any edition as long as someone did the conversions of monsters for you.

You'd think this until you tried to do the conversion. I speak from experience. I converted I3yramid (its been uploaded to ENWorld), and it was rather unexpectedly a heck of a lot of work, but then threw my hands up in dispair at trying to convert I4: White Palm Oasis as not only alot of work but really impossible to do faithfully.

CoC I always thought was a bad example of "edition" change for the sake of getting people to buy it again. Pre-Internet, I didn't realize there wasn't that much of a difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition CoC and yet I bought each subsequent book because I thought it was totally different...

Hmmm... My feeling back then was that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition CoC changed basically only in layout and in the sort of additional material they included. I never considered buying a newer edition just because a newer one had came out. I didn't really even think there was much intention of getting me to do so. I just figured that they needed to do another print run, correct some typos, and had some ideas about what they thought might improve the layout and visual attractiveness of the game to bring new players in.

I largely had the same feelings about GURPS and any other game that changed only marginally between editions. In fact, while I generally disparage 3.5 as inferior in most regards to 3.0 (in various petty ways), I feel pretty much the same about 3.5. Certainly, I didn't feel compelled to buy the 'new edition' of the game just because they printed one.

 

[AllisterH]

Hmmm... My feeling back then was that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition CoC changed basically only in layout and in the sort of additional material they included. I never considered buying a newer edition just because a newer one had came out. I didn't really even think there was much intention of getting me to do so. I just figured that they needed to do another print run, correct some typos, and had some ideas about what they thought might improve the layout and visual attractiveness of the game to bring new players in.

I largely had the same feelings about GURPS and any other game that changed only marginally between editions. In fact, while I generally disparage 3.5 as inferior in most regards to 3.0 (in various petty ways), I feel pretty much the same about 3.5. Certainly, I didn't feel compelled to buy the 'new edition' of the game just because they printed one.

I think part of my anger was that I had a sucky gamestore in that you couldn't peruse a book. If he caught you reading a book for more than a minute, he would be offended. Sorry to say, but I'm not exactly displeased I don't have to shop there anymore.

Say what you will about the big box stores, but at least there you can sit down comfortably and read a book and see what the changes were. My thinking was that if it was a new edition, it actually changed things otherwise why not just fix the typos and keep the dition number.