D&D 4E Would 4E be Popular?

[ptolemy18]

It would have to called 3e and be fully compatible with the magic level toned down and a classless system. Or it would have to be the second coming.

"Magic level toned down"... do you mean a more "low-magic" setting overall, or do you mean spellcasting characters are too powerful? Or both? I think spellcasting characters are just about right in power level.

"Classless system"... well, then it just wouldn't be D&D. People generally like classes; look at most online RPGs. I like skill-based RPGs too -- they have their own merits -- but for D&D, "if it ain't broken..."

Jason

 

[Ranger REG]

P.S. And 4th edition has to bring back 3.0 Damage Resistance, of course. Because I'll never shut up about it.

Then we have to equate which "weapon +X" to certain material, including silver, cold iron, and adamantine?

Or do you want more powerful monsters to be more resistant to low-magic weapon/item?

 

[ptolemy18]

I think adding in more of a dependence on minis wouldn't be the way to go either. I really hope that WotC doesn't go this route. Not everyone that buys the minis roleplay (at a couple of the gaming shops I frequent, there are lots of minis buyers that only play the skirmish game). It won't bother me that much if they go that route, but they will faction the fanbase even further.

What I did was buy a bunch of miscellaneous minis (about $100 worth) and now I just use them interchangeably for everything my characters encounter. As long as I have a few Larges, a few Smalls, and a lot of Mediums (oh yeah, and some Huges), I'm happy. I wonder if any other DMs have done the same.

I do think the quality and look of the pre-painted D&D minis is good, and I wouldn't mind having lots of minis that were specific to the monsters I wanted to use in the game, but there's this whole spending money thing... :/ And plus the disadvantage of the collectible minis is, it's virtually impossible to get the "specific" monsters I want, unless I start buying them from re-sellers.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

Then we have to equate which "weapon +X" to certain material, including silver, cold iron, and adamantine?

Or do you want more powerful monsters to be more resistant to low-magic weapon/item?

The latter, pretty much. I just like how it was in 3.0 and earlier editions. I think having higher "+" weapons should be like your passport to the successive "big leagues" of power-escalation. And if you don't have a high-enough "+" weapon, you have to get creative, or run for your life.

I don't mind the idea of adamantine, cold iron, silver, etc., but I think these should be handled with specific vulnerability rules instead of replacing the 3.0 x/+x DR.

But I shouldn't hijack this thread with my DR ranting...

 

[ptolemy18]

It took about three years for the designers to find most of the oddities in 3e, and then they fixed many of them for 3.5e. Savage Species was a real wake-up call for the D&D designers, as they suddenly realised how complicated the monster design rules had become - and how clumsy the weapon size rules in 3e were. Both got redesigns in 3.5e.

I have to disagree about the weapons size rules.

How often do PCs really play "Huge" or "Tiny" characters? Only in some fairly weird campaigns, I think. The weapons for such irregular-size monsters can be created on the fly by DMs, or presented in their own equipment list of weird-sized, giant weapons. (Frankly, it would have been interesting to see a special equipment list for Huge and larger weapons... "Mammoth Sword", "Tree Trunk", etc.? )

I don't think the system needed to be changed to accomodate "Small" Greatswords and so on. It's simply counter-intuitive... shouldn't a "Small" Greatsword just be the same as a longsword? If a gnome wants to use a "Small" Greatsword, shouldn't they just wield a longsword two-handed? The 3.0 idea that a Medium creature needs two hands to wield a Large weapon, and so on, was logical enough. The new weapons size rules seem to be there only to deal with special situations (like weapons getting enlarged/shrunk), and are cumbersome when applied to Small- and Medium-sized characters, i.e., to the majority of campaigns.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

And 3.5 being released 3 years after 3.0 was not an unpopular decision? It was, it was very unpopular, until it came out. Then folks bought it anyways.

Yeah, but I didn't buy three copies of the Player's Handbook for players to pass around, like I did for 3.0. (Some mere months before 3.5 was announced! What a lucky coincidence! :/ )

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

Well, I can't counter you any way other than anecdotally (well I could... I think that sales figure show 3e to be something of a hit... ), but after 3e, the local gaming mailing list went from daily D&D bash fest to a place that almost universally talks about D&D, and the local gaming scene went from impossible to find D&D players to having to turn players away.

I agree. I like 3.0 a lot (and 3.5 to a lesser extent)... despite all my constant complaining and whining, I admit they're the best version(s) of D&D ever.

I've met a few players, though (like the players in my current campaign) who just can't get the old editions out of their head and can't wrap their heads around "Feats" and 5-foot squares and stuff. Too "rules-y" for them... Oh well, their loss.

Jason

 

[MonsterMash]

Conan gets around this by having the characters get all kinds of insane class- and level-buffs, and includes a campaign policy of "treasure and equipment can be summarily yoinked by the GM at any time." That suits me and my tastes better, but that's because I'm a Howard fan ... I can easily see Joe Gamer saying, "What? After all the work I went through to get that Atlantean Sword, it got lost in a shipwreck??? Why did I bother to fight the giant gila monster, then?"

-The Gneech

Why? Because it was there!

You've managed to sum up why I'm enjoying playing Conan.

 

[MonsterMash]

Personally I'd be disapointed to see a 4e before the end of this decade and wouldn't be looking to buy it.

I think that high sales on miniatures could help prevent a quick release of 4e as it'd give WotC and Hasbro the returns they're looking for.

 

[MerricB]

Personally I'd be disapointed to see a 4e before the end of this decade and wouldn't be looking to buy it.

I think that high sales on miniatures could help prevent a quick release of 4e as it'd give WotC and Hasbro the returns they're looking for.

One of the miniatures players has brought up the point that if 4e redesigned the combat system, it would also necessitate the redesign of the DDM system - and that's not a good idea for a collectible game (see MageKnight).

Cheers!