06/09/2009 - capturing their stunt doubles.

[Suppoko]

2nd Edition forever!

oh god yeah! back when you had to use your imagination instead of little plastic minis

[StruckingFuggle]

...I kinda like tactical positioning and distance actually mattering...

[Suppoko]

...I kinda like tactical positioning and distance actually mattering...

It is good for visual people yes I agree but that is waht the game has become, tactics and positioning. Where can I move to get the most optimal hit and where can I stand to get the most people. It is a mix between a boardgame and risk now and has lost it's sense of imiganation.

[StruckingFuggle]

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

[ampersand]

Yes, but it also makes the scope of the game smaller too. And that's my biggest problem with 4th edition. It makes it a lot harder to plan for a game or campaign when the scope of the game is narrow. With the older edition there were enough rules and examples so you could do just about any kind of campaign. 4th edition seems to be tailored for military or your basic people are in a dungeon kind of situation.

[Arc Orion]

Oh, I'm sure the scope will be made larger as more and more game books come out. Mind, I don't have the money to buy more and more, and I very much prefer creating my own material for a game, even though I tend to have difficulty FINISHING the material I create.

[Bandersnatch]

Adciv, can you explain your opinion?

First off, I have played 4th and if you don't believe me I really dont give a shit. I would never compare D&D to WoW, I have an entirely different level of distain for that mess of a game. Anyhow back to D&D the board game, quite literaly since I now move spaces and not feet. I run it because I would rather run it than play it honestly, we played 3.5 to its death where it was not fun anymore. the challenge was coming up with twink powergaming combos you had not played before and it got tired. But that is a different story. 4e sucks now becuase well first off death is a lot harder now, roll under 10 3 times while incap? DEAD have a nice day. Ever try playing the BBEG (Big bad evil guy) and you hit the "striker" (because now all classes have a role they must adhere to) only to have the bard give him temp hp on to of the ones he already has so when you do hit you hit him for like 2 actual damage? Yeah not so fun. Want to make a magic item do you? SURE thing just come on over here and wait....oh i'm sorry you can't make taht it's level 5 and your level 4. You can make a potion at level 4 that gives resist 5 to one thing for a second or two if you want? The game has become too much like a board game, everything has been dumbed down to the point that everyone from the ages 3 and up can play it. Instead of a dice I wanna get a wheel and spin a number.

"Squares" instead of "Feet" is purely a semantics issue, done to make the size of the square more realistic without making the math notably more difficult. The book says that a square is about three feet in all directions. In any case, to complain about them being called squares is really, really petty, considering the concept is exactly the same as it always has been.

No, it's not a different story that you're sick of 3.5. You should not be running a system that you don't like. DnD is not only tabletop game, and there's a myriad of options you could be playing. Try GURPS, L5R, White Wolf, Wayfarers, etc.

Are you seriously complaining that it's difficult for characters to die? Death is more difficult than in 3.5, where just getting to -10 HP would kill even an epic character. Also, a first level character is less likely to die by a greataxe crit from a random orc. Death is still quite possible, but it's more preventable than in previous editions. I fail to see how this is a bad thing, though. Where is the fun when your beloved character has a string of bad luck and dies? Why should we encourage this happening, because that only makes characters feel more disposable?

Breaking this next sentence into two points. First, roles. Roles have always existed in role playing games (har har). In 3.5, a wizard, cleric, druid, or other full caster (Who was high enough level) could be a controller, a striker, a leader, or with enough self-buffs, they could even be a defender. A fighter could be a striker or a defender. A rogue could be a striker, or maybe, perhaps, a sub-par defender if specifically built for it. 4e just actually names these and embraces them instead of letting them exist in an abstract, and by naming these they allow the players a quick understanding at a glance. Also note that many classes lean towards another role or two, but will still have a primary role that they'll perform best in.

Second, the edition is not at fault here. I first wanted to say that your encounter building is at fault here, which to a degree, I still think it is. But more importantly, you seem to be taking a "DM vs. PC" approach. Why is your intent trying to actually fight the players? Why do you see it as a competition between them and yourself? A DM is the creator of their campaign. If you were sincerely in competition with them, snuffing out the life of a PC is no trouble at all. But, that's not fun. Having the PCs go against all odds and come out victorious against a dragon, or a giant, or hell, in some campaigns even a god, that's pretty damn cool and can be a lot of fun in the process. Your goal as a DM should not be to kill the players, it should be to tell a good story. Combat as a DM is actually a bit of a farce-- You need to present a challenge without actually intending a kill. It's a tough to balance sometimes, but is rewarding when it is balanced.

The magic item bit? I'm calling bollocks on that one. You couldn't really make things above your caster level before, either. There's a lot you can do at level 4, anyway. You can actually make about half the armors, weapons, and cloaks, a good variety of consumables, a few wondrous items, and something for every slot except rings. I'd also like to say that "Brief resistance" potions are a situational thing but are very powerful when they are appropriate to use.

As for "Dumbing things down," I disagree. The game has become more accessible, yes. The game has become more forgiving of mistakes, yes. But there's honestly more choices than there were before (Although it may not seem that way at first glance), and there's rarely a "Best choice." Most, if not all choices are perfectly valid and if you pick what sounds good to you, will be fun. Which if I recall, is what a role playing game is all about.

Bitch.

[Suppoko]

Did you sign that bitch or did you call me one? IF you called me one you can pretty much fuck off and die, if you signed it letter style well ok. You just don't understand and I guess never will, it's taking the feet and turning it into spaces and all the little things that dumb down the game to a level anyone can play that annoys me. There are other things that bother me too but I will stop here because I am not going to debate why you think I should like 4th I answered your question and that's where I will leave it. Argue with someone else.

Dick

[Deacon]

Did you sign that bitch or did you call me one?

Probably, yeah.

[StruckingFuggle]

You just don't understand and I guess never will, it's taking the feet and turning it into spaces and all the little things that dumb down the game to a level anyone can play that annoys me.

Well, it's hard to understand something that makes no real sense.

[adciv]

Adciv, can you explain your opinion?

Uh. What opinion? That killing the paladin would have royally screwed us?

[Suppoko]

You just don't understand and I guess never will, it's taking the feet and turning it into spaces and all the little things that dumb down the game to a level anyone can play that annoys me.

Well, it's hard to understand something that makes no real sense.

Have you played 4th? If you have not then you won't understand. If you have and you still don't understand you are probably one of the people they "fixed" the game for.

[StruckingFuggle]

Played? No. I have read through the books, though, though I still prefer 3.5.

Way to avoid the question of how changing the terminology "dumbs the game down", though. Bravo. You're creating some sort of ironclad non-argument by welding on shields of "if you don't get it you don't get it". Seriously, even *I* could probably learn a lesson or two from you.

[Arc Orion]

Hey, has anybody here played Pathfinder? It's intended to be an evolution to the standard 3.5 rules. It's actually not too bad, but I've only had a chance to play it for one session. The nice thing is that they offer PDFs of the beta core book for free right now.

[ampersand]

The official Pathfinder book should be available in August. It looks really good.