Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
4e changeover 
26th-Apr-2008 07:01 pm
so who's planning on changing over? i've already pre-ordered my 4th edition books. i like change, i like new things, and what i've read about the new system seems pretty cool. there are other things i've seen about it that i dislike, the trimmed down skill system in particular. i suppose there's no knowing what 4e will be like until it comes out.

but while i enjoy trying new things and i've already ordered my 4e books, i really enjoy 3.5, and we have a couple ongoing 3.5 games that i don't think would benefit form trying to change rules sets in midstream. i have no doubt that we'll end up playing something in 4e when it comes out. while the group i'm in really hasn't discussed it i don't think any of us plan to stop playing 3.5 any time soon.

what about everyone else? what do you think of what you've seen about 4e and do you think you'll switch over?
26th-Apr-2008 11:23 pm (UTC)
Fall of ought-nine, when I go into grad school and away from this bass-ackward state.
26th-Apr-2008 11:24 pm (UTC)
We intend to switch over. I've been running a high level game and everything has gone haywire. Some of it is my fault, but much of it lies at the feet of the previous GM who gave everyone 30-40 point buys and amazing gear. The gear is so good that they refused an offer to let them repick their gear, any gear that they wanted, within wealth limits. Argh!

I also have many non-gamer folks in the group. 4e should be much easier for them to play. Right now, they get everything wrong.

With reports that 4e is much smoother and moves much faster, I look forward to fewer arguments and far less brokeness.

Edited at 2008-04-26 11:29 pm (UTC)
26th-Apr-2008 11:42 pm (UTC)
we play a few games. in our main ongoing game we're levels 16-17 and i know we'll be done soon. the dm mentioned we're on the second to last adventure he plans to run in this campaign. but we just started savage tide so i know we'll continue at least that 3.5 game for quite some time. once our other game ends i don't know if we're going to 4.0 or not.
27th-Apr-2008 12:10 am (UTC)
My crew will not be switching. We've gone through too many revisions and too many editions in the last 20+ years to want to give WoTC any more money than we already have.
27th-Apr-2008 09:28 am (UTC)
simple solution- download the books- that way everyone wins:)
28th-Apr-2008 12:04 am (UTC)
But that would be wrong and as a writer I could never condone that...

Wow. I almost said that with a straight face. I'm getting good at this acting thing.

Though seriously, beyond the money, it's the lack of support for FR and RL and Dragonlance that has us in the "not gonna do it" camp.
27th-Apr-2008 12:14 am (UTC)
I have also already ordered my 4th edition books. My players are currently level 10, and I think we'll be wrapping up the campaign sometime this summer. The timing couldn't be more perfect.

Two of my players are not experts, so as long as they can handle switching to a new system they should have a much easier time with 4th Edition.

If not for those two, I might not have the same excuse to change over to 4th. And I *want* to try 4th -- it looks great!
27th-Apr-2008 12:15 am (UTC)
I've ordered the books mostly on the good vibes I got from the second advertisement preview they sold (Worlds And Monsters I believe). The first advertisment (Races and Classes) wasn't very inspiring. The only good news from that was the absence of gnomes.

3.5 seems to be the last in the line of "D&D" type products. 4e looks to be pretty cool, but the changes are so sweeping that almost all the aspects of the game I associate with D&D have been removed.

The only thing I'm really dreading is to find out how integrated Forgotten Realms is into the core rules. If FR is an overpowering part of everything they release then I'm out.
27th-Apr-2008 12:41 am (UTC) - The only good news from that was the absence of gnomes
you kidding? i love gnomes. anyway from what i hear FR isn't built in in 4.0. who knows though. i'm not a fan of FR either.
27th-Apr-2008 01:11 am (UTC) - Re: The only good news from that was the absence of gnomes
Steam powered bows? Seriously, I want to play a game that doesn't seem like it was written by retards. Gnomes were fine until they became the justification for stupidity.
27th-Apr-2008 01:24 am (UTC) - Re: The only good news from that was the absence of gnomes
yeah, i don't know anything about steam powered bows. is that an FR thing? i think the 4e gnomes are supposed to be woodsy brownie type gnomes. i do like tinker type gnomes too, but yeah, i also dislike stupid stuff.
27th-Apr-2008 12:56 am (UTC)
I might switch, but I'm not holding my breath. I definitely won't preorder, as I'd rather wait and find out what we're really dealing with.

I know that to make money, a company has to sell product, and to sell product they have to keep things fresh and interesting, and find new ways to entice younger generations of buyers. But D&D as of late has grown so anime these days (Tome of Battle, I'm looking at you) that as far as I can tell, D&D now stands for Dungeons & Dragonball Z. And given the reports I've seen say we can expect ToB-style content to be the core of the new 4th edition, I think I'll be shying away from that one.

I don't have any problems with anime, I just don't need little bits of it in everything I play. I sure as hell don't need my fighter to finally acquire that "Super Sayin" Bonus feat he's always dreamt of.
27th-Apr-2008 01:39 am (UTC)
a) I never saw ToB as anime. You can easily make a martial adept character that has no flashy maneuvers -- they can just be a fighter that hits hard. Or, yes, you can go Wuxia if you really want to.

b) If I wasn't buying 4th Ed, I'd be buying another supplement. Either way, WotC gets my money. I don't think 4th Edition is as much of a money grab as people make it out to be. Yes, it invalidates my other books, but if it makes the game more fun, who cares? That's *why* I buy these books.
27th-Apr-2008 04:42 am (UTC)
A) The Tome of Battle itself cites anime as part of its inspiration, along with hong kong wire-fu movies and Asian RPGs. This is fine for "an rpg" but I personally think it detracts from the medieval high-fantasy theme that used to be D&D's mainstay, and what drew me to D&D in the first place.

B) Of course it's a money grab. I actually don't necessarily consider this a bad thing, because that's how companies stay in business. But this identical scenario has happened with every edition. They put out so many suppliments and optional rules and bonus content that the game gets slogged down, bloated and overly complex, and suddenly a new edition arrives promising to speed everything up and re-simplify.
Then as is the nature of the beast, 4th edition too will become bloated, overly complex and slogged down, and we'll see 5th Edition. And the Circle of Life continues.

I don't object to spending money on a new edition. I simply dislike the way that Wizards of the Coast's vision is taking the game. It doesn't "feel" like D&D to me anymore. It seems more like a mishmash of popculture and "things that my kids tell me are cool" with D&D slapped on the front cover.
27th-Apr-2008 01:04 am (UTC)
My group won't be switching, we have way too much invested in 3.5 stuff. Though I may pick up the main 4E book to look it over, I won't be switching my campaign over. Especially since the fear of 4.5 looms over me.
27th-Apr-2008 02:29 am (UTC)
Especially since the fear of 4.5 looms over me.

Yep, in order to keep separating regular piles of cash from our wallets, there will be upgrades, reissues, and then in 2013 or so, 5th Edition!

I am not switching over, and most of my playgroups are not either. If one does I will borrow books to play, at least until each book comes with a set of corneal lenses that recognize one wearer's DNA so that only they can see the text through those lenses. I have been looking at the Paizo Pathfinder stuff and may use a bit of that and keep expanding some homebrew I've been working on. I think 3.5 works for most stuff and its excesses can be ameliorated by a combination of playgroup maturity and sagacious rulings on the DM's part.
27th-Apr-2008 03:15 am (UTC)
I think 3.5 works for most stuff and its excesses can be ameliorated by a combination of playgroup maturity and sagacious rulings on the DM's part.

i totally agree with that. even still i do like to try new stuff and the bulk of what they've been coming out with for 3.5 has been pretty lackluster. the threat of 4.5 does bother me. i was pretty pissed off when they pulled that 3.5 BS but i learned to live with it.
28th-Apr-2008 02:04 pm (UTC)
It actually took 3.5 to get me to like 3rd Edition. I felt that 3.0 monsters just weren't as fearsome as they could be under 3.0 design rules. When they evened monsters out with character classes, I was finally sold on 3rd Edition.
28th-Apr-2008 02:12 pm (UTC)
i don't mind any of the changes they made in the change from 3.0 to 3.5, i felt most of them were justified. what bothered me was the implication that it was a planned strategic move based more on marketing than necessity. according to monte cook they planned the 3.5 changes before 3.0 even published. that burned.
28th-Apr-2008 03:16 pm (UTC)
I agree with you, totally. In fact, I recall that one of the game designers was on a podcast show in 2003 stating that it was WotC's plan to release a 3.5 - in 2005. But, book sales were lower than expected in 2003, so they accelerated the revision release. On one hand, I was glad of the changes that they implemented in 3.5, as before then, I was planning to maintain my AD&D house rule campaign and game while playing Living Greyhawk with RPGA. But when 3.5 improved their monster design rules, I was, as I said, finally sold. I didn't feel quite so burned at that time, since what they gave us WAS an improvement. What was not cool to me when WotC announced 4e was that they felt the need to assassinate the quality of their own existing game to get everyone psyched about 4th Ed. I mean, everyone agreed that AD&D 2nd Edition sucked. WotC had to actually convince everyone that 3.5 sucked enough to require themm to buy their new, improved 4th Edition. Putting down what they already had to get people to buy the new game showed me that they didn't have enough confidence in their new game. And I didn't have confidence in it as a result. I still don't.
28th-Apr-2008 03:52 am (UTC)
I have been looking at the Paizo Pathfinder stuff

I'm still not speaking to Paizo for discontinuing Dragon Magazine. Online content generally doesn't appeal to me, I'd so much rather have it in convenient dead tree format.

A good group and judicious GM fixes most problems, for sure. I recently got very, very picky about who I game with and GM for, after a stretch of unspeakably bad groups, and suddenly I'm enjoying being behind the screen again, go figure. :P
28th-Apr-2008 12:56 pm (UTC)
I'm still not speaking to Paizo for discontinuing Dragon Magazine. Online content generally doesn't appeal to me, I'd so much rather have it in convenient dead tree format.

From Wikipedia:

"On April 18, 2007, Wizards of the Coast announced that it would not be renewing Paizo's licenses for Dragon and Dungeon. Scott Rouse, Senior Brand Manager of Dungeons & Dragons at Wizards of the Coast stated, "Today the internet is where people go to get this kind of information. By moving to an online model we are using a delivery system that broadens our reach to fans around the world." Paizo published the last print editions of Dragon and Dungeon magazines for September 2007."

It's not Paizo that you should be upset with.
28th-Apr-2008 01:25 pm (UTC)
You have the poweeeeeeer!!! :-)

I prefer dead-tree material and FTF gaming, and I too have gotten more picky about my groups. One is a very close circle of friends and the others are cherry-picked from the large community here, which has peeved off a few folks. But I really enjoy playing with these groups (although we have not played for a several months for personal reasons) and I find that the group is as important as the system, quite honestly.
28th-Apr-2008 01:09 pm (UTC) - I have been looking at the Paizo Pathfinder stuff
i never looked at it until you mentioned it here. the ideas in their free alpha version look really nice. thanks for mentioning it. i think i may use some of it.
28th-Apr-2008 01:27 pm (UTC) - Re: I have been looking at the Paizo Pathfinder stuff
Yeah, I am gonna fold some of those ideas into the homebrew I am working up. I think that any decent GM can make 3.5 work for them with some adjustment and some player input. That is certainly the direction I'm going in. . . .
28th-Apr-2008 01:39 pm (UTC) - Re: I have been looking at the Paizo Pathfinder stuff
to be honest i don't really have any problems with 3.5 other than some of the weirder combat options that require several opposed rolls (i'm looking at you, grapple) but i still think 4.0 looks pretty cool. i know my group will try it, i don't know if we'll move to it exclusively or not.
29th-Apr-2008 03:56 am (UTC) - Re: I have been looking at the Paizo Pathfinder stuff
Having experienced game systems like King Arthur Pendragon, I not only don't have problems with opposed resolutions, I am probably one of the very few people on the planet who actually thinks such opposed resolutions are sensible. I have never had an immense problem with the 3.x grapple concept or Hide vs. Spot, or Move Silently vs. Listen, or anything like that. I can't believe people actually think that's too much (although I understand how it's possible to see it as too complicated). All I can say is that if you think 3.x grapple was awful, take a look back at the late, great Mr. Gygax's rules for grappling in the 1st Edition DMG. I never used it because I needed to account for so much to resolve one lousy attempt to grapple or pin an opponent. The current grappling rules are very effective at what they do. The only complaint I might ever have about 3.x grappling is that the mechanics don't support submission moves like armbars, kneebars, and guillotine chokes (can you tell I'm a fan of mixed martial arts?) - unless you might cover it as a catchall in the pin attempt.
27th-Apr-2008 03:19 am (UTC)
Sadly, I only research 4e today.

My last D&D group was a college group. We get together every so often now that we've graduated (I sadly grew into a very busy social life, so haven't bothered finding a local group in a metropolis). Today, I finally looked about.

We're all on the verge of 21 (after four years of college playing) and reconvening next weekend. Apparently, the DM is working the spellplague into the ending of our campaign and was upset that I figured out his plan.

Le sigh, as a person who was the only one to ever embrace mages, I worry.

I have no plans on buying new books any time soon. I want to see where everything heads first. Too new. Too much hassle for something I have memories tied to, but no current interest.

Edited at 2008-04-27 03:20 am (UTC)
27th-Apr-2008 05:31 am (UTC)
No interest in 4e. I don't really try to think of reasons NOT to switch, but of reasons why I SHOULD switch.

I'd consider changing if the revision made it INSANELY easier to play (like our switch from Cyberpunk 2020 to GURPS), or if I just didn't think there was any interesting 3.5 material left to explore. Neither of those is true yet, so I can't justify the switch.
28th-Apr-2008 01:30 pm (UTC)
I like the way you put that. I think that is a factor for me as well.

I just started looking at GURPS, partly for reference material, and downloaded the free Lite version. It is. . . ridiculously simple, yet easy to elaborate. I am thinking of using it for a non-fantasy setting RPG because it might fit better than d20 Modern. Who knew? :-)
27th-Apr-2008 08:06 am (UTC)
i've got the books on pre-order. Out of curiosity and being a general D&D fan more than anythign else. I'll read them, and if I like them I'll switch. But chances are, I'll do what I have alwasys done - use a cobbled together system taking aspects from various editions.

People shouldn;t see it as their investment in 3.5e going to waste. the books are still sources for ideas, and chances are there'll be conversions online in the not too distant future
27th-Apr-2008 08:10 am (UTC)
Agreed, and the beauty of the open gaming concept means that other companies can still produce compatible materials even when Wizards has abandoned the project. This wasn't the case in previous editions.
27th-Apr-2008 11:59 am (UTC)
I like what I've seen of the new system. I have some misgivings which are largely the "are fighters really that broken, and when's 4.5 gonna come out?" listed above. I really like that you can start actually fighting big interesting stuff early, which is weird because the thing I dislike most is that it's theoretically rather difficult to kill PCs. A similar paradox is that I love tactical gaming, but with 4e there seems to be so much stress on having to play with miniatures and a map (or, having it be so integral to the game that it's really convenient) - and I'd much rather go free form.

Plus the art I've seen for the Monster Manual largely just doesn't do anything for me and having really cool monsters is half of why I like D&D.

4e sounds really nice but it also doesn't sound like D&D. It sounds like D&D the way GURPS or Iron Heroes sounds like D&D. I like the weird feats-skills-special ability/spell like balance 3.5 has. I know my Sunday group is going to keep doing 3.5, and my alternate game is so new I'm not sure whether I'll switch over or no.
27th-Apr-2008 12:01 pm (UTC)
For the group I DM, we're sticking to 3.5 and compatible supplements. I guess that means we might experiment with Paizo's Pathfinder materials, too. I don't totally object to buying new product at this time. I am simply resistant to some of the rule changes that 4e will bring to my game table and how they will alter the flavor of my setting, which is more purely medieval and low fantasy.

My wife plays with a group whose DM is running playtests of the 4th edition rules (even at this late stage), although she has not been in one of the playtest games. The DM has introduced elements of 4th Edition into the campaign she is playing, and if I run across a convention that works for my campaign, I might adopt it as a house rule, but for the most part, 4th Edition and the games I DM don't mix.

That said, if my wife picks up the 4th Edition rulebooks to play in another campaign and the opportunity arises to give the rules a whirl, I might try as a player, but I doubt I will DM 4th Edition for a very long time.
27th-Apr-2008 08:22 pm (UTC)
We're not planning to switch for the foreseeable future. 3.5 works well for us, we can adjust for its quirks, and just don't see a compelling reason to switch now.
27th-Apr-2008 09:46 pm (UTC)
I will not be switching. Not only do I not see a reason to do, I've tried a demo of the game and I think the mechanics are lacking. As in lacking in reason. In my mind, fighters have become useless against anything except "minions", spell casting has been reduced to varying flavors of damage, and some of the powers (such as the Paladin's one "mark" power) make no sense (he takes damage for not attacking me? Huh?)

So it's 3.5 with house-rules for me. If I do switch from D&D it might be to that new version of HackMaster in the works...
28th-Apr-2008 03:27 am (UTC)
I had this conversation with a fellow this weekend, and it was a little awkward, because he's one of the people at WotC who's worked on the new systems.

I'm sure that 4th Edition is going to be a nice game, the same way GURPS and Ars Magica are nice games. But I'm going to stick with the system that accomdates the 50+ hardcover books I've purchased over the last three or four years.
28th-Apr-2008 04:20 am (UTC)
I don't play D&D all that often anymore, but I expect I'll pick up the PHB in fairly short order. Everything I've heard about the new system sounds great.
28th-Apr-2008 11:03 pm (UTC)
I've just started looking into the 4th edition and I have to say that I'm horrified at what I've seen so far.

It seems to me that WotC has tried to bring the D&D RPG closer to the D&D miniature game by simplifying everything.

If the 4th edition really is just a set of glorified miniature rules then I will not even consider switching.
29th-Apr-2008 09:50 pm (UTC)
If I ever got the urge to play 4e, I could jut log into world of warcraft.

I dislike how 4e seems to be explicitly not compatible with campaigns set in the default 1e/2e/3e universe, what with the planes being entirely different. I dislike the nebulous 'encounter based duration' mechanic, and the concept that the ideal combat situation for everyone from level 1 up is mowing down rooms full of mooks. Mooks that, of course, have no abilities or interests outside of what they can do in four combat rounds.

I hate that rust monsters debuff your metal weapons instead of destroying them, and that lasting consequences for anything are being shunned.

I hate that Tieflings are not only a core race, and not only totally different from existing tieflings in all but name(different appearance, different appearance, different background- you couldn't take a 3.5 tiefling and move it to 4e with the same backstory if you still call it a tiefling!), but Wizards have stated that in the new core setting, anti tiefling discrimination for their true-breeding curse of creeping evil is a non issue. Because I know I'd have no problem with Damien marrying my kid and having 'usually NE' babies.

Speaking of alignment, the people writing for WOTC these days don't even seem to understand the concept. Given how half my last gaming group didn't, that's not as strange as it once might have been, but these are the damn people who should be explaining it.
This page was loaded Aug 22nd 2017, 8:51 pm GMT.