4Edition. Do you like it?

[alhoon]

Well, 3rd edition feeled far more realistic to me.

As for the Vancian system, well it's just how magic works in a fantasy world. 4E rules for magic are easily explained as such, how magic works.

On the part of "There's an opening once per encounter for you to hit him with the X combo that throws him back a few steps." or "Once per encounter, you're quite lucky that you manage to maneuver through enemies (15') unmolested before you strike the enemy. But only once!"
That's weird.

[brilliantlight]

True enough. Fighter powers should be weaker ones at will, or once every so many rounds.

[Zettaijin]

Maybe we'll just have to accept that a guy with a sword just can't compete with a guy who can somehow summon and control vastly powerful elemental manifestations and freely manipulate numerous aspects of the surrounding material world to various degrees.

Only magic can trump magic, just as Godfrey Ho taught us that only a ninja can defeat a ninja...

[Mortavius]

Very true with the Fighter Jester. I would say both your points are correct; other classes play a lot more like the Fighter and the Fighter has been given a lot more versatility.

I don't have a problem with this. As was mentioned, I think if they had less powers and more that scaled people might have complained that there wasn't *enough* different things to do. I don't know, that's just speculation.

I also suspect that they left out a lot of the more complicated things that they could have put in, in the sake of easing players into the new edition. The designers have said almost as much, so there's some evidence to back that up. Does that make it okay? Well to veterans like myself, it may be irksome. But to new players, and new people joining the game? I bet it's a great thing. There's still enough going on in basic 4E that it can take awhile to grasp.

I wouldn't completely overlook all the attacks as just attack, damage, next though. A lot of characters now have effects (like charm, stun, etc.) built into their attacks, whereas before spellcasters (primarily) had to use a specific spell for this, and if the monster saved, that was it.

I've found that 4E pays so much more attention to balance now, that it doesn't readily let you do things that previous editions could. For example, it recognizes that if you cast Domination on a monster, you're suddenly changing the dynamics of the fight quite a bit and it doesn't just let you go nuts like that anymore.

I think this is a good thing, but I can see the other side of the fence where people would not.

I also very much agree with Igor's assessment of the role-playing aspects of 4E. As I've said before; 4E is as much a role-playing game as your group *wants* it to be a role-playing game.

[Joël of the FoS]

Well, 3rd edition feeled far more realistic to me.

As for the Vancian system, well it's just how magic works in a fantasy world. 4E rules for magic are easily explained as such, how magic works.

On the part of "There's an opening once per encounter for you to hit him with the X combo that throws him back a few steps." or "Once per encounter, you're quite lucky that you manage to maneuver through enemies (15') unmolested before you strike the enemy. But only once!"
That's weird.

That’s the main point that keeps me away from 4e. I’ve never wrote here what I think about it for a long time, so here’s my thoughts on 4e.

It seems like a balanced, fun to play game, I won’t argue on that. Many sensible people seem to enjoy it. It is a worthwhile game. I'd love to test it but do not know anybody playing it.

But my main obstacle is that 4e is too far (my taste) from traditional D&D I started playing nearly 30 years from now. The feel from 1e to 2e was the same, but it got better. From 2e to 3e/3.5, it was again the same, but better.

For me 4e is another game system. It is much different from D&D we learned so I know what alhoon means when he says 3rd edition feeled far more realistic to me.

I think it is much different now, where every classes are still specialized, but in the end seems to do much of the same. I hate the idea of healing surges, I think it’s silly (again, my taste, and that’s from a grognard). I’m under the impression (from critics I read) you have a smaller variety of options to do than in 3.5, so in the end you often make the same move, or use the same ability over and over.

4e seems pretty much simplified to play and easy to learn, compared to 3.5. That’s an impressive design feat, bravo to the designers. However, that’s precisely what I like in 3.5, that the possibilities are near endless and complicated.

And with Pathfinder 3.75 coming out, I feel the 3e era is still improving, solving problems, so it keeps my interest high.

Joël

[Igor the Henchman]

That’s the main point that keeps me away from 4e. I’ve never wrote here what I think about it for a long time, so here’s my thoughts on 4e.

It seems like a balanced, fun to play game, I won’t argue on that. Many sensible people seem to enjoy it. It is a worthwhile game. I'd love to test it but do not know anybody playing it.

But my main obstacle is that 4e is too far (my taste) from traditional D&D I started playing nearly 30 years from now. The feel from 1e to 2e was the same, but it got better. From 2e to 3e/3.5, it was again the same, but better.

For me 4e is another game system. It is much different from D&D we learned so I know what alhoon means when he says 3rd edition feeled far more realistic to me.

I think it is much different now, where every classes are still specialized, but in the end seems to do much of the same. I hate the idea of healing surges, I think it’s silly (again, my taste, and that’s from a grognard). I’m under the impression (from critics I read) you have a smaller variety of options to do than in 3.5, so in the end you often make the same move, or use the same ability over and over.

4e seems pretty much simplified to play and easy to learn, compared to 3.5. That’s an impressive design feat, bravo to the designers. However, that’s precisely what I like in 3.5, that the possibilities are near endless and complicated.

And with Pathfinder 3.75 coming out, I feel the 3e era is still improving, solving problems, so it keeps my interest high.

Joël

This is a heartwarming statement, and so is Joel's position towards the game. This perfectly nails down the views of the 4E opposition I actually admire: choosing a system not out of sentiment of what D&D "should" be like, but through keen understanding of one's personal tastes.

This is my second time witnessing an edition change, and this time around I see a lot more critical awareness in the gaming community. Compared to ten years ago, more people are realizing that an out-of-print game (or campaign setting) doesn't lose its value; that much can still be done with games and worlds that were discarded by their parent publishers. I may not be a Pathfinder "fan", but I gotta admire the spirit of it. It is the same sentiment that keeps me DMing Ravenloft for my group.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

This is my second time witnessing an edition change, and this time around I see a lot more critical awareness in the gaming community. Compared to ten years ago, more people are realizing that an out-of-print game (or campaign setting) doesn't lose its value;

I think that you can partially thank WotC themselves for that, in a backwards sort of way: the d20 OGL makes such things possible in a way that would've been highly illegal last time around. Remember back then that that 3rd party publishers couldn't print D&D-compatible products even when 2e was thriving, much less after the edition change.

I know personally, when 3e came out, I said, no way, no how will I consider switching. Then I grudgingly gave it a try and loved it. Having learned from that, I gave 4e me every oppotunity to win me over, if it could. It didn't quite do that, so I'm happy that my favorite (thus far) edition of the game happened to coincide with my favorite (thus far) licensing policy from the company that made it, and stuff like Pathfinder can exist.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Though now that "prestidigitation" is an at-will, wizard players can go crazy producing fun magic effects during roleplaying encounters.

Note that this is true in Pathfinder as well, and I wholeheartedly approve. (All 0-level spells in pathfinder are usable unlimited times per day. And yes, they removed cure minor wounds from existence.)

[Igor the Henchman]

Though now that "prestidigitation" is an at-will, wizard players can go crazy producing fun magic effects during roleplaying encounters.

Note that this is true in Pathfinder as well, and I wholeheartedly approve. (All 0-level spells in pathfinder are usable unlimited times per day. And yes, they removed cure minor wounds from existence.)

Good!

[alhoon]

From what I have seen from Pathfinder, it's not to my taste as much as 3.5 was. I won't buy it because from people that use it at the time, it seems like a 3.5 edition remake, that just wants us to buy yet again almost the same books.

I mean, Starwars Saga d20 rules seem different than 3.5 edition rules to me, and although I haven't the books but I read it and played it once, the system seemed smooth, balanced, fun and still was 3.5 compatible.

Pathfinder just seemed more of the same to me. Many of the ideas seem like good ideas, but frankly, not worth my money. After all, that's why friends are! A lot of my players and PCs are going to buy it since they seem to prefer it from 3.5, mostly for the small things, like the Fighter gets specialization and weapon focus for free, the domains etc.

[Jester of the FoS]

I was really anti-Pathfinder early on. It set-out to make a backwards compatible sub-edition (essentially, tweak the game as much as they did between 3.0 and 3.5), but retain some of the built-in weaknesses of 3e. It touched the PC side of things but avoided the DM/Monster side, with the CR/Level Adjustment system being the wonkiest and most broken part of the game.

But after being unimpressed by 4e (which I really wanted to like and defended for so long) Pathfinder drew me in. They fixed alot of problematic mechanics (grapple, improved trip) and tweaked all the classes.
I doubt they fixed every problem but they had the best idea for testing the game I've seen (free and purchasable copy of the beta rules allowing mass testing and feedback for almost half a year). 4e could have really, really used the same level of feedback.

If I ever DM another 3e game it will be Pathfinder (I'm playing in 2 heavily modified 3e games, tweaked for more realism, less magic, and more grittiness and DMing a 4e game).

[alhoon]

If I ever DM another 3e game it will be Pathfinder (I'm playing in 2 heavily modified 3e games, tweaked for more realism, less magic, and more grittiness and DMing a 4e game).

Using the innate thought reading of alhoons, I break down Jester's post for you less talented, subillithid, destined-to-be-slaves species that cannot even read another person's mind:

"I don't like 4E! But hey, it's so easy to run that I may never DM another 3e game. Obviously as a player I wouldn't consider playing 4th since I want more realism and less magic."

BTW, I feel the same. I don't like playing 4E (for different reasons) but DMing it is sooo vastly easier.

[Jester of the FoS]

I prefer running and playing 3e, but prefer the updates of Pathfinder and the changes from seven years of feedback.

I DM 4e currently because the group is 5/6th new players whose only prior gaming experience has been Warcraft and Pathfinder had not been released yet. I felt getting them to buy used books was a poor option and convincing them that "Pathfinder Beta" = "Dungeons & Dragons" was more work for little reward.
Plus the Character Builder made it super-easy for them to muddle-up a character without reading a 300pg book.

[alhoon]

You can't lie to a mind reader Jester.

As a note, in 4E benefits is that it is vastly easier to just play. You get in the house, the others give you a briefing for 30 mins or so and you make a character from Character builder. That's it.
You may not be the best tactician at first, but still you would be playing at the same point that you would be just choosing your class in 3rd edition.

[Jester of the FoS]

On a similar topic, the brick-like Pathfinder book has been released. 500+ paged, so it's 200 pages more than the 4e PHB and only $15 more. Sadly, it doesn't have the monster rules of the original, but those are coming in their own book with updated monsters. Yay!