PDA

View Full Version : 4th edition D&D


RedHawke
06-20-2008, 03:21 AM
Thread split from Second expansion for Neverwinter Nights 2 (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=186327) thread since the discussion got long enough. Besides, D&D deserves its own thread. :D --Jae

4th ed butchered all that was good about the Forgotten Realms when they destroyed everything east of the Sword Coast (who needs original settings like Thay and Rashemen when you can have an overused medieval sword-and-sorcery one?) so that doesn't sound good. Hmm, maybe they'll kill off Elminster or Drizzt...? I can dream, can't I? I'd so love to see them dead. Serves them right, intruding in BG2 like they did.
:eyeraise: WTF???

I so hate WOTC and what they are doing to D&D... :fist:

AD&D 2e forever!!!

Emperor Devon
06-20-2008, 04:20 AM
:eyeraise: WTF???

Ya, they butchered pretty much all of it. Started when Tyr killed Helm because Cyric told him a lie. Somewhere along those lines the latter wound up imprisoned and Mystra got killed. Then without her to control the Weave everything went to Hell as a 'Spellplague' drove all existing sorcerers/wizards mad, and made them destroy as much as they possibly could before falling over dead. Apparently while that extended to Szass Tam and all the Red Wizards, Elminster lived through it (never mind the fact that being a Chosen of Mystra his soul was fused with the Weave that just went haywire...)

Oh, reality itself also got displaced or something. The Underdark collapsed, Thay was smashed to bits, and Rashemen also probably went to heck with how its Witches all went insane. Then the descendants of Netheril came back from the Plane of Shadows and set up a new empire in the desert. Some race called the 'dragonborn' also got shunted from another dimension into the Realms.

Oh, none of it affected the Sword Coast. It's speculated it was from the leftover magic of Illefarn but WotC didn't even give a concrete reason as to why. And a recent Google search indicates not only Elminster but also Drizzt lived through it all. :(

Of course, the ways in which the campaign setting was butchered aside, 4e as a system sucks (what good ideas it has can be carried over to 3.5e/NWN2 anyway.)

AD&D 2e forever!!!

Add 1.5 to that and you'll have gotten it right. >_>

Achilles
06-20-2008, 04:23 AM
Wow, ED just geeked all over himself. :(

Emperor Devon
06-20-2008, 04:34 AM
I'm far from high over these new changes.

Bee Hoon
06-20-2008, 06:41 AM
Bard is no longer a core class, hence the 4th edition PHAILS.

RedHawke
06-21-2008, 03:00 AM
Add 1.5 to that and you'll have gotten it right. >_>
I thought you had taste Dev... :xp: D20 D&D sucks! All D20 D&D!

Emperor Devon
06-21-2008, 03:45 AM
I thought you had taste Dev... :xp: D20 D&D sucks!

Oh but I do. <_< Epic levels are broken enough using 20-sided dice (virtual or no). They'd be entirely infeasible with one that has 6.

And THAC0 is oh so needlessly esoteric. :/ Bigger numbers are supposed to mean more of something, blast it all.

Jae Onasi
06-21-2008, 12:03 PM
Of course, the ways in which the campaign setting was butchered aside, 4e as a system sucks (what good ideas it has can be carried over to 3.5e/NWN2 anyway.)You haven't even read the PH yet--how the heck do you know? From what I've read so far, they've messed with the alignment system (trying to make choosing good/evil/law/chaos more meaningful), streamlined the skill system (thank God), added Dragonborn and tieflings as races and got rid of half-orc and gnome, no more bard or sorcerer class (let's face it, sorcerer and wizard did pretty much the same thing), and added warlock and another class I'll edit in in a little while. They brought death saving throws back (but not quite the same as 2e), increased the types of actions you can take in a round, and added in 'healing surges'. Reflex, fortitude, and will saves continue with some slight alterations They've also dramatically increased the power of hitting/damaging at higher levels, because now half your level is also added to the to hit/dmg mods. I'm assuming such changes will also be made to the monsters.... They did not get rid of attacks of opportunity to my dismay, but I'm hoping they've made it less stupid and unwieldly. I have not looked at the feats/skills section itself yet or the equipment and magic sections so I don't have enough to comment on in those parts yet.

Dev--THAC0 you just have to think backwards with instead of forwards in terms of math.

Astor
06-21-2008, 04:44 PM
I had a quick look at the 4e handbook in the book store today... looks interesting. Shame none of my friends are even willing to try it.

Can anyone tell me if its any similar to Wizards' Star Wars SAGA books? I've had great experiences both playing and running with them, and if 4th is any similar I might buy it and see if I can tempt my group into a good old fashioned dungeon crawl. :lol:

Plus, as with SAGA, I can actually collect this set from the start, as opposed to getting into D&D late (only about 2 years ago), and finding there's 50+ books available...

Emperor Devon
06-21-2008, 09:20 PM
You haven't even read the PH yet--how the heck do you know?

I'd ask the same thing. What put you in a position to know that? I've read the PH, actually, and I've been far from impressed with what I've seen.

they've messed with the alignment system (trying to make choosing good/evil/law/chaos more meaningful),

No, they simply kept the original premise of the good/evil/law/chaos axis but lumped together alignments they thought were similar enough. Which is rubbish, there's quite a difference between LE and NE characters. Defining both of them as 'tyranny and hatred' is stupid.

streamlined the skill system (thank God),

Never found any faults in the system myself. While I'm sure it's extremely tedious to assign skills to monsters, I thankfully don't have to put up with that for NWN2. <_<

added Dragonborn and tieflings as races

On the latter, already existed in NWN2, and a quick search on the SRD gave me its racial abilities/stats so nothing new there.

On the dragonborn, the name is terrible and so is the premise of the race. Half-dragons are as diluted as I'd like to see their parents get.

and got rid of half-orc and gnome

No complaints there, but something entirely possible to also do in 3.5.

no more bard or sorcerer class

No barbarians, druids, or the heaps of other (prestige) classes available in 3.5 either.

(let's face it, sorcerer and wizard did pretty much the same thing),

Not really. Wizards became experts in practically dozens of skills, had great versatility in their spell selections, and were proficient with creating items or metamagic-ing their existing spells. Sorcerors had few skills, more spell slots, less spells and casted them spontaneously. That's a fair amount of difference.

It wasn't simply mechanics that they differed in, either. Flavor-wise wizards were portrayed as studious and bookish, while sorcerers were impulsive and learned their spells through intuition. As seen with Sand and Qara, there'd often be unfriendly rivalries between the two of them for it.

I dislike 4e's tendency to dismiss anything not immediately related to a dungeon crawl as irrelevant. The attitude they probably had toward wizards/sorcerers during design (they do a close enough thing combat-wise, let's just snip one of them) is just another instance of this.

and added warlock

Also was already in NWN2. A quick Google search said the class from Complete Arcane, so that's not anything new.

They brought death saving throws back (but not quite the same as 2e),

'Save or die' effects are inherently broken regardless of how you save against them. They render a character's level for the most part irrelevant, and worse yet there's no sort of guideline for what saving throws or spells DCs at a set level should be. Not that total predictability is good, but as attributes and save-boosting items can vary greatly oh so greatly at epic levels it gets unbalanced. Finger of Death ends up having a far larger sway in a battle than it should (other 7th level spells are how useful at level 30?), or simply ends up being a wasted spell slot. What's even worse is if it's spammed repeatedly, which it can be.

Substituting them with simply large amounts of damage (or Con damage) I think would make fights run far more smoothly (I'll have to change the spells do that sometime). It's not balanced when all party members except my PC have been killed and he's able to suddenly win a once-hopeless encounter using a single spell (Mass Fowl). Not that I didn't mind not having to reload, mind you. <_< (NWN2's load times are so damnably long.)

Anyways, my point was that how you save against death effects isn't so much relevant as the mechanic itself is - which 4e hasn't attempted to address. From what I saw (or rather, didn't) in the wizard spells section was simply an absence of ones like Finger of Death.

increased the types of actions you can take in a round,

What's wrong with how it's currently handled? Here's 6 seconds, now do whatever the hell you want.

and added in 'healing surges'.

Which sounds like something ripped straight from an MMO. The name is stupid, and simply adds another thing for PCs and monster (I'm assuming the latter are getting it) to do in combat.

They've also dramatically increased the power of hitting/damaging at higher levels,

Dishing out damage, regardless of the form in question, has never been a problem at higher levels. 4e just seems to prefer it being dependent on level rather than magic items.

They did not get rid of attacks of opportunity to my dismay

Don't use 'em if you don't like 'em? I don't see how that's a problem.

I have not looked at the feats/skills section itself yet or the equipment and magic sections so I don't have enough to comment on in those parts yet.

From the tone of the rest of my post you can probably infer my opinion in regards to those.

THAC0 you just have to think backwards with instead of forwards in terms of math.

It's a needless way to complicate the system, even if the complication is a small one. It's simply more straightforward to have high numbers = good/general success and low numbers = bad.

Q
06-21-2008, 11:36 PM
Can anyone enlighten me as to why they keep changing the rules? I haven't played PnP D&D since high school, and I'm pretty sure it was AD&D way back then. :p

Do they do this so that they can sell new sets of books every couple of years?

Arcesious
06-22-2008, 12:08 AM
Well... This certainly is random... I never understood what all the hype about D&D was...:confused:

Emperor Devon
06-22-2008, 12:41 AM
Do they do this so that they can sell new sets of books every couple of years?

Not that often. 3E has been around since 2000, though they upgraded to 3.5 (which all things considered was basically the same system) in '03. 4th ed came out a few weeks ago.

I never understood what all the hype about D&D was...:confused:

Huh? The most hype it's gotten is that it's fun to play.

Bee Hoon
06-22-2008, 12:49 AM
no more bardImho, that's dreadful. I've only ever been able to finish NWN2 as a bard, simply because it's such fun to play. The bucketloads of skill points (including lots of class skill access, especially for conversation skills) plus other nifty abilities and all-round versatility is awesome.

Flavor-wise wizards were portrayed as studious and bookish, while sorcerers were impulsive and learned their spells through intuition. As seen with Sand and Qara, there'd often be unfriendly rivalries between the two of them for it.
To be honest, I always wondered why there was no happy medium between the two. Someone might have a sorc's power but be moderately studious and possess a reasonable amount of self control:/

Emperor Devon
06-22-2008, 01:10 AM
To be honest, I always wondered why there was no happy medium between the two.

It would be an extremely overpowered class. :P

Someone might have a sorc's power but be moderately studious and possess a reasonable amount of self control:/

Sorcerors can be disciplined. That they understand magic intuitively doesn't mean they're all like Qara, though it's ones like her who perpetuate the stereotype.

Bee Hoon
06-22-2008, 01:24 AM
It would be an extremely overpowered class. :P Touché. Your Honour, I have no more questions.

Jae Onasi
06-22-2008, 09:21 AM
Dev, have you read all of the 4e PH rather than just parts on the net or whatever you d/l'd? So what if these other things are present in 3.5e? NWN2 is Forgotten Realms specific--4e bring some of those things into the main campaign also, so that they can be used in all 3 of the major campaign settings--Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Greyhawk.

I get that you don't like it, Dev. You don't have to play it. 3.5e is going to be around a long time and has a ton of material available such that you could play years before you used it all up. I'm just delineating what is/is not in the new PH for those who haven't looked at it yet. Don't give me crap for providing information just because you don't like the changes.

Emperor Devon
06-22-2008, 08:23 PM
Dev, have you read all of the 4e PH rather than just parts on the net or whatever you d/l'd?

I quote myself:

I've read the [4e] PH, actually

So what if these other things are present in 3.5e?

It invalidates any claim you might have in regards to them being original - I got the impression you meant that when you said they'd been added. Though if you were only referring to the PHs of both editions you would be technically correct.

NWN2 is Forgotten Realms specific--4e bring some of those things into the main campaign also

Not a concern for me, as the only setting the NWNs have taken place in is the FR (and our game, sort of).

I get that you don't like it, Dev. You don't have to play it.

I don't intend to. Unfortunately, it's pretty likely that if there's ever a NWN3 it'll use the new edition. And also unfortunately, it's meant less 3.5 material is being produced on another forum I frequent. Which is too bad, really, as I've had a lot of fun integrating their ideas into MotB. But point in case I'm in a position to complain about the new edition for reasons beyond disliking it as a system.

I'm just delineating what is/is not in the new PH for those who haven't looked at it yet. Don't give me crap for providing information just because you don't like the changes.

I've criticized the new changes you listed, actually, which had nothing to do with you providing information in regard to said changes. Moreover, as I got the impression you thought my opinion was uninformed (saying I hadn't read the PH) I felt the need to defend it. If my post came off as antagonistic towards you personally that wasn't the intent.

Jae Onasi
06-23-2008, 11:26 AM
You didn't specify 4e in your original post when you specified the PH, hence my question. Since it's only been out for about 2 weeks now, you assimilated that material rather quickly. :xp:

If it makes you feel any better, people have complained loudly every time a new edition has come out, but the game still goes on. People thought 3e would fail, and obviously it didn't. Since I have a ton of 3.5e materials, I'm sure we'll be playing that system for quite some time. We have to get through Ravenloft, you know.... :D Besides, I want to see if they're going to come out with a 4.5e version in a year or two before I buy yet another set of books.

In a CRPG like NWN2, you never see the mechanics behind the actions--the computer does all the dice-rolling for both you and the monsters. You're never consciously going to make a perception/spot/listen check. You're still going to pick a weapon/holy focus/wand/whatever, and put together your armor. You're still going to determine what spells/feats/skills to use and how you're going to fight an enemy. You're going to do all those things whether it's 3.5e based or 4e based. In any CRPG, and really any table-top RPG, it's the story that's most important anyway. I can't blame WotC for wanting to make the system more efficient and cut out the useless, poorly designed or redundant things. I can't blame them for wanting to make a system that is more user-friendly mechanics-wise for both DMs and players--the easier they make the product to use, the more likely it will be played/purchased. They're competing against video games now, and that's not the easiest thing to do these days. I'm not thrilled with druids and sorcerers being taken out of the PH, but they are functionally redundant versions of clerics and wizards, respectively (albeit with different flavors), designed at a time when you rolled your 6 stats and had to use them in that order. If you had your heart set on playing a spellcaster but it was your 6th attribute score that was the highest, you still could play the CHA-based sorcerer. With the point-based attribute system and the change that says you can assign attribute scores however you want, it doesn't matter anymore. Bard was taken out because it's a class that rarely got chosen in the table-top game, it's a tougher class to play well, and definitely harder to balance because they're decent in a lot of areas but not truly expert in any one area like the other classes are.

I'll be interested in seeing how the Warlord class and the Eladrin/Dragonborn races are added in, and how campaigns are designed now that level 30 is the new cap for the standard game instead of 20. The online tabletop program that DnD Insider has is 4e only and looks like it's fun to use, though Screen Monkey still works great for our purposes. :)

ForeverNight
06-23-2008, 11:38 AM
I just bought 4e PH about a week ago and ripped through it (No literally) and while I'm with Red Hawke on this (2e!) I'd have to say that 4.0 is better than 3.5 ever was... Though, this is coming from a person who got interested in a stupidified (Is that even a word?) version of 3.5 before reading the 2e PH at the Library and spending way, way, way too much on all the books for 2.0.

But, I'm currently running a campaign for my friends. (You know, I've never actually been able to play D&D as a player, I've always been DM'ing...) One of them's an Eladrin, and it works out just like an Elf... I don't see why it was added other than giving the Player and Elf that isn't a stereotypical elf.

The Warlord class is... interesting. The same friend who's an Eladrin is a Warlord and his impression of it is a smarter fighter who is more a coordinator than an actual fighter.

I only wish I would've bought the DMG the same day!

Ghost Down
06-23-2008, 03:56 PM
What's all this fuzz about?

RedHawke
06-24-2008, 04:20 AM
Oh but I do. <_<
Your support of the crappy D20 system would relate otherwise. Sorry ED I hate that lame-ass system with a passion.

Epic levels are broken enough using 20-sided dice (virtual or no). They'd be entirely infeasible with one that has 6.
Nope, no need for useless 'epic' levels with good ol AD&D. Also AD&D used a 20-sided dice long before WOTC existed. Too much of the impatient youth crap with D20. Add to it the people at WOTC didn't have a dictionary handy as to the definition of the word 'feat'. Weapon skills are not feats. Ambidexterity is a feat, two-weapon fighting or a proficiency or specialisation in bastard swords isn't.

Let alone the fact that you have to multi-class to make an interesting character in D20 (due to restrictive rules set). The system itself boggs you down and stunts your creativity at every turn. Even as a DM.

AD&D 2E is a better base game than D20, add to it with the various Handbooks and the Skills & Powers additions ranks 2E as the far superior game to D20, at least on my end.

And THAC0 is oh so needlessly esoteric. :/ Bigger numbers are supposed to mean more of something, blast it all.
Is that all that irked you about AD&D 2e? Thac0? We altered that as a house rule long ago... we only had about 5 house rules with 2e, have (at last count) around 10 pages of house rules with D20... so we stopped trying and went back to 2e.

Never to return.

(With what I have read about in this thread about how they are butchering things even more I'm happy about that too, WOTC needs to be shut-down!)

Bee Hoon
06-24-2008, 05:34 AM
Let alone the fact that you have to multi-class to make an interesting character in D20 (due to restrictive rules set).Like a broken record, I must once again say that bards are great fun and their removal is a bad, bad thing:(

Ooh, I break the satanic post count with this post!

Anyway, I find the story behind the transition to 4e rather...questionable:/ Tyr courts Tymora because Siamorphe moved to Brightwater, hence creating some cosmic imbalance? >.>

mur'phon
06-24-2008, 06:25 AM
Why oh why did they remove my favorite class (druid), my favorite arcane class, and my surprise thief (Bard)? Am I suposed to be a holier than thou cleric, a bookier than thou wizard, or a fighter/rogue/wizard like a certain goatee badman instead?
Nothing beats the freedom of a shapeshifting druid, flying from town to town, sneaking into a dungeon sneak attacking before turning into a huge thing of death and destruction.

Balderdash
06-24-2008, 07:26 AM
No, they simply kept the original premise of the good/evil/law/chaos axis but lumped together alignments they thought were similar enough. Which is rubbish, there's quite a difference between LE and NE characters. Defining both of them as 'tyranny and hatred' is stupid.
I agree, but I read somewhere that they also added 'unaligned' - which I personally thought sounded like an interesting idea.

Alkonium
06-24-2008, 11:38 AM
I agree, but I read somewhere that they also added 'unaligned' - which I personally thought sounded like an interesting idea.

Unaligned is just a merging of Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral, which is idiotic because there are huge differences between each one. Think of the differences between James Bond, Han Solo, and Jack Sparrow and you'll see what I mean. The fact that they merged Neutral Good and Chaotic Good really annoy me too, so I'm wondering how hard it'd be to play 4e with the proper alignment system, since there's not much else I mind, except that multiclassing is gone and humans only get one ability bonus where everyone else gets two.

RedHawke
06-25-2008, 03:02 AM
Unaligned is just a merging of Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral, which is idiotic because there are huge differences between each one. Think of the differences between James Bond, Han Solo, and Jack Sparrow and you'll see what I mean. The fact that they merged Neutral Good and Chaotic Good really annoy me too, so I'm wondering how hard it'd be to play 4e with the proper alignment system, since there's not much else I mind, except that multiclassing is gone and humans only get one ability bonus where everyone else gets two.
This even more supports my "what is WOTC smokin?" thoughts...

Q
06-25-2008, 03:10 AM
Their love of the halflings' leaf has clouded their minds. ;)

Aash Li
06-25-2008, 10:19 AM
While the cats away, the mice will play... in other words, now that Gygax is gone, WotC can crap all over his game and do whatever they want. 4ed isnt even really DnD anymore... but then Everything since ADnD hasnt been DnD... lol

I do like the new look of the Tieflings, thats cool. The Dragonborn is just cheesy.

No more Bards = utter failure.

ForeverNight
06-26-2008, 11:22 AM
I get a kick out of the fact that the 4e PH has created a world, already, for the players to use, and has done it in such a way that it is going to be harder to create a new world, using the same race descriptions.

I dunno about you, but ever since I picked up the 2.0 Player's Handbook (Except for a recent venture into the Forgotten Realms) my friends and I have always created the worlds they play in...

With 4e it seems... almost like heresy to do it the way the book is written. (Will I still do it? Heck yeah!)

Edit: I was surprised about the lack of Bards... the lack of specialists... the lack of druids... the lack of psionics... well, the lack of almost everything that made 3.5 even playable.

Point Man
06-28-2008, 04:09 PM
Who cares? If you don't like the 4th edition rules, play the rules you do like. Make up your own rules, if you like. That's what RPG's are about: your own creativity. The rules are just there to provide some kind of agreed-upon structure.

mur'phon
06-28-2008, 04:17 PM
The problem (at least to me) has nothing to do with PnP, but with the fact that Every DnD game from now on will be based on a system WITHOUT A DRUID!!!

Point Man
06-28-2008, 04:32 PM
Just wait a couple of years, they'll change it again.

Arátoeldar
06-29-2008, 12:56 PM
Who cares? If you don't like the 4th edition rules, play the rules you do like. Make up your own rules, if you like. That's what RPG's are about: your own creativity. The rules are just there to provide some kind of agreed-upon structure.

Agreed which is why I like the Law series that Iron Crown put out when they were in business.

Emperor Devon
06-30-2008, 04:59 AM
Who cares? If you don't like the 4th edition rules, play the rules you do like. Make up your own rules, if you like. That's what RPG's are about: your own creativity. The rules are just there to provide some kind of agreed-upon structure.

Jimbo, I liked the old name! :/

If it were as simple as that, I'd make snide remarks about 4e as a system and get bored with the topic after a week. Unfortunately, though, it's popular enough a lot of former designers for 3.5E have stopped making material for that edition. Which subsequently deprives me of new content (that comes from them at least) to have fun adding to NWN2. And while on the tangent of the NWNs, it's also pretty likely a NWN3 will use 4e for the combat system unless the new edition sells miserably. Thought that probably wouldn't stop me from buying the game, it would make the experience less fun.

(In short, I have grounds to whine about 4e over even if nothing will come of me doing so.)

You didn't specify 4e in your original post when you specified the PH, hence my question. Since it's only been out for about 2 weeks now, you assimilated that material rather quickly. :xp:

I don't claim to be able to use the mechanics effectively, but I do think I've got a rudimentary understanding of how they work. Enough to speak with some authority about its merits as a system anyways.

If it makes you feel any better, people have complained loudly every time a new edition has come out, but the game still goes on.

That it does, but not necessarily in a form that I may enjoy.

People thought 3e would fail, and obviously it didn't.

Apart from how it affects the future of the NWNs, I don't particularly care about the commercial success WotC gets from their products. Fans tend to write better material than they do anyways.

Since I have a ton of 3.5e materials, I'm sure we'll be playing that system for quite some time. We have to get through Ravenloft, you know.... :D

And Hell. Dicefreaks did oh so good a job fleshing out the Nine Hells. <_<

You're going to do all those things [typical dungeonering activities] whether it's 3.5e based or 4e based. In any CRPG, and really any table-top RPG, it's the story that's most important anyway.

I never took any issue with 4e keeping things like dungeon crawls and killing dragons, but rather the mechanics with which they proceeded to go about those things. Which despite their efficiency I prefer infinitely less to the previous edition.

I can't blame WotC for wanting to make the system more efficient and cut out the useless, poorly designed or redundant things.

At the cost of what, taking out everything interesting? A good deal of 3.5's mechanics, especially ones at higher levels (challenge ratings come first to mind) are horribly broken to be sure. But all the same, I think the generally more interesting rules that it had made it worth it. Compare these monsters, as it would take me a very long amount of time to type up all the things I dislike about 4e's mechanics:

3.5E Phane (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/abomination.htm#phane)

4E Phane (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418b)

(Ignore the flavor and focus on the mechanics - or bash WotC for that too. Phanes were supposed to be the unwanted children of gods of time, quasi-deities in their own right, and now they're less powerful than pit fiends.)

I can't blame them for wanting to make a system that is more user-friendly mechanics-wise for both DMs and players--the easier they make the product to use, the more likely it will be played/purchased.

Again, could care less about how WotC as a company does. I'm irked there'll be less 3E material out, and knowing why that is won't alleviate anything.

With the point-based attribute system and the change that says you can assign attribute scores however you want, it doesn't matter anymore.

It never did matter, actually - if you don't like a mechanic then house-rule it out. I'd venture a guess as to how many groups chose to roll 3d6 six times and assign points to their ability scores arbitrarily, but I'm sure it would come out absurdly low. Consciously following a rule that has no impact upon the playability of the game but makes it less fun is stupid.

and how campaigns are designed now that level 30 is the new cap for the standard game instead of 20.

Actually, I think it'll just be larger numbers for the same things. Balors, pit fiends and tarrasques are level 30 monsters. Characters of said level are described as going on adventures involving ancient dragons and threats to whole worlds - sounds exactly like level 20 from 3.5e to me.

And on another tangent, if you went into epic levels 3.5 never had a level cap. Though granted, the system is sure to be completely unplayable at level 100. It's broken enough at 30.

Nope, no need for useless 'epic' levels with good ol AD&D.

Epic levels = levels above 20, not supported in the core rules. I recall BG2 having them, but as it and its expansions were released at the time 3E was out I assumed it was something homebrewed by the devs.

Add to it the people at WOTC didn't have a dictionary handy as to the definition of the word 'feat'. Weapon skills are not feats. Ambidexterity is a feat, two-weapon fighting or a proficiency or specialisation in bastard swords isn't.

Rename them 'special abilities', then? It's inaccurate terminology, but mechanically they were a great idea. They add much more customization than 2E provided classes with.

Let alone the fact that you have to multi-class to make an interesting character in D20 (due to restrictive rules set).

'Interesting' is subjective there, as I've played a number of pure-class characters and had fun with them. Multiclassing simply allows you to customize said characters to a greater degree. Typically that doesn't (and shouldn't) provide the same benefits that come with your starting class.

The system itself boggs you down and stunts your creativity at every turn. Even as a DM.

How so?

Is that all that irked you about AD&D 2e? Thac0?

Nope. That looks small enough it could probably be house-ruled out. You could probably even convert 2E's AC system to 3E's without much effort.

Astor
06-30-2008, 09:55 AM
it's popular enough a lot of former designers for 3.5E have stopped making material for that edition. Which subsequently deprives me of new content (that comes from them at least) to have fun adding to NWN2.

There's still plenty of designers out there are still doing 3.5e related stuff, and a new edition is hardly going to stop fans from writing stuff for it.

And while on the tangent of the NWNs, it's also pretty likely a NWN3 will use 4e for the combat system unless the new edition sells miserably. Thought that probably wouldn't stop me from buying the game, it would make the experience less fun.

Of course they're going to use 4e. NWN is a WoTC licensed product, based on D&D. And, as the now currently official version of the rules, it's bound to use 4e.

Apart from how it affects the future of the NWNs, I don't particularly care about the commercial success WotC gets from their products. Fans tend to write better material than they do anyways.

Well, if WoTC didn't do well from their products, there wouldn't be any more NWNs.

I can't blame them for wanting to make a system that is more user-friendly mechanics-wise for both DMs and players--the easier they make the product to use, the more likely it will be played/purchased.

I can agree with that sentiment - I always found 3.5e difficult to get my head around, and 4e looks like something I might be able to understand without difficulty.

I'm irked there'll be less 3E material out, and knowing why that is won't alleviate anything.

Again, it won't stop fans from making stuff for it. I don't see why WoTC should devote energies and costs to developing things for a system that they've 'moved on' from. It's not like there's already enough source books and material for 3e.

RedHawke
06-30-2008, 03:05 PM
Epic levels = levels above 20, not supported in the core rules. I recall BG2 having them, but as it and its expansions were released at the time 3E was out I assumed it was something homebrewed by the devs.
AD&D only had 20 levels... only needed 20 levels, any additional ones were 'house rules'.

Rename them 'special abilities', then? It's inaccurate terminology, but mechanically they were a great idea. They add much more customization than 2E provided classes with.
Much more customisation? Are you serious? You obviously didn't play much 2E? Or had a DM who only allowed cookie-cutter characters and campaigns.

Problem is that none of the classes got enough 'feats' to emulate what could be done with AD&D 2E.

The rules are constraining, to a point that it removes the 'fun factor'.

'Interesting' is subjective there, as I've played a number of pure-class characters and had fun with them. Multiclassing simply allows you to customize said characters to a greater degree. Typically that doesn't (and shouldn't) provide the same benefits that come with your starting class.
What is the point of saying 'Interesting' is subjective... as your statements are as subjective as mine here?

You needn't multi-class to have an interesting character and capabilities in 2E. Give me 2 Fighters in 2E and you can have 2 relatively unique characters with some quite varied capabilities, in D20 all fighters are the same with very little actual difference in functionality.

I have been playing D&D type games for over 20 years, you can only roll up so many 'cookie-cutter' chars before you get bored with it. As much as it may surprise people to hear there are quite a few players like myself who simply cannot stand rolling up another Dwarven Fighter who carries an Axe drinks and eats alot... been there done that... in 1986 or so... it got old quick even then. ;)

D20 is a clear ADD Generation 'cookie-cutter' system. Now D20 is great for teaching kids and getting them interested in PnP RPG's, mind you so it isn't all bad, but not a syatem for a vetran player like myself.

How so?
Being I need to go to sleep, I will simply say that it has been my expirience with D20 that it is a creativity stunter.

The 'changes' to Forgotten Realms for example... just one part.

Nope. That looks small enough it could probably be house-ruled out. You could probably even convert 2E's AC system to 3E's without much effort.
I can easily live with Thac0. ;) But we tweaked something out to 'fix' Thac0 long before D20 existed.

Relenzo2
07-08-2008, 09:22 PM
Do they do this so that they can sell new sets of books every couple of years?

To put it simply... yes. A dad of a friend of mine stil has first version. He used to buy new books 'till, as he said "They were just trying to get me to buy a bunch of expensive crap, so I'm happy with what I've got." And, if they took bards out of DnD 4, I'm gonna' take his side, simplification or no. Heck, I'm the only one of my friend who would even consider DMing and I STILL say that. Have they no class? Fast fingers they got, but they can't fight the Guild Wars without class. Oh, wait, that's a great pun! I wasn't even trying!