|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 16, 2012 8:33:45 GMT -9
Article Here Wizards of the Coast is basically throwing in the towel on 4th Edition. It fractured the playerbase, paved the way for Pathfinder, and revived 0Ed. In a massive attempt to court old players, Wizards is working on 5th Edition and promising to actually listen to player feedback, launching a HUGE playtest and feedback loop starting this spring. Honestly, I think this is the perfect way for Wizards to go back to a more 3E approach to the game with added on shiny bells and whistles of what worked well from 4E to try and bring back Pathfinder players. Anyway, the reason I'm sharing this is you can submit your email to Wizards to be part of the Play test, and who doesn't want a free sneak peak at what they are up to ? I playtested, then bought and played 4E, and honestly I like it, but I went back to 3E. There are elements of 4E that worked really well, and I think they could be grafted onto 3E. I was working on things like this as home brew rules, but I think this is a chance for 5E to get it right, or at least better than 4E did. D&D 4E did has some really cool class "powers" that could easily be turned into 3E class features or Feats. 4E starts 1st level characters with their constitution level in hit points, which worked really well, etc.. There is a lot that worked in 4E that could be ported over to 3E to create 5E, and still feel and work more like 3E. If you have some experience with 3E and 4E I would like a list of what you think worked well in 4E that could improve 3E. THINGS THAT WORKED IN 4E THAT COULD ENHANCE 3E1.) Constitution value in Hit Points at first level. Constitution isn't used for all that much, over than a small plus to hit points each level and your fortitude save, this small change woulc make surviving at low levels soo much easier. 2.) Class Powers - one of the best and worst changes from 4E. The developers have admitted that they should have some more universal powers, that any class could pick from, instead of every class having their own specialized list, BUT those class powers didn't suck, they were just implemented poorly. Having my thief attack reflex, or my Wizard attacking Will, really balanced the scales, instead of fighters being the only ones who could hit anything with a beefy AC. The utility powers were pretty awesome as well. These lists could be mined for tons of Feats and new class abilities. 3.) The end of Vancian magic. My wizard picking the spells he'll use today when he wakes up in the morning, before adventuring, just always seemed like a terrible idea to me. It must also seem like a terrible idea to teh wizards staff because every newer spell casting class doesn't do it, and it was abolished in 4E. Keeping fingers crossed taht it doesn't rear it's ugly head again.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 16, 2012 12:52:53 GMT -9
Hi Adam, if you are not glueing paper, then you are reading and testing it ... . Recreational 5th Ed. testing ... . 5th Ed. - now, really? WotC must be crawling near the edge of bancruptcy. The Hasbro pressure must be horrible. WotC failed to catch a good portion of the 3rd Ed Camp by oversimplification of D&D in the 4th Ed. Coreset. Alot of the older players were shocked by the amputation of beloved classes and especially complex spells of the roleplaying=simulation category. When WotC swamped the market with rule book after rule book for 3 years, the main advantage of 4th Ed. over 3rd Ed. - its relative simplicity and streamlined design - was lost due to sheer (power) bloat. So, interested 3rd Ed. players stuck to 3rd Ed. - no need to change at all - they continued playing the bloat they already knew. WotC tried to regain the simplicity value by starting their poor-man's cooked-down 4th Ed.=Essentials line to convince very old (school) and very young gamers, that Classic D&D was reborn out of the Red Box, combining it with simple boardgame adaptations of dungeon crawling. So, they advertised D&D Essentials as an INTRODUCTION to D&D 4th Ed., which was intended to be a simple-to-pick-up&play-game in the beginning (and succeeded in that). What irony. I have no real gaming experience with 3rd or 4th editions, I can only estimate and extrapolate what I know about the rules (I own alot of them ...) and the experiences of others I've read. I am not a qualified rules lawyer either. So my evaluation has to be tentative. I think, that D&D 4th Ed. is the most modular and coherent, also streamlined and playable edition of all D&D editions. It's also the most modern in regard to gameplay and technical quality. Combat rules are superb in their mix of tabletop wargaming and tactical chess (it's not for everyone, but I like it this way - with lots of battlemats and (paper) minis ). Some out-of-combat rules like streamlined Skill Challenges really remind me of the most elegant solutions for task resolution in RPG history (comparable to MegaTraveller). DMs are saving large amounts of preparation time in comparison to 3rd Ed. I've heard. In a gameplay sense D&D 4th is the most thought-out rule-set of D&D you could play today. It is mathematically sound - yes, too sound, some would say. That means: its 'balance', especially of different classes, has gone too far to the point, where it doesn't really matter, if you are playing a Wizard or a Rogue, as both are dealing Damage in a combat situation. The involvement of all classes in combat is great, but not in the way, the classes are loosing their specifity in terms of FLUFF elements - I mean: the chaotic 'noise' and creative fun of NARRATIVE rules of some highly complex spells and feats (mostly of the psychic or mind influencing kind) are gone. You are left to powers dealing mostly damage with interchangeable fluff text. That's not enough for serious roleplayers. I have read, that the last few 4th Ed. expansion books repaired some of these cracks, but I cannot proof it. Is there a Wish spell in 4th Ed.? That said, I would say, that going back to any edition prior to 4th Ed. would be a backstep in regard to simplicity and elegance. But alot of material of the rich D&D cosmos should be incorporated into the new rule mechanics without crippling them (spells, spells, spells ...) in exchange of too much combat related 'damage only' powers - this would make alot of 3rd Ed./Pathfinder players happy, I suppose. Also, WotC should have a look into the excellent and complete BECMI/Rule Cyclopedia D&D (= Classic D&D as of 1991), which I have played in my youth ;D - the second elegant and simple version of D&D. The BECMI Mentzer D&D is still in lots of aspects superior to any versions before or after (mass/siege warfare rules, dominion/stronghold rules, overland hex-crawling, immortality and playable (NPC)gods, good selection of spells and monsters) ... its incorporation into 5th Ed. would improve Charisma and Wisdom of The Game significantly. That's my somewhat general survey of the D&D case.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Jan 16, 2012 14:34:56 GMT -9
IMHO the 4th edition plays well as a "boardgame." It is a lot narrower in scope of what you can do with it, which disappointed lots of people, but when used within that scope it works well. I really like this analysis of the game: critical-hits.com/2010/12/17/beyond-labels-how-each-rpg-serves-and-rewards-specific-needs/Wizards started a revolution in the RPG market by causing lots of companies to flock around OGL leaving their own systems behind. At the same time, they made RPGs more popular (you'd find D&D 3rd in lots of places that wouldn't carry RPGs before.) During the years of near hegemony of OGL, the indie RPG scene flourished with games sold to the part of the market that didn't want D&D forced into every other setting. Then they closed the cycle by dropping the OGL with the release of the "controversial" 4th edition, leading to retroclones, interesting OGL variants (Mutants & Masterminds, Fantasy Craft, Pathfinder...), the return of other game systems, and more indie games. In the 12 years since the release of the 3rd edition, Wizards broadened the market and became less relevant in it. I agree with Paladin regarding to the pressure from Hasbro and the need to reinvent the D&D product line every few years to meet that pressure. Unfortunately, it's an awful business model for players (not to mention risky as seen from the 4th edition) and that, combined with the immense offer of other interesting RPG systems, is why I don't care about another iteration of D&D. Anyway, that's my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 16, 2012 15:13:03 GMT -9
IMHO the 4th edition plays well as a "boardgame." It is a lot narrower in scope of what you can do with it, which disappointed lots of people, but when used within that scope it works well. Hi Gilius, long time since we've talked to each other ... I think, the 'scope limitation' of D&D 4th Ed. is a myth. It's a full-fledged and complex RPG, which is just different from lots of other RPGs, e.g. in the tactical deepness of combat. It has less Narrative Fluff Rules than e.g. D&D 3rd or 2nd Ed., but it offers not less roleplay, but simple and effective roleplay. In this sense it feels much more like Classic D&D than 3rd or 2nd Ed. ever could. That's great, I think. You can roleplay lots of stories with D&D 4th Ed. And they're not more repetitive than in any other genre games ... .
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Jan 16, 2012 16:11:13 GMT -9
I think you make some good points Paladin, but I (humbly) disagree with your conclusion. 4e was like chess, but chess is not a roleplaying game. There was little in 4e that would encourage you to make a unique background for your character and too few choices to add "crunch" to that background. Sure, you can roleplay without dice altogether, but good games encourage roleplaying "crunch" that can reflect a personality. I did like the "bloodied" idea, and replacing saving throws with target numbers so that a spell could secretly be cast on the player was a great inovation. My current idea of an "ideal" (at least for me) game would be Savage Worlds with a 3.5e spellbook. I suppose I'll have to make that myself, someday.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 16, 2012 17:39:14 GMT -9
4e was like chess, but chess is not a roleplaying game. There was little in 4e that would encourage you to make a unique background for your character and too few choices to add "crunch" to that background. That would only partially be true, if 4th Ed. would be only combat. Partially true, because 4th Ed. combat COULD be chess-like (in the sense of tactical/strategical thinking), if all players (DM included) are knowing, what is going on. Kobold Minions could be nasty, if the DM knows how to play them well. But 4th Ed. is more than combat. What about Player's Handbook 2 - Character Options (pp. 176-)? I admit, that 2nd and 3rd Ed. may be more 'crunchy' - but especially 3rd Ed. is crunchy to an extent, that I would bite into my rulebook in despair, if I should build a less optimal character without my knowledge - just to learn after leveling-up, that he doesn't work. 3.5 Ed. is a game for maximizers who like to build the perfect character with perfect rule knowledge. That's not my taste. I prefer a simpler, but working system right from the start. Btw, the DMG 4th Ed. is the best Adventure/Campaign Building Guide I have ever read. I like everything - the simplicity, the structured (!) approach, the sound of the text, the gfx.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Jan 16, 2012 17:54:42 GMT -9
I have to admit that I only ever read the first Players Handbook for 4e. After playing several sessions my group decided we didn't like it. My son bought a used 4e DMG from one of my friends when we abandoned the game, I will have a look at the campaign advice.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Jan 17, 2012 4:26:51 GMT -9
I had forgotten the fact that D&D 4th has three "Player's Handbooks," which sounds to me like a bad joke but hey, they've got books to sell, increasing sales curves to show. In any case, Wizards considers only the PHB, DMG and MM as "core" books and everything else as accessories so I don't feel wrong by judging the game by those three books. And on those three books what you have is an encounter (read: "combat encounter")-based tactical game and little else.
Note that I'm not against RPGs with focused rules that fit *one* style of game well, such as Star Wars D6, Paranoia, Donjon, Fiasco, Macabre Tales... I agree with Cowboyleland in the sense that much of the value from RPGs comes from the game rules. The fact that players may change those rules or add to them is a given, but the choices the game designers make determine how the game plays and feels in the first place.
To enter the realm of bad analogies, it's possible to use a wrench as a hammer, although people may wonder why one would do that, and it may require more effort than using the proper tool.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 17, 2012 8:08:22 GMT -9
I had forgotten the fact that D&D 4th has three "Player's Handbooks," which sounds to me like a bad joke but hey, they've got books to sell, increasing sales curves to show. In any case, Wizards considers only the PHB, DMG and MM as "core" books and everything else as accessories so I don't feel wrong by judging the game by those three books. And on those three books what you have is an encounter (read: "combat encounter")-based tactical game and little else. That's not true, gilius - and it's plain unfair. ALL rulebooks (PHB1,2,3/DMG1,2/MM 1,2,3) are useful, meaty in substance, well written and layouted, nicely illustrated and bound. They're worth their price from a product quality viewpoint. And by their STRUCTURE and interlocking rules alone could you conclude, that the 4th Ed. designers had a clear and working CONCEPT in their mind - in contrast to the sprawling rule chaos of the previous editions since AD&D 2nd Ed. (with hundreds of 'Priest' subclasses and optional rules alone - you needed a database to keep track of the fiddly bits and pieces ... .). As paper mini designers we all should be glad about this concept, as it is for MOST roleplayers the only reason to watch the paper terrain/tiles/mini/cards market ... . 4th Ed. is gaming material heavy - and I appreciate this. PHB 1 4th Ed.: Combat Rules 30 pages out of 315 total. Less than 10%. DMG 1 4th Ed.: Special Combat Situations 18 pages out of 220 total. Less than 10%. PHB 2 4th Ed.: about 5 pages Combat related rule-updates out of 223 total. 2%. PHB 3 4th Ed.: 0 pages Combat Rules (= rules complete) out of 214 total. 0%. DMG 2 4th Ed.: 0 pages Combat Rules out of 222 total. 0%. I estimate 4% explicit Combat rule text in the complete 4th Ed. rule canon (nearly 1200 pages). And it's deep and rich (I've said that already). MM 1+2+3 4th Ed.: 740 pages monsters, monsters, monsters. No cannon-fodder here, but lethal weapons in the hand of a ( cunny - OMG - sorry ) cunning DM. Adventurers are advised to CIRCUMVENT combat encounters ... ;D. I have forgotten to mention the REAL character OPTIONS books: Divine Power 4th Ed.: 160 pages OPTIONS, PATHS & POWERS for character building ... Arcane Power (160 p.) + Primal Power (160 p.) + Martial Power 1+2 (320 p.) the same ... that's 800 pages of additional character customization rules ... . Don't say, that all Powers are combat-related only. They are not. There are rules for using even Combat Powers in non-combat-contexts ... . That's the main rule corpus of 'simple' 4th Ed. D&D so far: more than 2700 pages of gaming material. That's without special source-books and module material. You know, gilius, that I am a friend of RPG systems of all kind. I adore Ars Magica, I dig Basic Roleplaying in all its flavors, I love D6, you have pointed me to. I know some underground gems of the unknown masters (Kirk's Legendary Quest, Mazes & Minotaurs etc.). I even grabbed Fantasy Craft as an original and most advanced d20 OGL thing (more advanced than Pathfinder). But that does not hinder me to recognize, what a meaty, flexible, adaptable, scaleable and modular game system D&D 4th Ed. is. You can cut alot of features and powers from the system - it will work. Try that with 3.5 Ed. or Pathfinder.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 17, 2012 8:52:39 GMT -9
Alright, seriously I was hoping to skip the 4E bashing.
On a mechanical level 4E is superior, for teh simple reason that the designers actually looked at the math from the ground up and designed accordingly, while in previous editions new mechanics were shoe horned in. I've played every edition of D&D as they came out.
Skills 1E non existant, then percentile based system attempted in Dragon Magazine 2E D20 Implemented 3E D20 Simple Social interaction rules 4E D20 Similar skills combined, expanded social interaction rules
Monsters 1E Designers slap any stats on a monster 2E 1 Monsters stat blocks expanded 3E 2E Monsters get feats and skills, Templates implemented 4E Monsters redesigned with balanced stats and roles in mind
Characters 1E Unbalanced add on design 2E Knee caped high level play, but better design, Magic item creation sucked 3E Superior Skills, Feats, high level play, Magic Item Creation Rocks. 3rd Party supplement Nirvana. Possible to GIMP your character with poor choices or Dominate with creative min maxing 4E Characters more powerful, balanced between classes, Magic Items Gimped
Smeg my rant.
I was hoping more for a wish list of features people would like to see in 5E
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 17, 2012 9:27:58 GMT -9
Your Summary and Rule Evolution List of D&D is brilliant, @adam.
I agree with every keyword you've written.
paladin's wish list for 5th Ed. D&D:
1. Keep the working core rule system of D&D 4th Ed. Don't search for something new or better. That would be an insane waste of time, money and energy and doom the project.
2. Streamline the 'damage-only' Power Bloat of 4th Ed. Fill the gaps with traditional classic D&D lore of Narrative/Roleplay Spell Rules/Magic Items/Feats etc. Search the archives and work on the old stuff - it is the soul of the game ... . Maybe the core rule system must be expanded a bit to keep the overall structure of 4th Ed., but incorporate older material successfully = non-crippled.
3. Have a CLOSE look at Rule Cyclopedia 1991:
- mass/siege warfare rules - dominion/stronghold rules - overland hex-crawling - immortality and playable (NPC)gods/pantheons
That would fascinate some older gamers, I guess (35+) ... .
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Jan 17, 2012 9:28:19 GMT -9
Alright, seriously I was hoping to skip the 4E bashing. [...] I was hoping more for a wish list of features people would like to see in 5EHere, here!
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Jan 17, 2012 9:29:12 GMT -9
Honestly, I'm not likely to invest in another RPG, so I don't know what my 5e wishlist is worth, but here is what I like to play. My group right now is alternating between Pathfinder and Savage Worlds and we've houseruled both of them to be more like the other. We get a "Fatigued" status whenever we are "bloodied" in Pathfinder and "Exhausted" when we get down to one quarter HP. And we have "Action Points" that kind of do what Bennies do. Alternatively we use the Attack of Opportunity, Flanking etc rules from Pathfinder when we play Savage Worlds. We don't like the SW magic system (except in Deadlands) but we love the role playing Hindurances. We didn't feel that 4e had enough choices in character creation/advancement.
If 5e made all that fit together nicely, then they might make a sale.
Oh, In 3.5e I like starting players at 3rd level. Enough HP to keep them alive and enough feats/abilities for everyone to shine in different situations. Look at the Ranger, no "Combat Style" until 2nd level and you need "Precise Shot" and the pre-requisite "Point Blank" to use your style effectively. I like the idea that players start off as heroes. You shouldn't have to struggle through multiple (possibley multi-class) levels before your charactrer starts acting like the swashbuckler/sniper/tank you imagined.
Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 17, 2012 9:56:23 GMT -9
[1] ... We didn't feel that 4e had enough choices in character creation/advancement. ... [2] Oh, In 3.5e I like starting players at 3rd level. Enough HP to keep them alive and enough feats/abilities for everyone to shine in different situations. Look at the Ranger, no "Combat Style" until 2nd level and you need "Precise Shot" and the pre-requisite "Point Blank" to use your style effectively. I like the idea that players start off as heroes. You shouldn't have to struggle through multiple (possibley multi-class) levels before your charactrer starts acting like the swashbuckler/sniper/tank you imagined. ... Quote 1: because you are ignoring about 1200 pages of rules (PHB2+3, Power Option Books) ... Quote 2: Now I really ask myself, why you dislike 4th Ed. then. That's exactly, what is changed in 4th Ed. for the purpose to speed up the 'action' - everybody is rocking the dungeon floor right from the start - with cool cinematic moves and sparks and tricks ... . Damage is deadly. HP are beefed up, leveling is ultra-fast by the core rules (adaptable to the gaming style). 3rd level 3rd Ed. characters are like 0/1 level 4th Ed. characters - or worse. BUT ... ;D and that's cool ... MONSTERS and NPCs are beefed up also - just for balance. As I said: Killer Kobold Commando.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Jan 17, 2012 16:15:07 GMT -9
Hey Paladin, I have to agree with you. I'm being prejudiced against D&D 4th. I'll try to have a new look at the core books -- I don't think I have time and budget for all the supplements.
I have to say, however, that you have more faith in the 4th edition than Wizards. Maybe too many players didn't manage (for various reasons) to experience the whole game in its thousands of pages.
Anyway, I'll stop derailing this thread.
[edit: removed a childish remark]
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Jan 17, 2012 18:40:58 GMT -9
Well to try and answer Paladin AND keep on topic I would say that my wishlist for 5e would include enough in the first book or three to make the game enjoyable. My friends and I bought 3 PHBs, two DMG's and a MM when the game came out. Wizards got a good chunk of cash from us. We tried the game for six or eight sessions and decided we didn't like it. Buying more books felt like it was going to be throwing good money after bad. And yes, some of the powers are cool, but there is not enough variety in the choices (at least in the first books) to create an individual character. My note about "starting at third" was an alternative to Con for HP. Speaking of HP; I liked the way NOT rolling for HP became standard. HP are really important and a level is a long time to live with the results of a bad roll. A few bad HP rolls over a few levels and your character is vulnerable to stuff your buddies are laughing off.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 17, 2012 19:48:28 GMT -9
Hey, gilius, I don't want to whiz you off with overpedantic percentage statistics and undisputable truth logic ... I only wanted to defend 4th Ed. and the disappointed WotC team. They really MUST be disappointed. They seem to be clueless and helpless right now ... have a heart with them and their efforts ... they really tried their best to offer something new and solid and fixed in comparison to the older D&D stuff ... and the customers are playing their old stuff or nothing at all. I think, WotC deserve some credits here, and I've tried to play their advocate in this thread. I want to remember you, that I am no D&D fanatic or hardcore rule expert ... I even don't play D&D since 1990. But just by my rulebook material I own and in comparison to other systems I would love to crawl into the 4th Ed. dungeon - even as Soloplay. I see the problems. I have mentioned the cracks and errors of 4th Ed. But I don't want this impressive game system to die the gruesome death of ignorance and prejudice, that's all. I recommend to have a look at the following FREE expansion work of a single (hardcore) person, which may be nearer to 2nd and 3rd Ed. than everything WotC has done - I dunno - it's just too much material to evaluate without YEARS of active playtesting - so, Gilius try your corerules together with this jewel of homebrew: www.scribd.com/doc/3703481/4E-Classes-and-RacesNa, getting interested ... ? ;D I haven't read your 'childish remark', btw - really. I was offline the last few hours ... . @cowboy, yes, that's true. If you are coming from 3rd Ed. (I do not), then 4th Ed. Corebooks must be disappointing and feel like a ripp off. False marketing strategy by WotC. BUT - the layout and division of the different rule expansions make perfect sense - it's just: you had to wait some years to buy the full sparkling thing - and the developed system needs more time to flourish and convince the non-believers - but the market has changed - and 4th Ed. had only 4 years in a stormy sea - oh, that's bitter, I think ... .
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 18, 2012 6:12:37 GMT -9
I really like 4E, but I'm running the best D&D campaign I've ever been in and it's 3.5, and with 5E on the way, I'm not even going to try to argue that people should give 4E a chance if they haven't already.
Honestly, I think there is a Knee Jerk reaction to hate the new edition whenever it comes out. There really were fewer choices in 4E on it's release, but to be fair people were comparing nearly a decade of 3E releases verses the 3 4E core books when that argument started. To their defense, Wizards released the "essentials" Core Rules, Monster vault, and GM kit, which combined tons of previously rules collected and updated into affordable soft cover box sets, that are cheaper than hard covers. I think they were a great idea too late in the games life cycle. I like 4E and I didn't even buy them, and I think they are a great value. If the "essentials" were the core products released years ago, I think 4E would have been a smash hit.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A great concept from 4E I hope they keep, is changing Saving Throws to Armor Class like Values. If you can't picture it, add 10 to your 3E saving throw values and people roll to hit them like AC. It allows a consistent mechanic (roll a D20 add modifiers and attempt to meat a target number) for all combat. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Ungimp magic items. 4E magic items are crap, they cost more and do less. The 3E system for magic items was much loved, I'd stick with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Get rid of 4E tiered Alchemical items. In 3E Alchemical items do stuff, and as you get higher level, the cheap stuff you used at low levels isn't as usefull, but it's cheap and you can use it if you want for an edge. In 4E alcehemical items come in flavors of cheap, but essentialy useless, expensive and not really usefull, and maybe usefull but costs tens of thousands of gold for something that does less than a potion
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 18, 2012 8:00:31 GMT -9
[1] Honestly, I think there is a Knee Jerk reaction to hate the new edition whenever it comes out. There really were fewer choices in 4E on it's release, but to be fair people were comparing nearly a decade of 3E releases verses the 3 4E core books when that argument started. [2] ... If the "essentials" were the core products released years ago, I think 4E would have been a smash hit. ... [3] It allows a consistent mechanic (roll a D20 add modifiers and attempt to meat a target number) for all combat. Quotation 1: Yip, seems so. Players are afraid loosing 'their' game and hard-earned books and materials. I think, it was a HUGE failure of WotC to say openly, that 3.5 Ed. was unbalanced weird crap of old. You cannot do this to a loyal and then shocked community which felt betrayed as customers. Big, big mistake. Q 2: I doubt that. I think, Essentials line was the last marketing move of WotC to get a lethargic and saturated customer base interested in NEW concepts - and to jump on the (slowing) 'Old School' wagon at the same time. Essentials are even more cooked down than 4th Ed. Corebooks from what I know. Which verified and time tested roleplayer needs that? Essentials were for Kids who cannot even imagine to draw a symbol on paper without their Smartphone ... . But, as I said, I like, how WotC is experimenting with cards and tiles and markers, with die-cut gameboards etc. Hey, they have sold MtG, they know, what they are doing. They do the paper gaming market a HUGE favour - and I hope, that they don't stop. I have read on their forum though, that the customers are crying for DIGITAL TOOLS (which I cannot hate, fascinating as they are ...) to enhance the gameplay ... and WotC will hear that. I doubt though, that they have the knowledge, experience and resources to compete even against the FREEWARE tools (Masterplan or MapTool anyone?). Q3: yip, and that's MOST important in any good game system: COHERENCE and CONSISTENCY to enhance PLAYABILITY. And I find, that 4th Ed. is the most playable D&D since 1991. EDIT: ah, I forgot: Magic stuff and such in 4th Ed. - cannot say something about that. Cost tables are always Campaign dependent balancing rules for me - you are free to add or subtract 50.000 GP as a DM at any time - that's not too hard. FLUFFY rules and cool magic effects of rings and wands - that's another case. Could be, that 4th Ed. still needs work in that regard, as I've said. At least, it would be a (GIGANTIC) task for WotC to consult their rule databases (!) for 5th Ed. concepts. I am curious, what they are up with this time. Another failure - and we will see the D&D brand sold by Hasbro. As they did with Star Wars already ... .
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Jan 18, 2012 9:24:13 GMT -9
I left D&D when the book cost exceeded what I paid for books in a semester of my MS program in operations research.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 18, 2012 9:49:46 GMT -9
The essentials books were bare bones aesthetically, but they were comprehensive rules wise. They would have needed the spit and polish of the core books to sell well, but they provide much more in terms of content, when lack of content in the hardcover core books was a frequently brought up issue. I left D&D when the book cost exceeded what I paid for books in a semester of my MS program in operations research. Google any 3E title and PDF and you can find it for free...... Possibly another reason why 3E and Pathfinder are doing so well
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 18, 2012 10:09:02 GMT -9
[1] The essentials books were bare bones aesthetically, but they were comprehensive rules wise. They would have needed the spit and polish of the core books to sell well, but they provide much more in terms of content, when lack of content in the hardcover core books was a frequently brought up issue. [2] Google any 3E title and PDF and you can find it for free...... Possibly another reason why 3E and Pathfinder are doing so well Q1: I have read quite the opposite: nice gaming materials (board and markers and introductory adventure etc.), but trimmed down 4th Ed. for absolute beginners. But maybe I have an incomplete pic of Essentials (a Dragon on a Red Box ;D). Q2: the first part of your sentence, @adam, holds true also for 4th Ed. - the second part not (for a reason) ... .
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 19, 2012 10:01:22 GMT -9
There are starter box like materials in some of the Essentials line, but I was thinking more of the Rules Compendium: An Essential Dungeons & Dragons Compendium (4th Edition D&D) [Paperback]. For $20 it combines the PHB 1,2,3, and DMG 1 & 2 rules. This has all the core classes and all of their rules in one reference. Monster Vault: An Essential Dungeons & Dragons Kit (4th Edition D&D) for $30 has 160 pages of Iconic monsters, something that 4E originally split between the MMs, a 32 page adventure with 1" scale map, and 10 sheets of Die cut monster tokens. Just the fact alone it concentrated on iconic monsters alone makes it superior to the 4E M1. The adventure and tokens are just really nice add ons. I just think if the Core books had focused more on content like this there would have been much fewer legitimate complaints about 4E when it was released. It wouldn't have won over the 3E stalwarts, but it would have helped to kept people, like me, who gave 4E a shot and then when back to 3E.
|
|
|
Post by Rhannon on Jan 19, 2012 10:09:42 GMT -9
Now $13.57 and $19.79. Now a must for all.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 19, 2012 13:43:38 GMT -9
To make all the readers of this thread really fall asleep, I just want to warn everybody who thinks, that Rhannon is hinting to a good offer. He is not. And it's getting rather complicated now, but I will make it brief: Essentials Rules Compendium (4th edition FOR 4th Ed. ;D, Sept. 2010) is a Rules Errata and Update and practical Compendium/Introduction to 4th Ed. at the same time, but: with omissions, major changes and simplifications in comparison to the Hardcover Ed. And it's heavily OUTDATED, as you get the official Rule Updates for 4th Ed. on WotC's page for download (more than 100 pages strong). And now listen: You CANNOT PLAY one single turn with this book, as all the game data (class data, powers, equipment etc.) is plain missing. You need the Hardcover Ed. or a WotC DDI subscription to get the data to play anything. The Rule Updates are quite confusing in regard to 4th Ed. Some say, they are neglectable and play with their old Hardcover books as printed some 3,5 years ago. Others say, they are quite heavy with major consequences for gameplay and mood of the game. People are complaining, that Essentials is useless crap, or they thank WotC for grasping 4th Ed. for the 1st time (especially with Essentials Red Box). Essentials Rules Compendium is NOT a complete game, it's a system introduction/overview/reference. It's not like D&D Rules Cyclopedia 1991. That was a COMPLETE game. In one book. 72 levels to climb to rule the Cosmos - literally.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Jan 19, 2012 22:28:21 GMT -9
To make all the readers of this thread really fall asleep.... Not asleep, but fairly confused. I own the 3 4e "base" books (the italian edition). Never played it, as my sons (my main players) hates to use minis and grid. I still keep them as i tought i could use them for a "dungeon crawling" or skirmish game (i own some D&D miniatures and i liked the collectible skirmish game.... but i played it with the original rules). Anyway, that never happened. Now are you telling me that i'd need other books to play anything 'cause mine are updated? ...we're derailing from the topic, anyway....
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Jan 20, 2012 2:25:34 GMT -9
Hey, gilius, I don't want to whiz you off with overpedantic percentage statistics and undisputable truth logic ... Not whized off. I read your logical arguments and figured that my dislike of the 4th ed. was more bias than rational thinking. Btw I'll try to have a look at the user-made supplement you linked during the weekend -- if scribd doesn't go the way of megaupload... Regarding the "essentials" line, I have the "starter kit" "red box". It comes with a set of good cardboard tokens, a set of average-quality dice, power cards in rather thin cardstock and a double sided map in thin glossy paper. There is a 32-page player's book that runs you through character creation (with a few options) and basic rules by means of a short paragraph-based solo adventure and a 64-page dungeon master's book that presents rules for combat, interaction and some GM advice, a few combat encounters (and one skill challenge) and some basic monsters. With the given material one can play a rogue, cleric, fighter or wizard up to level 2. I haven't compared the rules in these booklets to the ones in the three core books to see if there are significant differences, as IIRC, the "red box" marked the launch of the "essentials" line.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 20, 2012 5:16:31 GMT -9
Ah, Parduz is awake! Greetings ... As long as we're trying to figure out, what it's all about with 4th Ed. (Cowboy was not convinced - and Adam occupied with 3.5 Ed., but he likes it ...), we're not derailing too much ... it helps. Parduz, you can play alot with those 3 Corebooks 4th Ed. of Summer 2008. This is a complete set with the most basic rules. But the rules are complete and fine to play as they are, some are saying. I recommend to have a look at the funny and insightful writings of the great 4th Ed. fan and blogger Greywulf (one source of my defending arguments pro 4th Ed.): greywulf.net/He has good additional material (e.g. best Character Generation Guide) and gaming examples to get the most fun out of 4th Ed. He describes this system as very old school like and easy to play with. He uses the 3 Corebooks (PHB1, DMG1, MM1) - and nothing else. No Rules Update. He doesn't care, he says. And it plays well. The second level of 4th Ed. gaming would be: downloading the Official Rules Update PDF from WotCs' website: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updatesarchive'Compiled Rules Update' will do. It's a Rules Update/Errata for ALL 4th Ed. publications. You can pick and choose new/changed rules as you see fit, I guess. The third level of 4th Ed. gaming would be: expand the rules with PHB2+3 and DMG2. You could also expand the Monsters with MM2+3. There seems to be a minor (?) rule break/showstopper between MM1+2 and MM3, the last one uses another format and changed rules for monsters in combat - BUT MM1+2 are NOT UPDATED yet, which seems to be quite confusing while gaming with MM3. You see, Parduz, WotC is here a victim of sloppy publication and the ever feared sprawling rule chaos creeping into this D&D monster since 1989. The fourth level of 4th Ed. would be: Character Option Books (the Power Book line) for those character builders out there. It's really Power overload then. Those are the books you will never read through - as you are not reading a telephone numbers book either. The fifth and last level: source/setting books, some additional races material and supplements/helpers. I do not know this material. I cannot recommend anything from the Essentials line of books/sets. I had a look into the Essentials Rules Compendium - it seems to be a sloppy fast product with old gfx and rules snippets tucked together. You could read on every 5th page: you need this book and you need that book - or: you need a DDI account with monthly fees. Parduz, you are fine with those 3 Corebooks as they are - at least to test it, if it is satisfying at all. As you are mentioning the holy words 'Dungeon Crawl', I suggest to expand them by 'Solo': shiftkitty.angelfire.com/This is a true classic for the more lonely and mad of us - but also a good guide for Module Designers and Testers. Have fun! gilius, ok. I am glad, you dig my thoughts and not turn away, as I sometimes could sound arrogant as others (not here, yet) are complaining. My pedantic lists could be quite enervating. I have to say though, that they are NEW to me also, because I am developing them while writing - scanning my (dusty) rulebooks out of curiosity. I also have no clear answer. I should test 4th Ed. firsthand like Adam or Cowboy did. Now, Gilius, this is a VERY thorough review of Essentials Red Box (which alot of customers on Amazon received quite well) - thanks for that. Now everybody has a good picture of what Essentials is all about: simplified introduction to the more complex core system of 4th Ed. For scribd you need a FREE account and I think, you have to upload something (an empty page - e.g. ;D) as a compensation for downloading something (you can delete it instantly again, btw.). Have a look at this masterpiece - it really could spark the fire. If you do not like the scribd thing, then you can PM me a mail-account of yours to send the PDF to you, if you want ... . You see, I am a 4th Ed. Angel right now ;D. EDIT: gilius, just have read Hackbarth's news about megaupload - now I understand your post better. Well, the PDF is on my harddrive, if you need it ... .
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 20, 2012 21:37:21 GMT -9
Okay, so I guess I was wrong about the essentials line...
My thoughts 3E Badass 4E Pretty Good 5E Hopefully Badass ?
I get upset when I feel 4E getting unduly bashed, and I really feel there were some great improvements, but with 5E on the way, and Pathfinder available, I'm no longer preaching people should give 4E a try.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 21, 2012 4:31:43 GMT -9
Hi Adam,
'wrong' is a too 'heavy' word here - but the suggestion to have a look into Essentials Rules Compendium as the 1-book-solution (that's still a dream since Advanced D&D ...) had to be counterargumented.
My thoughts:
3.5 Ed. - elaborated&crunchy, but stiff (Pathfinder: slightly corrected; Fantasy Craft: innovative and flexible in d20 terms)
4 Ed. - innovative; simple, but deep; flexible; some loss of D&D lore&substance
5 Ed. - still a vision (the all-integrating uber-D&D - fully modularized, every style playable from 1rst Ed. to Crunch Nirvana ...)
I see no problem with preaching D&D 4th Ed., as this is a fully developed and published system with the usual WIP part of contradicting material. It's 8-14 (I forgot 'Psionic Power') rule books of goodness here, still available. And I bet, 5th Ed. will be different, so, 4th Ed. is already legitime as 3.5 Ed., 2nd Ed. and 1rst Ed. are, all systems actively played by split-up peer groups.
|
|