Today I planned on writing a bit about Pathfinder, the newly announced 3.5 successor game from Paizo. But it turns out that Trollsmyth has already said everything I had to say, so go check out his blog for my opinion. Funny how that works out.
I recently read an interview with someone from WotC about D&D 4e. What caught my eye was:
Question: Will 4e require the use of miniatures?
Answer: Well, we anticipate that most players will use miniatures, but miniatures are no more required in 4e than the previous edition.
Instead of a simple yes or no, I'm left wondering what that answer means. I've never played 3.0 or 3.5. The only D20 books I've ever owned were D20 Modern and Urban Arcana, so I'm no "modern" D&D expert. But, from what I've read at your blog and elsewhere I've gathered that 3.5 pretty much DOES require the use of miniatures. Is that the case?
Second question- what are your thoughts about the approaching 4e Jeff? Excited anticpation, cringing with terror, yawning with apathy, or something else?
Initially, I didn't even consider picking up the game, but as I read more about it SOME of the things they've done mechanically sound neat (others definitely don't though). I don't want to play on a virtual kitchen table, I don't want to pay for a subscription service, I don't want to need miniatures and big tactical map all the time, and I don't want every pc to be able to do everything under the sun. Yet, at the same time I find myself actually considering buying this game. Why? It sounds like it might be fun that's why. Of course thematically the whole thing sounds more like Final Fantasy than D&D though.
One final D&D thought. In reading stuff about the pending 4e, I've seen several comments from WotC and from regular gamers about how AD&D2 was a huge step up in complexity from AD&D. Am I the only one who goes "What?" when I read that. I've always found 2nd Edition much easier rules wise than AD&D. (Of course not counting the players option stuff which was really proto-3e more than 2e).
3.0/3.5 require miniatures only slightly more than AD&D. For both, they're handy but not necessary for figuring out spell areas of effect and ranges. D20 adds attacks of opportunity and flanking but removes facing.
But, from what I've read at your blog and elsewhere I've gathered that 3.5 pretty much DOES require the use of miniatures. Is that the case?
Without minis you have to ignore or handwave vast chunks of mechanics. You can play without the minis, but I don't know why you'd want to, to be honest. The strength of the system is in the gridded tactical combat.
Second question- what are your thoughts about the approaching 4e Jeff?
I am absolutely certain that the folks behind 4e will produce a slick, great game. But I fear they have it in their power to produce a great game that is also a lousy edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
I've seen several comments from WotC and from regular gamers about how AD&D2 was a huge step up in complexity from AD&D. Am I the only one who goes "What?" when I read that. I've always found 2nd Edition much easier rules wise than AD&D.
Anybody who says 2nd edition AD&D was more complicated than the first edition never tried to play a combat by the rules in the DMG. Nor did they ever attempt to use 1st edition psionics. Mechanically, 2nd edition was a much slicker operation in many ways.
While you can play 3/3.5 edition without minis, you'd never want to. The best part about 3rd edition is how well the tactical combat rules work. If you're not going to use those rules, you'd likely be better served by a system that focuses on some other aspect of gameplay. It looks like 4th edition is going to continue that trend. Many of the powers I've seen allow you to push people around the battlefield, or teleport yourself or your allies into advantageous positions.
My thoughts on 4th edition. Mechanically, some of the things sound interesting, although I'm opposed to the lack of customization that I've seen in some of the playtest stuff. 3rd edition gave a DM access to the whole toolbox - if you wanted a new monster or spell or feat, the rules for creating in were in the books. In 4th edition, you don't have access to the toolbox at all, it seems. Monsters are pre-written stat-blocks. If you want a new monster, you've got to reverse engineer it and cobble something together. That bothers me. Likewise, the fact that classes are very narrowly defined in 4th edition really bothers me. A third edition fighter could be a heavily armored tank, a dodgy two-weapon swashbuckler or an expert archer. A fourth edition fighter is defined as wearing heavy armor. A fourth edition rogue has many abilities that don't function when he is wearing armor heavier than leather or a weapon other than a light blade.
Finally, there's D&D Insider. I was OK with this at first, although I wasn't planning on buying into it. However, the more I hear about it, the more it seems that the best feats and classes from each new release are going to be insider-only. For example, the class that was getting the most buzz on most of the big forums was the "swordmage" - some kind of arcane melee class. Well, I'm sure we were all surprised when wizards announced that the swordmage hadn't made it into the PHB because of "space." It will be available to subscribers on Insider, though. I can foresee a scenario somewhere down the road where the "premium" players - those that subscribe to Insider - have access to better classes and equipment than those that don't subscribe. That's a really disturbing thought.
You can play without the minis, but I don't know why you'd want to, to be honest. The strength of the system is in the gridded tactical combat.
Which is why most of my D&D-style gaming is still 2nd edition. I really wanted to like 3rd edition, since it purged AD&D of many of its icky game-isms, like race-based level caps and class-based equipment restrictions. But gridded tactical combat isn't worth the effort the way most of my games play. We're usually more worried about the limitations on divinations or exactly how far we can blackmail Lord Humperdink before he decides we've pushed him too far.
I can foresee a scenario somewhere down the road where the "premium" players - those that subscribe to Insider - have access to better classes and equipment than those that don't subscribe. That's a really disturbing thought.
I must admit that, outside of competitive tournament games (say, Magic, and many other non-RPGs), the concept of "better" items in a roleplaying game that I am, definitionally, going to be playing with a small group of friends never really made much sense to me.
I have to add the caveat that I'm not in the target market for most of the type of premium content you're mentioning, anyway. When I first saw Prestige classes in 3.0, I thought, "Geez. That's lame." For me, a simple Fighter (or Thief, or Mage, or whatever) is a billion times cooler than being an Incantatrix or Planar Champion. Prestige classes, whether in D&D, Star Wars, D20 Modern or elsewhere, always reeked of all those wack-ass classes in Best of Dragon like, "Cloistered Cleric" and "stay-at-home parent" or whatever. If you're gonna have a class system, it really needs to top out at maybe 10 classes or so (even Vampire, where 13 Clans made good thematic sense, started running out of ideas around Clan number 9 or so).
But yeah, when I see some D20 product and the major advertising on the back is for the new Prestige classes inside, I shrug and move on. I'm certainly not disappointed to have a bunch of them not sucking up space in core books.
Hmmm, read some more preview interviews and articles about 4e last night. Much of the game rules do sound kind of interesting, but it definitely seems like they're going out of their way to teak the noses of us with "old school" sensibilities. For example: supposedly the new rules will encourage DMs to hand out experience to the PCs of players who don't even show up for the game session. Basically, to keep everyone's self-esteem up.
Aye Carumba!
The emphasis on grided combat and mini's should be a red warning flag to me, since we tried that way back with Player's Option and really didn't like it. Still there's the temptation of having a copy of the current in print rules for D&D for the first time in more than a decade.
Anybody who says 2nd edition AD&D was more complicated than the first edition never tried to play a combat by the rules in the DMG. Nor did they ever attempt to use 1st edition psionics. Mechanically, 2nd edition was a much slicker operation in many ways.
In my experience a lot of the arguments about 2nd edition being more complicated than 1st edition end up boiling down to two basic issues:
1) 2nd edition is organized more as a reference work than 1e was. So the rules are more obvious. I've been in discussions with folks who swear some rule was new to 2nd edition when I can recall my 1e DM using it. And when I go to look it up I eventually find it somewhere - usually in the 1e DMG and usually not where you'd initially think to look for it. So there's some of that going on - people were playing with fewer rules in 1e because they didn't even know that there WERE rules for some situations. And that makes it seem like 2nd edition had more rules and therefore is more complex.
2) 2nd edition eventually grew to be more complex than 1e in a lot of ways - especially on the PC customization end. In 1e a Fighter was a Fighter, a Thief was a Thief, and the most customization you ever had was dealing with what spells your Magic-User was going to have in his spellbook. 2nd edition made PCs a lot more customizable over time - not just adding non-weapon profs into the "core", but all of the kits that sprawled all over the place over the course of the edition's lifetime. And that can make 2nd edition appear more complex from a player's perspective than 1e was. Even though from the DM's perspective the game didn't change all that much from 1e.
The Revisitation
-
Following on from the role-playing games I have and haven't played, here
are the games I've played but would very much like to play again before my
body fa...
ShadowDark of Strahd - Game 2
-
If you're new to this series about running Curse of Strahd as a sandbox for
ShadowDark, there have been a few other posts (here). The previous post
rela...
The Theory of the Labyrinth
-
A good part of the magic of D&D is from a specific aesthetic effect it
shares with several other types of fiction that I'm going to call The
Theory of th...
A dungeon is two dungeons at once
-
When the last torch is extinguished, when the last drop of oil in the
lantern is consumed, there is a moment of true dark. But soon you begin to
see. You m...
Appendix Probi of the OSSR
-
Sandbox, not Any Box
Roll Tables, not Story Beats
Rumors, not Hooks
Character Progression, not Character Development
Scenario Generation, not Plot W...
Ritual Locations (for Liminal Horror)
-
1. Where a nun drowned.
2. Between two unmarked graves.
3. A waterway that has never seen the sun.
4. Where five roads meet.
5. A place with po...
The greatest horror game ever is here.
-
That's pretty much it, folks.
DEMON CITY can now be bought, both in printed format and as a PDF.
I've had the PDF for some time now, and I'm really hap...
"Ark Against Time" Submitted for DunDraCon #48
-
[image: A colorful thing seems to be made of several elongated pods]
(Ark of Time)
*GM: Matt MorrisonType: RPGSystem: D&D/Arduin GrimoireEdition: 5...
Forgotten Homework
-
Ugh a boring bookkeeping post: I haven’t forgotten about my Stock-a-Dungeon
jam… it’s just taken more time than anticipated! I thought it would be a
[…] Re...
Imperium Maledictum Session 0
-
Warhammer 40,000: Imperium Maledictum is the new Warhammer 40,000
roleplaying game from Cubicle7. Unlike Cubicle7’s other Warhammer 40,000
RPG, Wrath & Glo...
OBSCURE RPG – Free A4 character sheet
-
I recently made an A4 character sheet for the OBSCURE roleplaying game by
Tommy Sunzenauer. If you feel like using it – download it here for free.
What i...
The Time Bandits
-
Six boisterous dwarves, who, until recently, were employed by the *Supreme
Being* to fix holes in the space-time continuum. Then they had a
brainstorm: W...
cryptid in july poetry day 09, the enfield horror
-
a poem about the enfield horror
I’m an armpit leaping
around the woods on three
legs waiting
for police to arrest me
I’m the living
embodiment of cough...
Ãœbersiedelt
-
Dieser Blog ist Anfang des Jahres 2022 übersiedelt. Am Blog von
gazerpress.at schreibe ich weiterhin über Historisches und Aktuelles rund
ums Rollenspiel.
In Defense of Race As Class
-
Race As Class! Baffling to some, overly simplistic to others, gold to me.
Race As Class does what even AD&D didn't have the balls to do: it not only
says "...
A Fresh Start
-
Morning Folks
I came across someone's blog the other day and I liked it's focus, focus is
something I could use so I'm going to steal it along with anyt...
Vengeful Cuckold and Cuckquean Generator
-
I submitted a table I made to Jeff Rients for his awesome Flame Princess
Cult Zine. I have already used it in several ways during games and have
enjoye...
REVIEW – Fish Fuckers
-
Fish Fuckers is a Lamentations of the Flame Princess Adventure with Text
and Art by Kelvin Green, Graphic Design by Alex Mayo, and Editing by
Jarrett Crade...
eXPerience
-
The following are some alternative ways I want to try out in my home LotFP
game. I already use Session Attendance & Carousing but I want to try the
othe...
La torre del Necromante (Sessione 5 - ToEE)
-
*La quinta sessione, dove i nostri si avventurano a Nord alla ricerca di un
luogo pericoloso...*
*T1-4 Il tempio del male elementale*
*Personaggi* *g...
Knights and their Towers
-
Knight's towers were fortified self-standing buildings, several-stories
high, most often erected on a plan similar to a square. They contained both
livi...
Two Thieves
-
Jeff Easley's BECMI Thief I’ve recently decided to run an OD&D game. This,
of course, brings with it the age-old question of which version of OD&D
(3LBBs...
[Review] – Kickstarter “Killer Rabbits”
-
Late last year I kicked in on a slightly less-disastrous KS than the usual
(where’s my damned Ref book, Raggi?). I’ve always been a big fan of
manuscript a...
Folk Horror Wyrdness in Traditional Low Fantasy
-
My Dreadful Ghoulies,
I think it started when I read an old blog post from Dreams in the Lich
House where John was combining Oerth with darker influence...
One page dungeon contest!
-
The one page dungeon contest's deadline is coming up on May 1st and I am
currently finishing up my rough draft and sketches on mine. It's my first
time giv...
New adventure
-
Finally got around to uploading a new adventure. You can find it under
the adventures tab or just jump right to it from the link below. The
adventure is...
How's the View at Scenic Dunnsmouth?
-
*[First, there are major spoilers here, so I wouldn't recommend reading
this if you're a player. That said, this is one of the few adventures that
changes...
Dark Sun for Lamentations of the Flame Princess
-
The wife and I have been hard at work preparing Dark Sun for Lamentations
of the Flame Princess. Whilst we didn't manage to complete this one over
the we...
Conformity is Easy but Often Unwise.
-
*"Trying to conform to frantic society is like trying to dance in rhythm
with an erupting volcano. The awakened see society's problems as
originating fro...
Here's a couple of semi-related questions.
ReplyDeleteI recently read an interview with someone from WotC about D&D 4e. What caught my eye was:
Question: Will 4e require the use of miniatures?
Answer: Well, we anticipate that most players will use miniatures, but miniatures are no more required in 4e than the previous edition.
Instead of a simple yes or no, I'm left wondering what that answer means. I've never played 3.0 or 3.5. The only D20 books I've ever owned were D20 Modern and Urban Arcana, so I'm no "modern" D&D expert. But, from what I've read at your blog and elsewhere I've gathered that 3.5 pretty much DOES require the use of miniatures. Is that the case?
Second question- what are your thoughts about the approaching 4e Jeff? Excited anticpation, cringing with terror, yawning with apathy, or something else?
Initially, I didn't even consider picking up the game, but as I read more about it SOME of the things they've done mechanically sound neat (others definitely don't though). I don't want to play on a virtual kitchen table, I don't want to pay for a subscription service, I don't want to need miniatures and big tactical map all the time, and I don't want every pc to be able to do everything under the sun. Yet, at the same time I find myself actually considering buying this game. Why? It sounds like it might be fun that's why. Of course thematically the whole thing sounds more like Final Fantasy than D&D though.
One final D&D thought. In reading stuff about the pending 4e, I've seen several comments from WotC and from regular gamers about how AD&D2 was a huge step up in complexity from AD&D. Am I the only one who goes "What?" when I read that. I've always found 2nd Edition much easier rules wise than AD&D. (Of course not counting the players option stuff which was really proto-3e more than 2e).
I'm just waiting for someone to use some kind of "4th Edition Rules - 3.5th Edition Feel!" advertising tagline :)
ReplyDelete(the above crack not related to Pathfinder specifically, of course, just to the broader topic)
ReplyDelete3.0/3.5 require miniatures only slightly more than AD&D. For both, they're handy but not necessary for figuring out spell areas of effect and ranges. D20 adds attacks of opportunity and flanking but removes facing.
ReplyDeleteBut, from what I've read at your blog and elsewhere I've gathered that 3.5 pretty much DOES require the use of miniatures. Is that the case?
ReplyDeleteWithout minis you have to ignore or handwave vast chunks of mechanics. You can play without the minis, but I don't know why you'd want to, to be honest. The strength of the system is in the gridded tactical combat.
Second question- what are your thoughts about the approaching 4e Jeff?
I am absolutely certain that the folks behind 4e will produce a slick, great game. But I fear they have it in their power to produce a great game that is also a lousy edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
I've seen several comments from WotC and from regular gamers about how AD&D2 was a huge step up in complexity from AD&D. Am I the only one who goes "What?" when I read that. I've always found 2nd Edition much easier rules wise than AD&D.
Anybody who says 2nd edition AD&D was more complicated than the first edition never tried to play a combat by the rules in the DMG. Nor did they ever attempt to use 1st edition psionics. Mechanically, 2nd edition was a much slicker operation in many ways.
While you can play 3/3.5 edition without minis, you'd never want to. The best part about 3rd edition is how well the tactical combat rules work. If you're not going to use those rules, you'd likely be better served by a system that focuses on some other aspect of gameplay. It looks like 4th edition is going to continue that trend. Many of the powers I've seen allow you to push people around the battlefield, or teleport yourself or your allies into advantageous positions.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on 4th edition. Mechanically, some of the things sound interesting, although I'm opposed to the lack of customization that I've seen in some of the playtest stuff. 3rd edition gave a DM access to the whole toolbox - if you wanted a new monster or spell or feat, the rules for creating in were in the books. In 4th edition, you don't have access to the toolbox at all, it seems. Monsters are pre-written stat-blocks. If you want a new monster, you've got to reverse engineer it and cobble something together. That bothers me. Likewise, the fact that classes are very narrowly defined in 4th edition really bothers me. A third edition fighter could be a heavily armored tank, a dodgy two-weapon swashbuckler or an expert archer. A fourth edition fighter is defined as wearing heavy armor. A fourth edition rogue has many abilities that don't function when he is wearing armor heavier than leather or a weapon other than a light blade.
Finally, there's D&D Insider. I was OK with this at first, although I wasn't planning on buying into it. However, the more I hear about it, the more it seems that the best feats and classes from each new release are going to be insider-only. For example, the class that was getting the most buzz on most of the big forums was the "swordmage" - some kind of arcane melee class. Well, I'm sure we were all surprised when wizards announced that the swordmage hadn't made it into the PHB because of "space." It will be available to subscribers on Insider, though. I can foresee a scenario somewhere down the road where the "premium" players - those that subscribe to Insider - have access to better classes and equipment than those that don't subscribe. That's a really disturbing thought.
Hey, always happy to lend a hand, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteYou can play without the minis, but I don't know why you'd want to, to be honest. The strength of the system is in the gridded tactical combat.
Which is why most of my D&D-style gaming is still 2nd edition. I really wanted to like 3rd edition, since it purged AD&D of many of its icky game-isms, like race-based level caps and class-based equipment restrictions. But gridded tactical combat isn't worth the effort the way most of my games play. We're usually more worried about the limitations on divinations or exactly how far we can blackmail Lord Humperdink before he decides we've pushed him too far.
I can foresee a scenario somewhere down the road where the "premium" players - those that subscribe to Insider - have access to better classes and equipment than those that don't subscribe. That's a really disturbing thought.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that, outside of competitive tournament games (say, Magic, and many other non-RPGs), the concept of "better" items in a roleplaying game that I am, definitionally, going to be playing with a small group of friends never really made much sense to me.
I have to add the caveat that I'm not in the target market for most of the type of premium content you're mentioning, anyway. When I first saw Prestige classes in 3.0, I thought, "Geez. That's lame." For me, a simple Fighter (or Thief, or Mage, or whatever) is a billion times cooler than being an Incantatrix or Planar Champion. Prestige classes, whether in D&D, Star Wars, D20 Modern or elsewhere, always reeked of all those wack-ass classes in Best of Dragon like, "Cloistered Cleric" and "stay-at-home parent" or whatever. If you're gonna have a class system, it really needs to top out at maybe 10 classes or so (even Vampire, where 13 Clans made good thematic sense, started running out of ideas around Clan number 9 or so).
But yeah, when I see some D20 product and the major advertising on the back is for the new Prestige classes inside, I shrug and move on. I'm certainly not disappointed to have a bunch of them not sucking up space in core books.
Hmmm, read some more preview interviews and articles about 4e last night. Much of the game rules do sound kind of interesting, but it definitely seems like they're going out of their way to teak the noses of us with "old school" sensibilities. For example: supposedly the new rules will encourage DMs to hand out experience to the PCs of players who don't even show up for the game session. Basically, to keep everyone's self-esteem up.
ReplyDeleteAye Carumba!
The emphasis on grided combat and mini's should be a red warning flag to me, since we tried that way back with Player's Option and really didn't like it. Still there's the temptation of having a copy of the current in print rules for D&D for the first time in more than a decade.
Jeff -
ReplyDeleteAnybody who says 2nd edition AD&D was more complicated than the first edition never tried to play a combat by the rules in the DMG. Nor did they ever attempt to use 1st edition psionics. Mechanically, 2nd edition was a much slicker operation in many ways.
In my experience a lot of the arguments about 2nd edition being more complicated than 1st edition end up boiling down to two basic issues:
1) 2nd edition is organized more as a reference work than 1e was. So the rules are more obvious. I've been in discussions with folks who swear some rule was new to 2nd edition when I can recall my 1e DM using it. And when I go to look it up I eventually find it somewhere - usually in the 1e DMG and usually not where you'd initially think to look for it. So there's some of that going on - people were playing with fewer rules in 1e because they didn't even know that there WERE rules for some situations. And that makes it seem like 2nd edition had more rules and therefore is more complex.
2) 2nd edition eventually grew to be more complex than 1e in a lot of ways - especially on the PC customization end. In 1e a Fighter was a Fighter, a Thief was a Thief, and the most customization you ever had was dealing with what spells your Magic-User was going to have in his spellbook. 2nd edition made PCs a lot more customizable over time - not just adding non-weapon profs into the "core", but all of the kits that sprawled all over the place over the course of the edition's lifetime. And that can make 2nd edition appear more complex from a player's perspective than 1e was. Even though from the DM's perspective the game didn't change all that much from 1e.