A VERY positive review of 4E

"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1KydnY0-g6rgnFTanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com:

>>*ding* and now you know what they're trying to do. Flop this edition,
>>kill of the 3rd party market, 5th edition without OGL because "The 3rd
>>Party market was unable to properly support the game last edition".
>
> You really like talking out of your ass without the slightest hint of
> logic or command of the facts, don't you?

I think you have been trolled. I *hope* you have been trolled.

-phy
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Mar 1, 10:03 pm, ques....TakeThisOut@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
>
> Your experiences must have been different than mine regarding the
> introduction of 2E. While there were a number of changes, there were
> no real difficulties if a 1E character was played in a 2E campaign (at

Only if you were keeping up with all the optional material (e.g.
Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneers/Wilderness Survival Guide,
etc.). Going from "secondary skill" to "non-weapon proficiencies"
was fairly sizable. Going from all those to-hit tables to THAC0,
and putting the onus on the player to basically keep track of what
DM's used to do with those tables was also fairly large.

And the first time the ranger went against a hill giant was a MAJOR
surprise to him. Oh, not to mention the HUGE changes to ranger
in and of themselves. The whole reorganization of class groups
instead of classes/sub-classes was fairly interesting too. And
bards basically got a massive reboot. How did you change over
those without massive headaches?

> The change from 2E to 3E did not keep this compatability. Characters
> had to get a MAJOR overhaul when moving to 3E and the feel of those

It really depended on the character. Single-classed base-classes
really didn't change all that much. NWP's became skills and the
various +/- due to abilities changed. And going from THAC0-die=AC
to roll=AC was much easier on my players. That and going to a
system of "high roll is always the good result" was a change also
for the better. But changing them over was not that hard.

> characters was significantly different. Multiclassing in particular
> was a problem for compatibility. A 7/7 multiclass who used to hang
> out with his 9th-10th level teammates of "roughly equal playing
> strength" suddenly found himself considered 14th level if you brought
> levels over on a 1 to 1 basis. It was a mess to try to convert. ACs

That "roughly equal" was an illusion at the low levels which is why
multi-classing was broken. As for bringing them over, well, that's
why they told you to bring them over by looking at XP's and *not*
by total levels. Yeah, that pretty much means a total reboot of
the character, but then bards went through that from 1e to 2e.

> that didn't match up, Stats that were much different - you couldn't
> just plop a 2E character right into a 3E game. It took a lot of work.

If you had a single-classes fighter, plopping was fairly simple.
Rogues
took a bit more work, as did spell-casters. But then, you couldn't
just plop your 1e ranger, paladin, bard, monk, spellcaster, directly
into a 2e game either.

> 1E to 2E involved minor tweaks. 2E to 3E involved major changes. So

I wouldn't classify 1e->2e as "minor"; it was, perhaps on average,
less
work than 2e->3e but that was highly dependent on your character.

> while I would agree that there were quite a few people who felt the 3E
> was "no longer AD&D", I can't think of anyone I gamed with who had
> such an opinion about 1E->2E. I can think of several who felt the

Well, around here, there were. I'm sure some of those 1e folks (if
they still hang out here) will let you know.
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Varl" <bsmith DeleteThis @premier1.net> wrote in message
news:Gq-dnbdPv46nPVTanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@seanet.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "David Trimboli" <david DeleteThis @trimboli.name> wrote in message
>> news:47c98152$0$5610$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>> Allen Wessels wrote:
>>>> So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures and
>>>> a battlemat. Including the "coolness".
>>>>
>>>> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>>> Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
>>
>> ...and what countless others said about 2E. All of you were wrong.
>
> Hmm. I'm curious, Mal. How far for you would D&D have to go for it to no
> longer be D&D? What could they possibly do to it or include in it that
> would break your belief and say this is no longer D&D?

If they removed the cinematic nature of the game, or made it overly
complicated like HERO, that would probably do it. Likewise if they removed
things like dragons, mind flayers, beholders, demons, devils, and other
iconic monsters, it would not feel much like D&D. Then again, whether or
not it is D&D is the decision of the owner of the IP, not me. Fourth
Edition is quite different from 3.X, which is quite different from 2E, etc.
Fourth Edition is a barely recognizable great-grandson of the original game,
but it follows a pretty clear evolutionary path.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Sea Wasp" <seawaspObvious.TakeThisOut@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote in message
news:47C9B695.8050801@sgeObviousinc.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "David Trimboli" <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
>> news:47c98152$0$5610$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>
>>>Allen Wessels wrote:
>>>
>>>>So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures and a
>>>>battlemat. Including the "coolness".
>>>>
>>>>It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>>>
>>>Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
>>
>>
>> ...and what countless others said about 2E. All of you were wrong.
>>
>
> How they could say that about 2e, when (1) there were no CCGs then,

"It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore." That is the quote I was
responding to.

> and (B) when there was no significant change between 2e and 1e, I don't
> know.

Ask the people who were bitching. I am not one of them.

> 3e was the distillation of what D&D *could* be, overall. It is the best
> game that could be made that still is, in fact, D&D.

That is your opinion, not mine. "Best" is a pretty tall order, and 3.5E
proved that 3E was not the best D&D could be, given that it is an
improvement.

> 1e and 2e are basically little different from the original D&D except in
> adding and codifying a lot of things that were more open in the original;
> but neither fixes any of the original's flaws, while 3e fixed a lot of
> them.

I agree with that.

> What I've heard of 4e sounds as though it's losing many of the essential
> D&D features, which is in the long run a mistake.

What is essential that is being lost?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Allen Wessels" <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:awessels-135CC5.12044101032008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <Yt-dnYUWibxQC1TanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>,
> "Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "David Trimboli" <david DeleteThis @trimboli.name> wrote in message
>> news:47c98152$0$5610$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> > Allen Wessels wrote:
>> >> So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures and
>> >> a
>> >> battlemat. Including the "coolness".
>> >>
>> >> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>> >
>> > Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
>>
>> ...and what countless others said about 2E. All of you were wrong.
>
> I don't think so.

Feel free to say "this D&D does not have the feel I like," and you will be
completely in the right. The owner of the IP gets to decide what is and
isn't D&D, and the general fan base is allowed to decide whether or not to
accept and embrace the edition with their money.

> When you run just a few of these changes by the
> people you game with and they say "not D&D", at the very least you're in
> good company.

Sure. You are in wrong company, but at least there is comfort in numbers.

> Even the playtester pointed out that play was qualitatively different.

Duh. So was 3E, to a large extent.

> The guy DMing the thing with the rules in front of him knows it's a
> different game.

Of course it is. So was every other edition, to a lesser or greater extent.

> And trust me, when they get some forward momentum under their belt, I
> guarantee that WoTC will talk up the fact that they had to make a
> dramatic change in the game to appeal to a new audience.

It appeals to me, and I am far from a new audience. If you think they are
attempting to change the game to appeal to new players, while ignoring the
current base, you are wrong. They have been very responsive to feedback
from current players.

> They just don't have the balls to admit it right now because they're
> afraid of alienating their existing customer base.

Balls? Balls has nothing to do with it.

> The funny thing about marketing people is that they never think they're
> lying, just presenting different perspectives. There are no truths,
> just points of view.

Marketing people have a job to do, and anything that gets in the way of that
job is useless baggage. If you don't like what they are doing, vote with
your wallet. That is the only vote you get, so make it count.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Allen Wessels" <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:awessels-3413D1.11560301032008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <13sj889buj5iu5b DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com>,
> "Mark Blunden" <markATmarkdbDOTplusDOTcom DeleteThis @addresss.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Allen Wessels" <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:awessels-97DD98.01463601032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> > It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>>
>> No. It just isn't D&D *yet*.
>
> If you own the rights, you can always redefine the thing. Just don't
> tell me it's the *same* thing.

Who told you it was? D&D is not a single thing, and has not been for quite
some time.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Allen Wessels" <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:awessels-AC1748.16432101032008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <13sjscn9ur2mjab DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com>,
> "Mark Blunden" <markATmarkdbDOTplusDOTcom DeleteThis @addresss.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Tetsubo" <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:3-WdnWkp3qajJVTanZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> > Mark Blunden wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Allen Wessels" <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:awessels-97DD98.01463601032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>> >>
>> >>> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No. It just isn't D&D *yet*.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So what have you been playing for the past thirty years?
>>
>> Various iterations of games under the label "Dungeons & Dragons", each
>> with
>> distinct differences from their predecessor, and each of which - once
>> released and widely played - *became* the then-current definition of D&D.
>> 4e
>> will do the same.
>
> It is possible for products to fail.

This one won't. You think they didn't do extensive market research?

> Widely played for any length of time remains to be seen.

It will be.

> What I see is a highly regularized game

That I agree with. It is a concern.

> that will get repstitive rather quickly

Hmm. D&D in general can get repetitive rather quickly. That is what good
GMs are for.

> without regular infusions of new monsters and classes.

Do you think we won't have those?

> We'll see how well heeled and loyal the new demographic will be.

Just watch.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Tetsubo" <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BZydnV6-uYW8KlTanZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@comcast.com...
> David Trimboli wrote:
>
>> Allen Wessels wrote:
>>
>>> So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures and a
>>> battlemat. Including the "coolness".
>>>
>>> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>>
>>
>> Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
>>
>
> Except that 3E is (and was) a WHOLE lot more like 2E then 4E is like 3E.

I don't know about that. You may be right, though.

> Not to mention that 2E was vastly broken and 3.5 is a perfectly solid
> system that doesn't need replacing.

I agree with that. That does not mean it should not be improved upon, or
even replaced.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

<Lorenz.Lang.DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:697435c4-716f-4723-83c7-5316b7f8bd82@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 1, 6:54 pm, "Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> <Lorenz.L....DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c75ddd00-b1f5-4231-a298-46557adb9aec@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 29, 6:19 pm, Justisaur <justis....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 29, 12:05 am, Lorenz.L....DeleteThis@gmx.de wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 28, 9:25 pm, Jim Seymour <nntp....DeleteThis@thentao.com> wrote:
>> >> > "...The one that crawled up my craw the first session was the fact
>> >> > that
>> >> > diagonal movement counts as just one square. The idea that you
>> >> > could move faster diagonally than you could straight or side to side
>> >> > is retarded. But ..."
>>
>> >> > Sorry to interrupt, but *it's retarded*, full stop.
>> >> > Not even deserving a second glance.
>>
>> >> It's not a bad idea. It speeds play by warping the field a little.
>>
>> > IMO it's very bad.
>>
>> Why? Is it *really* that critical of an issue? If so, simply keep
>> things
>> the way they are. Problem solved.
>
> Of course, but why not talk about it here?

Sure. That is what we are doing, right?

>> >> I really couldn't care less about it, and am
>> >> surprised anyone would be that vehement about it.
>>
>> > The way this fellow on AICN babbled is just annoying.
>>
>> Not to me, it wasn't. He was very enthusiastic, but so what?
>
> Cite: "EVERY RULE CHANGE IS LIKE THIS. It all just works."

He is giving his opinion. It is enthusiastic. What is the problem?

> I'm worried when I read such stuff and the only example is retarded.

The rules change is not retarded. It is a fudge to speed play, which you
are free to ignore.

>> > I bet he's *not* a playtester but a marketing stooge.
>>
>> You are obviously not very familiar with the author.
>
> You're right, it's my first impression. Do you really think his
> review is objective?

I don't think any review is.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Sea Wasp" <seawaspObvious.TakeThisOut@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote in message
news:47C9BADE.3080005@sgeObviousinc.com...
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>
>>
>> Biggest issues so far have been the banishing of the 15-minute
>> adventuring day (or not),
>
> Banishing of the WHAT? WTF are you talking about?

It isn't obvious? Once certain spells are used up, the casters want to
rest. That often happens early in the adventuring day, unless the group is
encountering nothing but soft targets.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Mar 2, 5:44 pm, "Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> <Lorenz.L....DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote in message
>
> news:697435c4-716f-4723-83c7-5316b7f8bd82@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 6:54 pm, "Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> <Lorenz.L....DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote in message
>
> >>news:c75ddd00-b1f5-4231-a298-46557adb9aec@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Feb 29, 6:19 pm, Justisaur <justis....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 29, 12:05 am, Lorenz.L....DeleteThis@gmx.de wrote:
> >> >> > On Feb 28, 9:25 pm, Jim Seymour <nntp....DeleteThis@thentao.com> wrote:
> >> >> > "...The one that crawled up my craw the first session was the fact
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > diagonal movement counts as just one square. The idea that you
> >> >> > could move faster diagonally than you could straight or side to side
> >> >> > is retarded. But ..."
>
> >> >> > Sorry to interrupt, but *it's retarded*, full stop.
> >> >> > Not even deserving a second glance.
>
> >> >> It's not a bad idea. It speeds play by warping the field a little.
>
> >> > IMO it's very bad.
>
> >> Why? Is it *really* that critical of an issue? If so, simply keep
> >> things
> >> the way they are. Problem solved.
>
> > Of course, but why not talk about it here?
>
> Sure. That is what we are doing, right?
>
> >> >> I really couldn't care less about it, and am
> >> >> surprised anyone would be that vehement about it.
>
> >> > The way this fellow on AICN babbled is just annoying.
>
> >> Not to me, it wasn't. He was very enthusiastic, but so what?
>
> > Cite: "EVERY RULE CHANGE IS LIKE THIS. It all just works."
>
> He is giving his opinion. It is enthusiastic. What is the problem?

I'm giving my opinion. It's less enthusiastic. No problem either!?

> > I'm worried when I read such stuff and the only example is retarded.
>
> The rules change is not retarded. It is a fudge to speed play, which you
> are free to ignore.

Cmon. It's not retarded that diagonal movement is faster
than straight movement? Maybe circle-shaped spell areas will be
replaced by quadrats too?

> >> > I bet he's *not* a playtester but a marketing stooge.
>
> >> You are obviously not very familiar with the author.
>
> > You're right, it's my first impression. Do you really think his
> > review is objective?
>
> I don't think any review is.

Some are meant to be. Some reviewers honestly try to
give pros and cons. I doubt this one is honest (in this case).
Or maybe WotC has many reviewers and only allows those who
are honestly enthusiastic to speak...
....which would be dishonest on WotC's part.

LL
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

David Klassen wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:03 pm, ques... DeleteThis @infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
>> Your experiences must have been different than mine regarding the
>> introduction of 2E. While there were a number of changes, there were
>> no real difficulties if a 1E character was played in a 2E campaign (at
>
> Only if you were keeping up with all the optional material (e.g.
> Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneers/Wilderness Survival Guide,
> etc.). Going from "secondary skill" to "non-weapon proficiencies"
> was fairly sizable. Going from all those to-hit tables to THAC0,
> and putting the onus on the player to basically keep track of what
> DM's used to do with those tables was also fairly large.

Both secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies are optional rules in
AD&D Second Edition, so there is no need to change anything. Just use
the secondary skills.

Changing from attack matrices to THAC0 is also trivial, since THAC0 was
just a short way to work out your column in an attack matrix. You lost
the detail of the repeating 20s, but otherwise you just looked at the
attack matrix's AC 0 line, cross-referenced with your level, and there
was your THAC0. Alternatively, you could just continue to use the old
attack matrices; they were perfectly compatible.

> And the first time the ranger went against a hill giant was a MAJOR
> surprise to him. Oh, not to mention the HUGE changes to ranger
> in and of themselves. The whole reorganization of class groups
> instead of classes/sub-classes was fairly interesting too. And
> bards basically got a massive reboot. How did you change over
> those without massive headaches?

[...later...]

> But then, you couldn't just plop your 1e ranger, paladin, bard, monk,
> spellcaster, directly into a 2e game either.

The answer — and one specifically encouraged by TSR employees, was to
mix characters of first and second edition rules if you wanted or needed to.

"In any case, no matter what you change in the AD&D game system, a
good number of us will continue to play bards. . . . and whatever
else gets axed or deleted." —Steve Null

Please do. I anticipate that many out there will mix parts of First
and Second Editions together to get the game they want (along with a
healthy dose of DRAGON Magazine articles and other ideas). Do this!
Have fun and use your own creativity. At any rate, rest assured that
as far as TSR is concerned, anything you liked in First Edition is
legal in Second Edition. If you liked First Edition bards, they're
legal. If you liked monks, they're legal. Ultimately, there will be
people out there who will be playing Version 1.0, Version 1.5,
Version 2.0, and probably even Version 2.3 of the AD&D game. Perhaps
we should figure out some type of numbering system like that used on
computer programs!

A bit of accurate prognostication by Dave "Zeb" Cook in DRAGON #121, p. 13.

So you could let your existing ranger characters continue to play as
they were, while requiring any new rangers (if you used that OPTIONAL
class) to use the new rules. In other words, you COULD just plop any
AD&D character into an AD&D Second Edition game, and it would work.

It is impossible to do that when going from AD&D Second Edition to D&D
Third Edition.

>> The change from 2E to 3E did not keep this compatability. Characters
>> had to get a MAJOR overhaul when moving to 3E and the feel of those
>
> It really depended on the character. Single-classed base-classes
> really didn't change all that much. NWP's became skills and the
> various +/- due to abilities changed. And going from THAC0-die=AC
> to roll=AC was much easier on my players. That and going to a
> system of "high roll is always the good result" was a change also
> for the better. But changing them over was not that hard.

Changing from AC and THACO to BAB is a non-issue, because the latter is
just a recalculation of the former. But most classes DID change in
significant ways. All of the spell casters needed to completely rework
their spell lists. Thieves simply had no way to convert their skills
into rogue skill ranks accurately. Yeah... fighters weren't that hard to
convert.

I'm sorry, but the "higher is always better" is a mnemonic for idiots
and the ignorant. If you know the rules, and you can't figure out what
you're supposed to roll in a given situation, go take a vacation.

> Well, around here, there were. I'm sure some of those 1e folks (if
> they still hang out here) will let you know.

We mostly just like to watch the Three-Eee blowhards self-destruct as
their game is about to be abandoned.

--
David
Stardate 8168.9
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Sea Wasp" <seawaspObvious RemoveThis @sgeObviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:47C9BADE.3080005@sgeObviousinc.com...
>
>>Hong Ooi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Biggest issues so far have been the banishing of the 15-minute
>>>adventuring day (or not),
>>
>>Banishing of the WHAT? WTF are you talking about?
>
>
> It isn't obvious? Once certain spells are used up, the casters want to
> rest. That often happens early in the adventuring day, unless the group is
> encountering nothing but soft targets.

I suppose I could see that for low levels, because they have very
little to give early on.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E