Export thread

Nobody fucking wants them! No hits on eBay and I tried to take them to my local gaming store and guy informed me that he had too many used ones already. Now, he is really, REALLY looking for 3.5 books.

Seems people are leaving 4e in fricking droves. For every few people who love it there are 4 more who hate it with the white hot intensity of 1000 suns.

Me being one of those haters, I think this is funny.

The problem with 4e is that it turn all classes into more of MMORPG style format. It is kinda like WoW on paper in terms of combat.

I personally hate that aspect of it. The combat flow is much easier in 4 than in 3.5 but the magic using class got nerf IMO. I happen to like all the spells and spell slots. I actually like my cleric to be able to HEAL people instead of using surges.

yea I'm weird that way.

I hate it also, which is why I'm trying to get rid of them. I'm looking at the new release of the Warhammer FRP.

Looks killer, man! I love that game but haven't played it in years.

As 4e is all I've played, I don't know about the others, but it sure sounds like previous editions might be better.

Imagine a character who has very little combat skill but has all of the knowledge. In a fight he does hardly anything, but if he's in a city, library or you find something obscure in a treasure trove he can pull information out of it that will give the party a benefit or direction they might not have had previously.

Imagine a party who is lacking a healer or a thief and discover that you really, really need one. Sure, you can use the Knock spell to open stuff or potions to heal, but characters actual have a place other than "tank", "controller" or the like.

One of the things they did was to balance everything so much that all the classes are the same.

The old system allow more RP IMO. You can have all kinds of skill that could relate or not relate to your class. Each class or specific sphere of magic user have advantages and disadvantages (likes OoTS uses 3.5 rules)

In 3.5 and older mages have all kinds of spell that is fun to use.

Grease - 2nd level spell that create a magical slippery oil on the ground.
Bigspy's Crushing hand - 4th I think - is basically a hand that well... crush a target.
Mages have to memorize spells for that adventure. While some newer players hate it, I love it cause it makes a player actually PREPARE for the adventure and possible stuff. Of course people can use spells in situation that never meant to be use or at least thought of.

Clerics have all kind of spell that can do wondrous things.

Also Dave gave a perfect example of skills use in non-combat setting.

4E made a lot of changes that made all classes combat ready BUT remove a lot of uniqueness that I miss from 3.5 and below.

I don't let the rules and limitations of 4th edition stop me from making a fun game. In fact I've always believed that the rules for 4th edition are more of a guidelines anyway. You use the rules for combat and basic skill checks, but for the most part you leave it up to your imagination from there. Roleplaying is about adding to your character what you want to give him. Not what the rules will allow. Sure there isn't a perform skill anymore. But that doesn't mean my character doesn't know how to play the flute if I want him to.

Shawnacy said:

I don't let the rules and limitations of 4th edition stop me from making a fun game. In fact I've always believed that the rules for 4th edition are more of a guidelines anyway. You use the rules for combat and basic skill checks, but for the most part you leave it up to your imagination from there. Roleplaying is about adding to your character what you want to give him. Not what the rules will allow. Sure there isn't a perform skill anymore. But that doesn't mean my character doesn't know how to play the flute if I want him to.

Click to expand...

well yea. The old time players (like me) can adapt the new rules and insert their own rules into the game with no issues. The main problem is drawing in the new targets.. I mean players, into the game.

I have DM many sessions including lots of convention (anime mainly) and there are many new players I encounter will only stick to the rules of the books with very little "imagination" This makes it difficult to incorporate stuff when players are "resistive"

Of course some players over time (after playing a while) starts to see the true beauty of DnD and refer the rules of the books as guidelines. Of course 4E makes it harder since for people never play earlier version will think, why in the world do you want to add that stuff? it is not in the book.

I love the shenanigans 3.5 allows for character creation. I like how the right feat and/or class combination can make nearly all of the classes bearable to play as. I love that Wizards are basically magnificent bastards if played right. I really like Greater Mighty Wallop.

I love the open-endedness of first edition. Killing a dragon and getting access to its treasure trove feels extremely rewarding, since you're probably going to level up from all the gold and items. I also enjoy the part where you can kill things you really shouldn't have killed by being creative about how you do it.

4e...the only thing I would still want to do in 4e would just make a Demon Pact Warlock and engage in some Bloodclaw weapon shenanigans, but I don't really want to do it enough to play 4e.

Dave, which books do you have and what price would you be willing to let them go for?

I have all of the hardback books up to (and including) Arcane. I will make a list for you tonight.

After grocery shopping. Yay!

It turns out that WoW is a better WoW than dnd after all!

I'm not averse to playing 4th ed with friends, a party game is a party game, but I've always felt third was just vastly superior at doing what most people expect dnd to do.

I like to think of 4e as a completely different game. The idea that it's like an MMORPG and everything is the same is pretty relevant but my only big concern there is all classes use the same system and the only 'difference' are the powers that can be selected, and even those are sometimes the same thing with different names.

The thing about 3.5 is that I think a little bit of min-maxing is necessary, otherwise, characters tend to become useless. In 4e, this is not really the case. It is very hard to mess up character creation.

Also, melee characters seem to be more balanced in 4e and paladins are actually bastions of godly strength, instead of half-cleric warriors. In order to match a straight caster in strength or versatility, I often have to cobble together 4-5 melee classes, along with items, and/or things from say Tome of Battle.

I like to think of my 4e group as my goof-off group where I just do whatever I feel like.

I find, that regardless of the edition and the amount of RP material within the books, you will always have the munchkins who are more concerned about stats, treasure, and gaining power. I found I hated 3.5 because of this issue. Balanced classes were not the concern of 3.5. There were dozens of class/race/feat combinations that could easily make one player a god, and the others feel completely useless. So the problem there wasn't the RP. It was being restricted of what you could play in order to make yourself stand out in the group.

I know, that one of the few things I ever wanted to play, was a gnomish artificer that I found in the 3.5 forgotten realms books. I loved the idea of being a tinkering mechanic who could make any kind of spell effect he wanted by using alchemical and mechanical devices. Sounded great from an rp perspective. Then I realized, that due to poor balancing, poor rule explanation, and poor overall thought into the class, while everyone was throwing fireballs I was shooting a melf's acid arrow at one guy a round.

Now, in 4.0, powers are very limited on the description for a reason. That reason is "let you fill in the blanks".
For example. If there is an archery power that says that it pushes back a creature two squares as long as well as damage you could say "I draw back my bow, speaking an arcane phrase as my arrow tip glows red with the power of my words. As the arrow strikes, a blast of fire throws it back into the wall behind it"

The problem with rules dictating how something looks or what it does is that it limits your imagination. You can't teach imagination to someone. They either get the idea or they are too "grown up" to want to. If you want people to get involved with the story and the RP elements of the game, then you just have to be a good DM. That's all.

I know, that one of the few things I ever wanted to play, was a gnomish artificer that I found in the 3.5 forgotten realms books. I loved the idea of being a tinkering mechanic who could make any kind of spell effect he wanted by using alchemical and mechanical devices. Sounded great from an rp perspective. Then I realized, that due to poor balancing, poor rule explanation, and poor overall thought into the class, while everyone was throwing fireballs I was shooting a melf's acid arrow at one guy a round.

Click to expand...

This is something I find a little unfortunate, but true. Things that read as a cool idea sometimes don't end up that way because the class mechanics are quite poor. Sometimes in order to give life to a creative idea, you have to go through a roundabout sort of way. I hate the say it, but the better your character is built, the more freedom he has.

4e books I have:

Player's Handbook
Player's Handbook 2
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Monster Manual 2
Adventurer's Vault
Adventurer's Vault 2
Forgotten Realms Player's Guide
Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide
Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons
Dungeon Delve
Arcane Power
Divine Power
Martial Power
Eberron Player's Guide
Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead

I also have the GM screen I can throw in.

These books were all anywhere from $30-40 when first bought. Most were $30. And saying that they are used is kind of a misnomer as they were only taken away from my house once and sat in a pile on the floor the rest of the time.

Told you I have a lot of books!

Shawnacy said:

I know, that one of the few things I ever wanted to play, was a gnomish artificer that I found in the 3.5 forgotten realms books. I loved the idea of being a tinkering mechanic who could make any kind of spell effect he wanted by using alchemical and mechanical devices. Sounded great from an rp perspective. Then I realized, that due to poor balancing, poor rule explanation, and poor overall thought into the class, while everyone was throwing fireballs I was shooting a melf's acid arrow at one guy a round.

Click to expand...

You aren't referring to the artificer from the Eberron book, are you?

Allen said:

I know, that one of the few things I ever wanted to play, was a gnomish artificer that I found in the 3.5 forgotten realms books. I loved the idea of being a tinkering mechanic who could make any kind of spell effect he wanted by using alchemical and mechanical devices. Sounded great from an rp perspective. Then I realized, that due to poor balancing, poor rule explanation, and poor overall thought into the class, while everyone was throwing fireballs I was shooting a melf's acid arrow at one guy a round.

Click to expand...

You aren't referring to the artificer from the Eberron book, are you?[/QUOTE]
No. The Artificer I'm referring to was found in a Forgotten Realms book for 3.0. I don't remember the title.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Gnome_Artificer is this what you mean? The base Artificer class is definitely from Eberron, not FR. It's also perfectly viable. I had a player play a Warforged Artificer. He dominated with fireball wands and the necromancer in the party eventually helped him build a Flesh Golem.

Holy shit, people don't like 4e? Sucks to not be able to create demi-gods and not be all about the me, me, meeeeeeeeeeee!

What is sooooo terrible about 4e? Let's break this shit down!

Books are gone. Both 3.5 and 4e. I took them to my local gaming store and got a truckload of money in trade. More than I thought I would considering they didn't want to take them.

Let's just say my comics there won't cost me anything for a while.

SeriousJay said:

Holy shit, people don't like 4e? Sucks to not be able to create demi-gods and not be all about the me, me, meeeeeeeeeeee!

What is sooooo terrible about 4e? Let's break this shit down!

Click to expand...

The simplest way to explain it is that they took away our entire Baskin Robbin's range of ice cream flavors and then handed everyone a carton of vanilla, with different names on each carton. I suppose if all you can HANDLE is vanilla, that's fine... but some of us love the complexity of Rocky Road, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, or Chocolate Fudge Swirl. We should be able to have whatever flavor of ice cream we want without it tasting the same as vanilla.

So stop saying your vanilla is better. Vanilla is good for some people, but it's not what most of us asked for or had. We want our range of flavors back.

And I'm pretty sure we broke that shit down in previous threads about not liking 4e. It's a tired topic.

AshburnerX;308597][quote=SeriousJay said:

Holy shit, people don't like 4e? Sucks to not be able to create demi-gods and not be all about the me, me, meeeeeeeeeeee!

What is sooooo terrible about 4e? Let's break this shit down!

Click to expand...

The simplest way to explain it is that they took away our entire Baskin Robbin's range of ice cream flavors and then handed everyone a carton of vanilla, with different names on each carton. I suppose if all you can HANDLE is vanilla, that's fine... but some of us love the complexity of Rocky Road, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, or Chocolate Fudge Swirl. We should be able to have whatever flavor of ice cream we want without it tasting the same as vanilla.

So stop saying your vanilla is better. Vanilla is good for some people, but it's not what most of us asked for or had. We want our range of flavors back.[/QUOTE]




I see words but cannot discover the location of the point.

The whine-fu is weak.

*de-lurk*

You know, I was wondering what topic would be the first to actually draw me and prompt me to post on this board. It does not surprise me at all that it's a D&D thread.

AshburnerX said:

The simplest way to explain it is that they took away our entire Baskin Robbin's range of ice cream flavors and then handed everyone a carton of vanilla, with different names on each carton. I suppose if all you can HANDLE is vanilla, that's fine... but some of us love the complexity of Rocky Road, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, or Chocolate Fudge Swirl. We should be able to have whatever flavor of ice cream we want without it tasting the same as vanilla.

So stop saying your vanilla is better. Vanilla is good for some people, but it's not what most of us asked for or had. We want our range of flavors back.

Click to expand...

I find this analogy flawed. A more accurate one I think would be to compare 3.5 to Bernie Botts every flavor beans from Harry Potter. Sure there's a massive range of flavors, but some of them, you don't want to get at all. 4e cuts down the maximum number of flavors, but makes each one tasty and edible. Which is not to say that the 4e way is the only way of doing it, if you didn't mind trawling through the not-so-good flavors of 3.5, I would say you still had a bit more variety than 4e currently has, but that's changing as 4e starts to get more and more books out.

I'm about to join a Pathfinder game. It should be awesome. 3.5 with balance.

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------

4th edition is a Neapolitan. They say you have choices but it's still just winds up being Vanilla, Chocolate or Strawberry.

And most of these haters haven't gone beyond the first few levels anyways. I'd be very surprised if any of them have gone beyond LVL 3 and seriously tried to gauge the new system. The bandwagon is to hate and oooooooooooooooooooh it's so trendy to do it, especially with weak whine-fu such as flavors of lol, icecream of all things.

The battle is won before it even started here I'm afraid.

Are you lumping me in with those who hate it that haven't tried it very much? Because I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you.

Try #2 : What is wrong with 4e?

I've explained this several times before. They've taken away the ability to make an individual character who is NOT combat related. They've neutered the individuality of the classes so that a thief is a different flavor of a fighter is a different flavor of a ranger is a different flavor of...

As all characters have the same amount of abilities - both combat and non-combat - the differences are largely semantic. All characters have great combat skills, all characters have the same skills, etc. There is almost no way to build a party that can't do something. Healing? No need any more! We have surges! No thief? Well, Timmy the Mage has a great Dex so his pick lock is high enough for most things.

Yes, I know that the rules are guidelines, etc. But why should we have to houserule the individuality back into the game. They were so busy balancing all character classes that they forgot to ask themselves the biggest questions of all: "WHY would someone choose this class as opposed to a different one?" The answer in most cases is there isn't a reason other than the name or text description of the character.

SeriousJay said:

Try #2 : What is wrong with 4e?

Click to expand...

Its a fine board game, but it seems closer to heroquest than Dungeons and Dragons


I dislike the lack of variety for the mages, a good chunck of the original players handbook was nothing but spells spells spells.

It doesn't feel like it encourages roleplaying, it seems more about the dungeon crawl, which is fine up until a point.

It turned a game could be played with one set of rule books, some graph paper and dice, into something that really pushed you into getting, masses of scenary, mini's etc....

The books also seem really really fugging expensive as well.

And loads of other points that for some reason I cannot articulate at this time :-S

Edit

Fook whilst I was procrastinating Dave made my point better and quicker

Covar said:

3.5 with balance.

Click to expand...

Wrong. They made wizards stronger.

coolbeans;308649][quote=SeriousJay said:

Try #2 : What is wrong with 4e?

Click to expand...

Its a fine board game, but it seems closer to heroquest than Dungeons and Dragons


I dislike the lack of variety for the mages, a good chunck of the original players handbook was nothing but spells spells spells.

It doesn't feel like it encourages roleplaying, it seems more about the dungeon crawl, which is fine up until a point.

It turned a game could be played with one set of rule books, some graph paper and dice, into something that really pushed you into getting, masses of scenary, mini's etc....

The books also seem really really fugging expensive as well.

And loads of other points that for some reason I cannot articulate at this time :-S[/QUOTE]

I haven't played 4e myself, but the most frequent complaint I here from my friends who dislike it is that they made the game about fulfilling party roles necessary to beat a dungeon as opposed to playing character classes to explore a story.

What folks are saying here goes pretty well with that.

Dave said:

"WHY would someone choose this class as opposed to a different one?" The answer in most cases is there isn't a reason other than the name or text description of the character.

Click to expand...

Just a little counterexample: As the PHB's get higher up in number, it feels like they're messing around with making classes have more complicated mechanics. So playing a Psion is actually different from the other classes.

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

SeriousJay said:

And most of these haters haven't gone beyond the first few levels anyways. I'd be very surprised if any of them have gone beyond LVL 3 and seriously tried to gauge the new system. The bandwagon is to hate and oooooooooooooooooooh it's so trendy to do it, especially with weak whine-fu such as flavors of lol, icecream of all things.

Click to expand...

How many tiers have you played in?

Allen said:

3.5 with balance.

Click to expand...

Wrong. They made wizards stronger.[/QUOTE]

They made everyone stronger.

Dave said:

I've explained this several times before.

Click to expand...

And this time let's let a non 4e hater answer it for a change.

They've taken away the ability to make an individual character who is NOT combat related.

Click to expand...

As long as your character can roll dice, this point is moot. At LVL 1 your character can have little in the form of unique skills but that is built with your character and molded by the DM you have to deal with. Nonetheless, they can choose a particular power or a particular feat to build on what direction they would like to head for. The options are there. All other complains in this regards are pretty much, "Shut up and role-play what you want to be".

They've neutered the individuality of the classes so that a thief is a different flavor of a fighter is a different flavor of a ranger is a different flavor of...

Click to expand...

Every class is different and the differences only grow as levels come into play. There are many types of builds for classes, some being very interesting... I'm an evasion rogue on my weekend games every 2nd week and it's a blast. My rogue plays NOTHING like a Fighter. NOTHING!!! This argument is flawed.

As all characters have the same amount of abilities - both combat and non-combat - the differences are largely semantic. All characters have great combat skills, all characters have the same skills, etc. There is almost no way to build a party that can't do something. Healing? No need any more! We have surges! No thief? Well, Timmy the Mage has a great Dex so his pick lock is high enough for most things.

Click to expand...

This to my opinion has to be the weakest argument 4e haters have in regards to 4e. What differences to these skills have compared to 3.5? The fact they all have them in some minor form? “OH SHIT, I GOT a free +4 to my ARCANA check! What, you have a +2? WHAT THE HELL, WE ARE THE SAME, THIS SUCKS!”

Good luck when the DM makes you try to beat a DC 20 check. Good luck rolling a 16+ on a consistent basis or even better, let’s roll a 21. This point is moot.

I LOVE the fact they did this… this to me brings added immersion to the game. So what if my character isn’t trained in Insight? It doesn’t mean he should have a 0 bonus to the skill and stand there like a blabbering idiot when he has to beat a DC 15 check. This allows players who aren’t trained in certain skills an actual chance to pass a check and do something cool instead of hoping to roll 20ies.

I like the fact they gave players the ability to have surges and heal themselves at the cost of limiting their turns, giving them second wind and heal checks. But does it compare to a healer? Fuck no. This argument is laughable. I play a Cleric with HF people and they can attest that my cleric heals are far more useful. I can heal for 20 to 35+, their healing surge heals for a mere 10-15 and limits their turn. As far as Clerics go, I feel that Shawn thinks they are OP since the Divine Power update come out.

At LVL 6, there are skills, I’d rather have my Cleric not even try… such as History checks or Arcana checks…. We have characters who excel in that… just like they won’t put all their eggs in a basket and try to do a Perception or Insight check and depend on it… but at least it’s fun… they may be lucky enough to be successful... and that “option” is fun.

Thief skills? Truly, some people can try to lockpick a door with their +4 modifier and try to roll 16+… someone who’s trained in it and is built for it needs to roll half as much. So if a DM plans ahead and goes… “fail the roll, must go in by the sewers and have to deal with endurance checks”, he caters to a well formed team. Once again… all in the power of a good DM.

They were so busy balancing all character classes that they forgot to ask themselves the biggest questions of all: "WHY would someone choose this class as opposed to a different one?" The answer in most cases is there isn't a reason other than the name or text description of the character.

Click to expand...

Because all classes are different. You can take one of those shiny new classes and complain about them if you’d like, I know little of them but the traditional ones? A rogue isn’t a warrior. A sorcerer isn’t a wizard. A cleric isn’t a druid. A ranger isn’t a swordsmage.

Once again, I’ll state and I’ll state frankly, I bet all the icecream eaters in this thread are amongst the masses of the mundane who have jumped on the bandwagon to hate 4.0 have never played the game beyond a few game sessions and beyond LVL 3.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

coolbeans;308649][quote=SeriousJay said:

Try #2 : What is wrong with 4e?

Click to expand...

Its a fine board game, but it seems closer to heroquest than Dungeons and Dragons

I dislike the lack of variety for the mages, a good chunck of the original players handbook was nothing but spells spells spells.

It doesn't feel like it encourages roleplaying, it seems more about the dungeon crawl, which is fine up until a point.

It turned a game could be played with one set of rule books, some graph paper and dice, into something that really pushed you into getting, masses of scenary, mini's etc....

The books also seem really really fugging expensive as well.
[/QUOTE]

I don't know about the book prices as that's a personal opinion and non relevant to 4.0.

I still feel your problems depends completely on how your DM runs your game.

I'm happy for you, Jay. You are better than me and are a much better roleplayer. I don't like 4e and think you're full of beans and giving the system much more than its due. The things I've posted have been seen in several games across several groups all the way up to 10th level.

But I guess my experiences don't count because they are different than yours. Whatever. You asked, I answered.

SeriousJay said:

Dave said:

I've explained this several times before.

Click to expand...

And this time let's let a non 4e hater answer it for a change.

Click to expand...

...

So you want people to tell you what they dislike about 4e, but don't want anyone who dislikes 4e answer your question? Good to know.

Reading is serious business.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

Dave said:

I'm happy for you, Jay. You are better than me and are a much better roleplayer. I don't like 4e and think you're full of beans and giving the system much more than its due. The things I've posted have been seen in several games across several groups all the way up to 10th level.

But I guess my experiences don't count because they are different than yours. Whatever. You asked, I answered.

Click to expand...

Why the sour grapes? Was my explanation too blunt?

Sorry mate. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. eace:

SeriousJay said:

Reading is serious business.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

Dave said:

I'm happy for you, Jay. You are better than me and are a much better roleplayer. I don't like 4e and think you're full of beans and giving the system much more than its due. The things I've posted have been seen in several games across several groups all the way up to 10th level.

But I guess my experiences don't count because they are different than yours. Whatever. You asked, I answered.

Click to expand...

Why the sour grapes? Was my explanation too blunt?

Sorry mate. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. eace:

Click to expand...

It wasn't too blunt but it totally discounts my arguments as if they are invalid and I don't have the want or need to validate my own experiences. I don't like the game, I've given my reasons and I'm not going on a JCM-esque rant to continue to argue it.

And my feeling aren't necessarily hurt, I'm not just in the mood for a protracted battle over something inconsequential. I'm in a pissy mood.

Dave said:

I've explained this several times before.

Click to expand...

Let's let a non-antagonizing 4e hater answer this for a change.

They've taken away the ability to make an individual character who is NOT combat related. They've neutered the individuality of the classes so that a thief is a different flavor of a fighter is a different flavor of a ranger is a different flavor of...

Click to expand...

Rangers were originally a kit for Fighters. They've always been a different flavor of fighter.

The thief thing, I'll agree with. Thieves used to be more for what they could do outside of combat. In the first edition game I play in, we always need a thief to get through doors and disable traps that can't be poked. Now, they're sneak attack machines. As long as somebody is trained in thievery, no need for a thief.

As all characters have the same amount of abilities - both combat and non-combat - the differences are largely semantic. All characters have great combat skills, all characters have the same skills, etc.

Click to expand...

Ah, but with out of combat skills, what's stopping each member from specializing in certain roles? Have the high wisdom cleric be the spotter. Have the high dex ranger be the thief.

There is almost no way to build a party that can't do something. Healing? No need any more! We have surges! No thief? Well, Timmy the Mage has a great Dex so his pick lock is high enough for most things.

Click to expand...

Combat takes long enough that eventually, you might need healing beyond your second wind. In the game you were running, we probably would have been sunk if Gruebeard didn't have the ability to Lay on Hands.

Yes, I know that the rules are guidelines, etc. But why should we have to houserule the individuality back into the game.

Click to expand...

This.

They were so busy balancing all character classes that they forgot to ask themselves the biggest questions of all: "WHY would someone choose this class as opposed to a different one?" The answer in most cases is there isn't a reason other than the name or text description of the character.

Click to expand...

Answered on previous page.

It wasn't too blunt but it totally discounts my arguments as if they are invalid and I don't have the want or need to validate my own experiences. I don't like the game, I've given my reasons and I'm not going on a JCM-esque rant to continue to argue it.

And my feeling aren't necessarily hurt, I'm not just in the mood for a protracted battle over something inconsequential. I'm in a pissy mood.

Click to expand...

Still love you Dave.

Maybe it's a bandwagon, or maybe it's a bunch of people who've all come to the same conclusion. I've heard quite a few people make Dave's arguments (about 4e and about MMOs, too). I can't imagine they're all circle-jerking each other. I read the books. I honestly didn't play. But I did come to the same conclusion before I read anything on the web. The first impression the Player's Handbook gives is that of a melting pot with generic classes. Maybe it's not right, but that's certainly the way it feels, and that means a lot.

I'll agree with some of your points--it never made a whole lot of sense that "not trained"="totally incompetent". But then again, there's nothing that keeps a 2nd or 3rd ed. mage from picking up a sword, either, as long as they don't mind a -4 penalty.

Man you guys are gonna hate me.

I like 3.5 and 4e.

I try 4e we got to around level 10 ish after 4 months of playing (almost every other week with friends) but it is just not the same as 3.5 and below. The combat system IS much faster.

I kinda like both, but I think the D&D feel is lost with 4e IMO. It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

all characters are buffed in all aspect but I think there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on it.

Chibibar said:

I try 4e we got to around level 10 ish after 4 months of playing (almost every other week with friends) but it is just not the same as 3.5 and below. The combat system IS much faster.

I kinda like both, but I think the D&D feel is lost with 4e IMO. It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

all characters are buffed in all aspect but I think there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on it.

Click to expand...

Individuality.

Dave;308820][quote=Chibibar said:

I try 4e we got to around level 10 ish after 4 months of playing (almost every other week with friends) but it is just not the same as 3.5 and below. The combat system IS much faster.

I kinda like both, but I think the D&D feel is lost with 4e IMO. It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

all characters are buffed in all aspect but I think there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on it.

Click to expand...

Individuality.[/quote]

I would say rule restricted individuality instead.

Chibibar said:

It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what 4E is supposed to be, the game for people to begin their buying cycle.

And it's -5 for 2nd Ed Mages :tongue:

Gusto said:

Man you guys are gonna hate me.

I like 3.5 and 4e.

Click to expand...

We can never be friends. Ever.

Allen said:

Man you guys are gonna hate me.

I like 3.5 and 4e.

Click to expand...

We can never be friends. Ever.[/QUOTE]

I go both ways.

dice-curious

Gusto said:

Man you guys are gonna hate me.

I like 3.5 and 4e.

Click to expand...

Same here. I may prefer 4e, but I'll play either of them.

Dave;308820][quote=Chibibar said:

I try 4e we got to around level 10 ish after 4 months of playing (almost every other week with friends) but it is just not the same as 3.5 and below. The combat system IS much faster.

I kinda like both, but I think the D&D feel is lost with 4e IMO. It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

all characters are buffed in all aspect but I think there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on it.

Click to expand...

Individuality.[/QUOTE]

I must disagree, different classes play differently, even within the same power source or within the same role.

This seems pretty close to the hate that 3rd ed had when it first came out. I had friends who would not touch it with a ten foot pole. No one had to think, ADD was about numbers and lots of dice, etc. Maybe it's different, but maybe not. I haven't really explored 3rd ed let alone 4th ed. Things change because they want to sell more stuff. Deal with it or keep using your old books.

yeah i was an avid 2.5 player and when 3 came out, i was like wtf is this crappy shit.

I kinda have this feeling with 4E.

Except 4E seems so watered down that i'll have an easier time dming this for 5 PC with 0 rpg experience.

I guess one thing I'm confused on his how individuality was something that 3.5 offered moreso than 4.0. When it comes down to it everything was exactly the same number wise. Some classes you hit someone with a sword. Some classes you hit them with a hammer. Some classes you hit them with fireballs. Either way you pick up some dice, roll them, and add them up.

DnD's for pansies.. play Rolemaster, then come complain to me.

elph said:

DnD's for pansies.. play Rolemaster, then come complain to me.

Click to expand...

ROLEMASTER!!

I swing my sword. *rolls % dice* *adds number to sword skill* *checks slashing chart* (*check offensive number versus defense/armor*) *gets number and crit chart to roll on* *access correct crit chart* *rolls % dice* *read crit* *resolve attack*

He swings back...



Massive battles in RM take HOURS!

Although I do have one great story from RM. I had a halfling archer named Naver McNally who ALWAYS put points into his bow skill, movement and had some small magic to make him harder to see. My GM had us go through this whole thing leading up to the main bad guy, who burst into the room and started to dialogue. He had about 4 sentences leave his mouth and I said "Fuck it." *twang*

Two open ended rolls later I had a puncture crit in the E column. Rolled 00. Badass mo-fo DEAD! GM was sad.

Yeah, my GM has a strong dislike for d20 systems (I have a problem with limited leveling systems [d20]). So we're doing Rolemaster instead. It's... okay. Complete custom campaign, usually made up on the fly. I'm not looking forward to getting into combat because of what you say above. It's just so long and drawn out for the simplest action.

For a game called Rolemaster, they should have called it Rollmaster (stupid, I know, but it fits).

elph said:

Yeah, my GM has a strong dislike for d20 systems (I have a problem with limited leveling systems [d20]). So we're doing Rolemaster instead. It's... okay. Complete custom campaign, usually made up on the fly. I'm not looking forward to getting into combat because of what you say above. It's just so long and drawn out for the simplest action.

For a game called Rolemaster, they should have called it Rollmaster (stupid, I know, but it fits).

Click to expand...

http://www.nihsen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=41

Play World of Synnibar

Play FATAL.

Baerdog7 said:

Play FATAL.

Click to expand...

Do NOT play FATAL.

Read the review of FATAL.

Warning: Contains graphic descriptions of things you didn't need to read

---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

Also, I'm completely serious. Play World of Synnibar. Strict RAW. Proceed to accidentally break the game.

When we played, we managed to do space travel because I kicked a member of the party who was a ghost really hard. We then terraformed a planet, caught the attention of a black space dragon, killed it by throwing a single missile at it, sold its scales to become billionaires, bought more missiles and items that allow all of us to breathe in space, and threw the missiles really hard at planets. Destroying them. We destroyed Synnibar, pissing off the gods. One of the party members changed the color of the sun, rendering the gods powerless. Who we then killed by throwing missiles at them.

So awesome.

Allen's description reminds me of HoL, the RPG you're supposed to play while drunk because it's awesome.

You can die randomly during character creation, and have to re-roll.

Most memorable game I remember was destroying most of the planet by covering it in liquid nitrogen trying desperately to kill a bad guy who resembled the little singing girl from Pepsi's late 90s TV ads.

I loved playing HoL, but haven't played it in a long time.

It's one of those games you can spontaneously play anywhere and with anyone. After one session you know everything there is to know about the game, so you don't really need the books anymore. If anyone argues about rules the HoLmeister just kills them. Raid someones board games for a couple D6 and you're set to play.

2nd edition is still where I'm at, as unbalanced and unwieldy as that was. I think that 4th made every character "balanced for combat".

Of course, I still play the D6 West End Star Wars RPG over the D20 game. Stupid Jedi don't get levels, dammit!

If your roleplaying game experience boils down to what people hit things with, then I never want to be at the same table as you. Some of the best sessions I've had have been completely without combat. For example, in our 3.5 campaign:

Entering an exotic city with a caravan, negotiating prices on one cargo and then picking up another, exploring the streets, and the tasks we'd be given in order to get certain things we needed - or just wanted. It was awesome - my character, a sorceror, had high charisma and good intelligence so he did a lot of the talking, which played off the Half-Orc Fighter who kept butting in with stupid or offensive remarks to our hosts, which I'd then have to smooth over. It was great, we were all playing in character, and we still had to make gather information, diplomacy, sense motive, etc checks, to figure out if we were just being jerked around or to really make headway with the NPCs.

Does that happen in 4e?

And for SW, I play the d6 in a PbP game. It's excellent.

Lying Bastard said:

If your roleplaying game experience boils down to what people hit things with, then I never want to be at the same table as you. Some of the best sessions I've had have been completely without combat. For example, in our 3.5 campaign:

Entering an exotic city with a caravan, negotiating prices on one cargo and then picking up another, exploring the streets, and the tasks we'd be given in order to get certain things we needed - or just wanted. It was awesome - my character, a sorceror, had high charisma and good intelligence so he did a lot of the talking, which played off the Half-Orc Fighter who kept butting in with stupid or offensive remarks to our hosts, which I'd then have to smooth over. It was great, we were all playing in character, and we still had to make gather information, diplomacy, sense motive, etc checks, to figure out if we were just being jerked around or to really make headway with the NPCs.

Does that happen in 4e?

And for SW, I play the d6 in a PbP game. It's excellent.

Click to expand...

Alas, I think 4e could do some RP, but many of the skills are reduce (clump together) it is gear toward more of combat style play than pure RP sense.

You can still RP in 4th in the scenario above, but more than likely it is up to the GM.

You can still RP in 4e but it's no longer the main focus and they HAVE included skill challenges, which is like social combat. I personally don't care for the skill challenges.

But what Chibi was saying is true - with ALL characters having ALL skills there's no need for specialization. ANY two characters who have the same stat have the same skill unless the character is highly trained, in which case he has a +5 bonus. So a 10th level thief with an 18 DEX has a Thievery skill of 14 (5 from level, 4 from stat and 5 from training) while a 10th level MAGE with an 18 DEX has a 9 skill (5 from level & 4 from stat). This means that a DC 20 (Heroic Tier default) lock will be picked 70% of the time for a thief who has trained in this sort of thing his whole life. The mage? 45% of the time. Never having done it before. Makes sense to me.

Yes, a GM can set a higher DC. Yes, a GM can restrict over certain DCs from being opened by untrained. But this is homebrews and we are talking base product. If picking a lock is successful 45% of the time why bother taking a Thief at all? If you fail just try again in a second. You'll ALWAYS eventually succeed.

THIS is the individuality they took away.

Dave said:

You can still RP in 4e but it's no longer the main focus and they HAVE included skill challenges, which is like social combat. I personally don't care for the skill challenges.

But what Chibi was saying is true - with ALL characters having ALL skills there's no need for specialization. ANY two characters who have the same stat have the same skill unless the character is highly trained, in which case he has a +5 bonus. So a 10th level thief with an 18 DEX has a Thievery skill of 14 (5 from level, 4 from stat and 5 from training) while a 10th level MAGE with an 18 DEX has a 9 skill (5 from level & 4 from stat). This means that a DC 20 (Heroic Tier default) lock will be picked 70% of the time for a thief who has trained in this sort of thing his whole life. The mage? 45% of the time. Never having done it before. Makes sense to me.

Yes, a GM can set a higher DC. Yes, a GM can restrict over certain DCs from being opened by untrained. But this is homebrews and we are talking base product. If picking a lock is successful 45% of the time why bother taking a Thief at all? If you fail just try again in a second. You'll ALWAYS eventually succeed.

THIS is the individuality they took away.

Click to expand...

^-- bingo. Of course at higher levels the success goes even higher. I do miss the individual spells and effects in 3.5 and older. 4e do have (once a day spells, once per encounter etc etc) but it is just not the same.

But I have to agree that magic users got a major buff is spell usage with 4e. Usually 1st level mages get 1 level spell (3 if you have high int) same with cleric but with Wis and you are done (per rest) and have to rely on your crappy combat skill or good RP to participate.

Chibibar said:

But I have to agree that magic users got a major buff is spell usage with 4e. Usually 1st level mages get 1 level spell (3 if you have high int) same with cleric but with Wis and you are done (per rest) and have to rely on your crappy combat skill or good RP to participate.

Click to expand...

Until you levelled up and became a GOD OF DESTRUCTION in comparison to those crappy fighters and rangers and things, Evans spiked tentacles of forced intrusion ftw (can you ID that reference?)

Also you cant use your familiar to deliver touch attack spells, I miss my taser ferret

Like I said, its a fun board game, but not a patch on the previous iterations.

In the 4e games I have played, I have had some of the best rp in any game I have ever played. However, this probably had to due with the fact that I was playing with much more mature, experienced players than usual.

All this deep rp would end the minute combat started. It was like playing two completely different games, one of deep interactions with others in a fantasy world and one a tactical wargame. When rp was attempted in combat, it often broke down as some powers characters used were difficult or impossible to explain in character.

I don't remember the difference between ooc and ic to be quite so jaunting in 3.5.

RP is an odd concept, because sometimes the best RP doesn't come from following the rules given in a book. This makes one wonder if we need ANY edition whatsoever to successfully RP. The answer is that if you want a rule system that counts for failure and successes within the game you probably do.

But where do successes and failures matter the most? Combat. That's where 4th edition excels in my opinion because it's made to make combat quick and uncomplicated. Whereas in 3.5 it would take hours for a single combat, 4th edition can take an hour tops if the players are on top of things.

Sure there are non combat rolling such as for skill challenges, but those are one of the few things about 4th that I do not like. I feel they have too much potential to take away from RP, unless they are only used as an outline for a string of role-playing encounters.

If your DM is starting you above 3rd or so level, casters are fun!

4 halfling sorceress battle plan: Summon four level one animals, when the enemy horde runs up against them have your familiars(weasels or bunnies, I'd hope) and have them all unleash burning hands into the masses simultaneously. Fluffy bunny and cutie munchkin deathsquad ftw.

One thing I loved in 3rd ed was going into a fight with a character that sucked at combat and coming out on top due to scrappy movie hero wits from doing things like playing the environment(roll under a cart, idiot pursuer tries to follow, strike the axel and crush him. Run up a wall and drop an explosive on the guy below me and not take any damage, that kinda thing). I feel like I can't do that so much in fourth ed because my character is automatically a 'striker' and stabs about as well as any other striker by default. And he has points in 'thievery' so he's a perfect utility rogue too, without trying.

My gripe is the same as stated before - no non-combat characters.

Again, I don't hate 4th ed, it's a very fun and pretty well balanced board game. One of my favorite experiences in all dnd was pissing off my DM by being a fey fey warlock and just solving all of his puzzles through rampant and abusive use of teleport. But I do like 3rd ed a lot more as a fantasy rp system.

Of course, gurps is better still

I don't know where the quicker combat in 4e is coming from. I've had combats in 3.5 last an hour or more when the players knew exactly what they were doing. I've had the same exact thing happen in 4e. I've had incredibly on top of it players, who had brilliant strategies and always knew what they wanted to do on their turns, but I've had sessions that consist almost entirely of one combat.

My group has complained about the length of battles in 4e on multiple occasions. I don't remember if we did the same thing with 3.5, as we played it a while ago.

I guess whats been said previously is that the roleplaying is determined by the quality of players and DM, I just feel that 3-3.5 encouraged a bit more non-combat stuff, more condusive to roleplaying.

Oh and I'll echo rolemaster as the evilness of all roleplaying games.

Those crit tables were freaking hideous

"the orc stabs at you with a spear"

roll

"He hits"

roll

"and crits"

roll

"piercing your..."

roll

"left"

roll

"testical"

"You collapse, receive medical attention within....."

roll

"5 minutes, or die from shock"

Hmm.

Human Cleric L10 Cha 18 - Reliquary Holy Symbol - Turn Undead: 3 +4cha + 2symbol + 8feat = 17
Human Feat: Extend Spell
1st Level: Persistant Spell
3rd Level: DM[Persistant Spell]
6rd Level: Extra Turning
9th Level: Extra Turning

5th level spells:
Spell Resistance
Monstrous Regeneration

DM[Persistant Spell] + Spell Resistance: 22 SR for 24 hours
DM[Persistant Spell] + Monstrous Regeneration: All damage is nonlethal, healed at 4HP/round. Can only be killed by acid or fire.

Hmm.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

Oh yea I'm going to give my opinion regarding why 4e is cool and innovative and new so we can all have enlightened discussions of our favorite gameplay system and mechanics over tea and crumpets.

Oh wait, no I'm not because it'll just degenerate into a trollfest.

well back to Dave's original post

4e IS a good system and easy system for new players to get into D&D. It is not a bad system for the "new WoW players" IMO. It is a good transition type game.

But if you are looking for more deep RP, there are many RP type games (and even older editions D&D) out there that kinda "flesh out" your character.

Of course if you are playing D&D on the competition level, then you would want to get into 4e since that is the main sourcebooks you will be using and no "homebrew" rules. This means you would want to have as much info at your finger tip as possible

Deschain said:

Hmm.

Human Cleric L10 Cha 18 - Reliquary Holy Symbol - Turn Undead: 3 +4cha + 2symbol + 8feat = 17
Human Feat: Extend Spell
1st Level: Persistant Spell
3rd Level: DM[Persistant Spell]
6rd Level: Extra Turning
9th Level: Extra Turning

5th level spells:
Spell Resistance
Monstrous Regeneration

DM[Persistant Spell] + Spell Resistance: 22 SR for 24 hours
DM[Persistant Spell] + Monstrous Regeneration: All damage is nonlethal, healed at 4HP/round. Can only be killed by acid or fire.

Hmm.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

Oh yea I'm going to give my opinion regarding why 4e is cool and innovative and new so we can all have enlightened discussions of our favorite gameplay system and mechanics over tea and crumpets.

Oh wait, no I'm not because it'll just degenerate into a trollfest.

Click to expand...

Well it might if the 4e people didn't come out guns blazing with snippy language. It's like the people who didn't like 4e are somehow insulting the people who do personally just because they discovered they didn't like it.

Deschain said:

Hmm.

Human Cleric L10 Cha 18 - Reliquary Holy Symbol - Turn Undead: 3 +4cha + 2symbol + 8feat = 17
Human Feat: Extend Spell
1st Level: Persistant Spell
3rd Level: DM[Persistant Spell]
6rd Level: Extra Turning
9th Level: Extra Turning

5th level spells:
Spell Resistance
Monstrous Regeneration

DM[Persistant Spell] + Spell Resistance: 22 SR for 24 hours
DM[Persistant Spell] + Monstrous Regeneration: All damage is nonlethal, healed at 4HP/round. Can only be killed by acid or fire.

Click to expand...

no persisting Divine Might?

Do I look like I'm made out of fucking turnings?

Best I could think of is going RSoP, picking up 4 more turnings, if I read it properly. That or spam nightsticks, which is pretty gay.

fade said:

Well it might if the 4e people didn't come out guns blazing with snippy language. It's like the people who didn't like 4e are somehow insulting the people who do personally just because they discovered they didn't like it.

Click to expand...

No, it's insulting when people say that 4e is just a board game, or that you can't RP (or RP well), or that all the classes are exactly the same. If you don't like 4e, that's fine, but don't go making objective statements like that (note: the "you" here is a hypothetical you, not you, fade).

Gusto said:

So awesome.

Click to expand...

Also, one more anecdote from that one World of Synnibar session.

I used one of my class abilities to punch a dragon and give it cancer. I was invisible and it was chatting away with the more socially-specced party member. It realized it had cancer, told the person it was talking to that it would be right back, and then teleported away to go to the doctor to get the tumor excised.

While it was gone, we took its treasure and left. We got the description of the dragon coming back, seeing it had no hoard, and going "...Fuuuuuuuuuck."

Reverent-one;309760][quote=fade said:

Well it might if the 4e people didn't come out guns blazing with snippy language. It's like the people who didn't like 4e are somehow insulting the people who do personally just because they discovered they didn't like it.

Click to expand...

No, it's insulting when people say that 4e is just a board game, or that you can't RP (or RP well), or that all the classes are exactly the same. If you don't like 4e, that's fine, but don't go making objective statements like that (note: the "you" here is a hypothetical you, not you, fade).[/QUOTE]

BUT THE BOOK TELLS ME THIS HAS TO BE THE WAY 4E NEEDS TO BE PLAYED, I CANNOT BEND! AARRGHGHHGHGHGHGHHGHGHHGHGHGHGHHGHHHH

Wow. Just wow. There's almost nothing worth replying to in this thread. Congrats guys. This could be the most immature thread we've had in a while.

Really? You're easily insulted then.

Let's make sure we hold your hand next time.

SeriousJay said:

Really? You're easily insulted then.

Let's make sure we hold your hand next time.

Click to expand...

Your trolling is weak sauce, sir. I argue with GasBandit. It takes more than a guy who complains about Koreans to get me upset.

Krisken said:

Wow. Just wow. There's almost nothing worth replying to in this thread. Congrats guys. This could be the most immature thread we've had in a while.

Click to expand...

D&D Edition wars! More divisive and immature than political and religious discussions!

Other editions suck. You don't get your gold as experience? What shitty games.

2E has always been my favorite

Reverent-one;309774][quote=Krisken said:

Wow. Just wow. There's almost nothing worth replying to in this thread. Congrats guys. This could be the most immature thread we've had in a while.

Click to expand...

D&D Edition wars! More divisive and immature than political and religious discussions![/QUOTE]
Hey, it surprised me more than anything! I expect religion, politics, and race to be hotbed issues.

We should argue about whether the old White Wolf universe or the new one are better, too.

Krisken;309777][quote=Reverent-one;309774][quote=Krisken said:

Wow. Just wow. There's almost nothing worth replying to in this thread. Congrats guys. This could be the most immature thread we've had in a while.

Click to expand...

D&D Edition wars! More divisive and immature than political and religious discussions![/QUOTE]
Hey, it surprised me more than anything! I expect religion, politics, and race to be hotbed issues.

We should argue about whether the old White Wolf universe or the new one are better, too.[/QUOTE]

...no, not that, anything but that!

*runs for cover*

aw yeah....'sup /tg/. nothing like edition wars to give a me a good laugh while at work.
btw, that ice cream anology really fits for the hack job gw gave csm with their latest codex. fucking companies always screwing with good things.
and all you 4e players, play a real game. if you are really that hard up for WoW play the real thing and leave dnd alone.
and all you 3.5/3e players, it doesn't do anything that adnd2 didn't already do better
and that one gurps guy, have fun in a system where a laser blast and a knife wound are treated the exact same except for a couple of words of dialogue.

risus for the win!!!!
:whatever:

Reverent-one;309760][quote=fade said:

Well it might if the 4e people didn't come out guns blazing with snippy language. It's like the people who didn't like 4e are somehow insulting the people who do personally just because they discovered they didn't like it.

Click to expand...

No, it's insulting when people say that 4e is just a board game, or that you can't RP (or RP well), or that all the classes are exactly the same. If you don't like 4e, that's fine, but don't go making objective statements like that (note: the "you" here is a hypothetical you, not you, fade).[/QUOTE]

Okay, this thread's deteriorating pretty rapidly now, but I've got to throw in on this.

If someone says X sucks and is for idiots, and you like X, this is an insult against you. They're jerks.

If someone says X is okay but they liked Y a lot more, personally, this is not an insult. It wouldn't be an insult to you if they thought X sucked, either. If you are insulted by that, it's your own fault.

Also, screw this, I'm throwing out all our books and we're going to be playing GURPS Bunnies & Burrows now.

All because I don't like 4e?

Dave: Changes worlds.

Dave said:

All because I don't like 4e?

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're a big jerk, and I hear your mom pees standing up, too.

Krisken;309859][quote=Dave said:

All because I don't like 4e?

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're a big jerk, and I hear your mom pees standing up, too.[/QUOTE]

[Johnny5]Your momma was a snow blower![/Johnny5]

Hey guys, how do I make a paladin fall?

So a paladin was on his way to work when he started to feel like road raging. This was really strange to him because, well, he was a paladin, and very good about sticking to his oaths. However, after a few minutes he was practically frothing at the mouth in his automobile, laying on the horn and flipping off other drivers. Eventually, he stopped at an automotive shop and asked the repair guy what was wrong.

He walked over to the car, looked under it, then looked back up at the paladin.

"Well, boy, I see your problem right there." He said. "You got a shifting alignment!"

Deschain said:

Hey guys, how do I make a paladin fall?

Click to expand...

Have them going into battle and before they get there they find some greenskin children/infirm/injured. They know that if they kill them it's an evil act but if they leave them then it's very probable that the monsters will alert other combat-oriented bad guys and the party will be caught between opposing forces.

No matter what they do it's a bad choice and SHOULD cause a paladin to not want to do it. Make there be a number of the monsters so that tying up and the like is not an option. And if they resort to killing them, you should go into great detail about the way that the monsters died, pleading for their lives and trying in vain to run away. Have one of the other characters stop and start to argue.

Plan B:

Have the characters start to do missions for the Paladin's God. But what they don't know is that the orders are coming from a corrupt clergyman who is trying to sew seeds of discord. The longer the party does these tasks the more heinous the crimes they are committing become. Finally (after starting to drop hints) they are sent to outright murder someone. they think it's retribution or something but if they investigate at all find that it's not on the up & up. So they either kill the target or go back to the clergyman to confront.


These scenarios give a lot of chances for a goody-two-shoes to slip up.

Or just make the choices easier - if you do THIS (bad thing) you get THIS (great reward) and see if greed overcomes RP...

This just in: Dave is racist against green people.

Dave;309974][quote=Deschain said:

Hey guys, how do I make a paladin fall?

Click to expand...

Have them going into battle and before they get there they find some greenskin children/infirm/injured. They know that if they kill them it's an evil act but if they leave them then it's very probable that the monsters will alert other combat-oriented bad guys and the party will be caught between opposing forces.

No matter what they do it's a bad choice and SHOULD cause a paladin to not want to do it. Make there be a number of the monsters so that tying up and the like is not an option. And if they resort to killing them, you should go into great detail about the way that the monsters died, pleading for their lives and trying in vain to run away. Have one of the other characters stop and start to argue.

Plan B:

Have the characters start to do missions for the Paladin's God. But what they don't know is that the orders are coming from a corrupt clergyman who is trying to sew seeds of discord. The longer the party does these tasks the more heinous the crimes they are committing become. Finally (after starting to drop hints) they are sent to outright murder someone. they think it's retribution or something but if they investigate at all find that it's not on the up & up. So they either kill the target or go back to the clergyman to confront.


These scenarios give a lot of chances for a goody-two-shoes to slip up.

Or just make the choices easier - if you do THIS (bad thing) you get THIS (great reward) and see if greed overcomes RP...[/QUOTE]

Plan C: Push him off a cliff.

One party member gets behind the paladin, the other pushes.

Show him some goblin porn?

The tags bring up another thing that bugs me, too. Someone tagged it "I'm lvl 1 and I hate dnd4". I heard this crap about WoW, too. Why shouldn't I? If it can't capture me at level one, why should I put in what amounts to work just to get to the "better" parts? Doesn't that take the game out of the game?

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

Reverent-one;309760][quote=fade said:

Well it might if the 4e people didn't come out guns blazing with snippy language. It's like the people who didn't like 4e are somehow insulting the people who do personally just because they discovered they didn't like it.

Click to expand...

No, it's insulting when people say that 4e is just a board game, or that you can't RP (or RP well), or that all the classes are exactly the same. If you don't like 4e, that's fine, but don't go making objective statements like that (note: the "you" here is a hypothetical you, not you, fade).[/QUOTE]

Why is it insulting? We can disagree without being insulted. It seems like a lot of 4 ed fans are getting their feelings hurt about a difference in opinion regarding a game. If you like it, go for it, but don't expect everyone's opinion to be the same.

Crap. There's a tag that says my opinion is wrong but I haven't even posted it yet. Damn, are these tags psychic or something?

Gruebeard said:

Damn, are these tags psychic or something?

Click to expand...

Maybe...

fade;310045][quote=Reverent-one;309760][quote=fade said:

Well it might if the 4e people didn't come out guns blazing with snippy language. It's like the people who didn't like 4e are somehow insulting the people who do personally just because they discovered they didn't like it.

Click to expand...

No, it's insulting when people say that 4e is just a board game, or that you can't RP (or RP well), or that all the classes are exactly the same. If you don't like 4e, that's fine, but don't go making objective statements like that (note: the "you" here is a hypothetical you, not you, fade).[/QUOTE]

Why is it insulting? We can disagree without being insulted. It seems like a lot of 4 ed fans are getting their feelings hurt about a difference in opinion regarding a game. If you like it, go for it, but don't expect everyone's opinion to be the same.[/QUOTE]

Where did I say the simple fact that you disagree is insulting? In fact, I said "If you don't like 4e, that's fine". The complaint I have is not when people say it's simply not for them, that the fact that 4e doesn't try to be simulationist to the extent that 3.5 did makes it harder for them to stay IC, or something like that. It's when a someone anti-4e says objectively "it's not an RPG/D&D at all, just a board game" and "you can't RP in it", which means anyone who disagrees must be flat out wrong. It when someone who dislikes 4e marginalizes those of us who do, like when Wana10 trolled (humorously, I assume) and said people playing 4e need to get a real game.

elph said:

DnD's for pansies.. play Rolemaster, then come complain to me.

Click to expand...

This rules system brings back bad memories.

Reverent-one said:

which means anyone who disagrees must be flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

It mostly means anyone who disagrees must disagree. Under these rules anyone who has an opinion automatically insults everyone who has a different opinion.

RealBigNuke;310171][quote=Reverent-one said:

which means anyone who disagrees must be flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

It mostly means anyone who disagrees must disagree. Under these rules anyone who has an opinion automatically insults everyone who has a different opinion.[/QUOTE]

Except such statements are not made as opinions, hence my issue with them.

Reverent-one;310172][quote=RealBigNuke;310171][quote=Reverent-one said:

which means anyone who disagrees must be flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

It mostly means anyone who disagrees must disagree. Under these rules anyone who has an opinion automatically insults everyone who has a different opinion.[/QUOTE]

Except such statements are not made as opinions, hence my issue with them.[/QUOTE]

It is your opinion that such statements of opinion are not opinions. At least that's my opinion. You're statement considering our opinions runs against my opinion, which would make it an insult.

It is my opinion that this system's apt to lead to hard feelings.

Or to state it more clearly: Everything said on the internet is just someone's opinion, even if they word it as a fact. And being on the internet, that opinion is wrong.

New England Patriots suck.
Toronto Maple Leafs are the team to beat this year.

RealBigNuke;310182][quote=Reverent-one;310172][quote=RealBigNuke;310171][quote=Reverent-one said:

which means anyone who disagrees must be flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

It mostly means anyone who disagrees must disagree. Under these rules anyone who has an opinion automatically insults everyone who has a different opinion.[/QUOTE]

Except such statements are not made as opinions, hence my issue with them.[/QUOTE]

It is your opinion that such statements of opinion are not opinions. At least that's my opinion. You're statement considering our opinions runs against my opinion, which would make it an insult.

It is my opinion that this system's apt to lead to hard feelings.[/QUOTE]

Gruebeard said:

Or to state it more clearly: Everything said on the internet is just someone's opinion, even if they word it as a fact. And being on the internet, that opinion is wrong.

New England Patriots suck.
Toronto Maple Leafs are the team to beat this year.

Click to expand...

Yes, how dare I understand someone's words to mean what the words mean, and not some other, entirely different, meaning.

This also misses the point of my first reply to fade, which is not that people that dislike 4e are just saying "I'm not really a big 4e fan" and those that disagree are then going off the handle at that.

Reverent-one said:

This also misses the point of my first reply to fade, which is not that people that dislike 4e are just saying "I'm not really a big 4e fan" and those that disagree are then going off the handle at that.

Click to expand...

I think you somehow missed the first post to start degrading the other viewpoint without adding anything to the conversation-

SeriousJay said:

Holy shit, people don't like 4e? Sucks to not be able to create demi-gods and not be all about the me, me, meeeeeeeeeeee!

Click to expand...

Go back to the first page and see why this became a stupid us-V-them argument. It certainly isn't because the people who don't care for the system said you were dumb for liking it.


I wish people would get their panties in a bunch like this over net neutrality.

Reverent-one said:

Yes, how dare I understand someone's words to mean what the words mean, and not some other, entirely different, meaning.

Click to expand...

God, I hope that was said ironically.

A statement concerning one's appraisal of the abstract or subjective values of something is an opinion. By definition. Here, let me support that: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

You are taking offense to people opinions on things that do not relate to you as a matter of English grammatical fact. Unless you developed the Fourth Edition system, or something, I suppose.

Reverent-one said:

Yes, how dare I understand someone's words to mean what the words mean, and not some other, entirely different, meaning.

Click to expand...

This right there is why your relationships will all fail.

Gruebeard said:

Toronto Maple Leafs are the team to beat this year.

Click to expand...

I laughed.

fade said:

The tags bring up another thing that bugs me, too. Someone tagged it "I'm lvl 1 and I hate dnd4". I heard this crap about WoW, too. Why shouldn't I? If it can't capture me at level one, why should I put in what amounts to work just to get to the "better" parts? Doesn't that take the game out of the game?

Click to expand...

I'm sure LVL 1 Wizards in 3.5 concur.

Allen, you have to understand that the only reason I could even begin to bring myself to type that with a straight face is the tag down there that frees me up to post the most inane, obviously idiotic statements.



Also, seriously: I agree with Jay

SeriousJay;310231][quote=fade said:

The tags bring up another thing that bugs me, too. Someone tagged it "I'm lvl 1 and I hate dnd4". I heard this crap about WoW, too. Why shouldn't I? If it can't capture me at level one, why should I put in what amounts to work just to get to the "better" parts? Doesn't that take the game out of the game?

Click to expand...

I'm sure LVL 1 Wizards in 3.5 concur.[/QUOTE]

They knew what they were getting into.

Gruebeard said:

Also, seriously: I agree with Jay

Click to expand...

I also laughed at this.

I'm totally disappointed in you for laughing at my trolling.

Wait . . . you're laughing at me!

Oh yea, the answer in 4e is you don't.

So a superior in the Church asks me to infiltrate a rebel group and figure out what their plan is. To observe them, I make a ghillie suit out of trash to hide in an alleyway. Our party manages to infiltrate them but the only way they'll trust us is by kidnapping someone for them. It turns out the kidnappings are to lure a group of high level paladin agents to an ambush, upon which their armor will be forcibly taken and used as a disguise to gain access to some corrupt clerics who are trying to install an illegitimate heir (so basically the rebels were the good guys). As a paladin of the Church, kidnapping a merchant was something I could not do. I did not believe in committing evil to stop evil. There was only one thing left for me to do.

I had to become my alter ego, a Lucha Libre wrestler named EL PALADINO NEGRO, whose only purpose in life was to best opponents in the ring of combat. Along with an enterprising bard, we delivered the merchant as a prisoner to the group. The Church paladins show up later and are ambushed by the rebels. Despite being a member of the Church, the alter ego EL PALADINO NEGRO has no complications with grappling in the ring with the paladins. We successfully subdue then and suddenly my party starts attacking the rebels as well. I'm pretty confused right now but EL PALADINO NEGRO has no such qualms and asks the nearest mage if he was a Luchador. The confused mage replies no and EL PALADINO responds, "You are now." and begins grapplin' and stabbing. The party basically finishes off the entire room and now we have two sides worth of dead/unconscious combatants. Somehow the bard gets us out of trouble and we get a reward. I turn back into a normal paladin and act like nothing happened. And since the description of 'a wrestler with a luchador mask and black scale mail calling him EL PALADIN NEGRO' and 'a paladin with a warhammer, glaive, and shining plate armor' are quite different, the Church was none the wiser.

Grappling kind of sucks in 4e though. Couldn't do any of the cool things like pinning or hitting them with their own fists.

...

Deschain... I think you just broke my brain with that description. An alter ego luchador paladin?

tl;dr DM tries to come up with a moral dilemma for the paladin, whether to go against members of the Church to do the right thing or obey superiors without question. Paladin decides to become a luchador wrestler and grapple everyone into submission instead.

Also this is the battle music:

Funny story, this took place in a room where there was a central part and then the rest of it was upraised. So I made that my ring of honor and would throw people into it. For my entrance, I fired twin crossbows and then jumped down while drawing my dagger.

That story just fucked my mind so hard I can't even think straight.

Allen said:

That story just fucked my mind so hard I can't even think straight.

Click to expand...

That sort of talk belongs in the gay marriage thread, sugar.

Deschain said:

Oh yea, the answer in 4e is you don't.

So a superior in the Church asks me to infiltrate a rebel group and figure out what their plan is. To observe them, I make a ghillie suit out of trash to hide in an alleyway. Our party manages to infiltrate them but the only way they'll trust us is by kidnapping someone for them. It turns out the kidnappings are to lure a group of high level paladin agents to an ambush, upon which their armor will be forcibly taken and used as a disguise to gain access to some corrupt clerics who are trying to install an illegitimate heir (so basically the rebels were the good guys). As a paladin of the Church, kidnapping a merchant was something I could not do. I did not believe in committing evil to stop evil. There was only one thing left for me to do.

I had to become my alter ego, a Lucha Libre wrestler named EL PALADINO NEGRO, whose only purpose in life was to best opponents in the ring of combat. Along with an enterprising bard, we delivered the merchant as a prisoner to the group. The Church paladins show up later and are ambushed by the rebels. Despite being a member of the Church, the alter ego EL PALADINO NEGRO has no complications with grappling in the ring with the paladins. We successfully subdue then and suddenly my party starts attacking the rebels as well. I'm pretty confused right now but EL PALADINO NEGRO has no such qualms and asks the nearest mage if he was a Luchador. The confused mage replies no and EL PALADINO responds, "You are now." and begins grapplin' and stabbing. The party basically finishes off the entire room and now we have two sides worth of dead/unconscious combatants. Somehow the bard gets us out of trouble and we get a reward. I turn back into a normal paladin and act like nothing happened. And since the description of 'a wrestler with a luchador mask and black scale mail calling him EL PALADIN NEGRO' and 'a paladin with a warhammer, glaive, and shining plate armor' are quite different, the Church was none the wiser.

Grappling kind of sucks in 4e though. Couldn't do any of the cool things like pinning or hitting them with their own fists.

Click to expand...

I'm suddenly reminded of my Luchadore I made for a Deadlands campaign. He was basically a Martial Artist (so he had crazy powers) but instead of taking an Eastern Martial Art, he had Luchalibra as his fighting style. His greatest moment? Using Monkey Goes Up the Mountain (Basically Super jumping) to jump to the top of a telegraph pole, then back flipping off the top of it and body slamming into a gunmen.

It ether that or using Jade King's Stance (you assume a "threatening" position and get a bonus to Overawe, which lets you intimidate people) to scare a bunch of bankrobbers. Said position? Basically every Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage pose EVER.