Quote from: Hairfoot;310078And hit points, armour class and swords.

My car has doors and an engine, therefore it's a helicopter.

I forgot about those.  Also, it's printed on paper.  

Another update, FWIW - I've read the DMG up to the chapter on encounters. So far, I haven't discovered anything that's a deal-breaker, but at the same time I haven't found anything that would lead me or my group to break away from 3e and adopt 4e. Maybe that's where this is heading, for me - not a hatred or dislike of 4e, just a lack of anything inspiring me to adopt it.

Perhaps we should discuss some of the merits of 4e over 3e or earlier editions, with a knowledge that alot of it will probably be a matter op opinion?

Now, this might change dramatically when I read the Encounters chapter of DMG - could well ead to frothing!

Quote from: Werekoala;310179Another update, FWIW - I've read the DMG up to the chapter on encounters. So far, I haven't discovered anything that's a deal-breaker, but at the same time I haven't found anything that would lead me or my group to break away from 3e and adopt 4e. Maybe that's where this is heading, for me - not a hatred or dislike of 4e, just a lack of anything inspiring me to adopt it.

Perhaps we should discuss some of the merits of 4e over 3e or earlier editions, with a knowledge that alot of it will probably be a matter op opinion?

Now, this might change dramatically when I read the Encounters chapter of DMG - could well ead to frothing!

There are rules now for what you can put in the game.  You have a "XP budget".  

If you thought the way some people handled CR was annoying, prepare to have the veins pop out your forehead.

Quote from: Hairfoot;310078My car has doors and an engine, therefore it's a helicopter.

I'm not quite sure why that made me laugh out loud, but it did.

Quote from: J Arcane;310181There are rules now for what you can put in the game.  You have a "XP budget".  

If you thought the way some people handled CR was annoying, prepare to have the veins pop out your forehead.

They're not rules.  There's nothing saying you can't pit the party against hugely superior opponents.  They're guidelines so you can determine what is likely to be a challenge for your party.  My party is made up of pretty savvy folks, so I kick them up the table a few notches.  It is a significant step up from CR.

I just mainly wanted to  post #666 on this retarded thread. Mission accomplished!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;310340I just mainly wanted to  post #666 on this retarded thread. Mission accomplished!

Actually, you posted number 665. You lose, dimwit.
Edit - LOL looks I'm a dimwit too. Yours is post #666. Mine is reply #666 (as seen outside the thread).

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;310340I just mainly wanted to  post #666 on this retarded thread. Mission accomplished!

Hm, any chance of seeing you again on #1000? I remember several people were excited about this prospect in the ever growing "Give me your best 4E vitriol!"-thread, which I remember you participating in for dozens of pages.

Quote from: Windjammer;310367Hm, any chance of seeing you again on #1000? I remember several people were excited about this prospect in the ever growing "Give me your best 4E vitriol!"-thread, which I remember you participating in for dozens of pages.

Yeah, that was a good thread. I remember it fondly.

Quote from: counterspin;310338They're not rules.  There's nothing saying you can't pit the party against hugely superior opponents.  They're guidelines so you can determine what is likely to be a challenge for your party.  My party is made up of pretty savvy folks, so I kick them up the table a few notches.  It is a significant step up from CR.

How is codifying things MORE a step up from CR, when there was already a significant problem with people using CR as a bludgeon or a straightjacket as to what a DM was allowed to throw at the players?

You can say "well you can ignore it" all you want, that doesn't make them magically go away.

Quote from: J Arcane;310420How is codifying things MORE a step up from CR, when there was already a significant problem with people using CR as a bludgeon or a straightjacket as to what a DM was allowed to throw at the players?

You can say "well you can ignore it" all you want, that doesn't make them magically go away.

Yep.  And we're retracing some old ground here.

In the edition war context the argument goes:
"4E is the superior edition because you don't have to use houserules constantly."
"And it's also lame because it's designed so characters aren't threatened."
"But you can make it lethal."
"How?"
"With house rules."

Wellll now, let's not go quite that far. As read, the rules do not disallow death. In fact, some things (increasing fall damage, making poison lethal again) are quite deadly. If death wasn't an option, then you wouldn't need rituals to preserve bodies and rituals for resurrection, after all. And while the book does try to press fairness in its wording and with some of the rules, it dosn't disallow "unfairness". It even mentions that you can have unbalanced encounters if you want, but just warns of possible outcomes. I think what's poisoning some of this discussion is the very concept of "fairness" - I don't believe anything is inherently "fair", and trying to codify it in the structure of a game still feels wrong, but again, I don't think that the rules disallow any kind of play. For the most part I'm not even really seeing much that needs house-ruling, you just need to go a bit outside the "standard" level rules settings and turn the dial up a bit - which you can do with the rules as written.  

Trying to remain relatively impartial here, but I'm inevitable moving towards the "there's nothing wrong with 4e" camp. Not saying it'll take over the table, simply because I know my group won't do it, but I'm not seeing any deal-breakers from my standpoint.

Quote from: Hairfoot;310448"4E is the superior edition because you don't have to use houserules constantly."
"And it's also lame because it's designed so characters aren't threatened."
"But you can make it lethal."
"How?"
"With house rules."

LOL So many 4e threads/arguments could be summarized with this.

Quote from: Werekoala;310466Trying to remain relatively impartial here, but I'm inevitable moving towards the "there's nothing wrong with 4e" camp. Not saying it'll take over the table, simply because I know my group won't do it, but I'm not seeing any deal-breakers from my standpoint.

I've been trying to be the same way, but I've been moving in the opposite direction. For me, the potential deal-breakers weren't apparent on paper, but showed up in playing the game, especially the disassociated nature of the class powers/exploits. While I'm not going to say that there's something wrong with 4e, I can and will say there's plenty of things wrong with 4e for me. I've been thinking of ways to use the powers/exploits that would make more sense from the gameworld pov, but to be honest I shouldn't have to. Never felt the need with basic through 3.5, they always worked for me. If 4e wasn't DnD I wouldn't even bother to be honest, it's such a poor match for anything I want to do with a game, but the fact is it's going to be the most played game. I almost wish they had copied MMOs even more directly, because I've come to hate the at-will/encounter/daily shit. A simple point pool and various point costs to use powers would be far superior in my opinion... far less disassociated for sure.

Quote from: Sigmund;310481I've been trying to be the same way, but I've been moving in the opposite direction. For me, the potential deal-breakers weren't apparent on paper, but showed up in playing the game, especially the disassociated nature of the class powers/exploits. While I'm not going to say that there's something wrong with 4e, I can and will say there's plenty of things wrong with 4e for me. I've been thinking of ways to use the powers/exploits that would make more sense from the gameworld pov, but to be honest I shouldn't have to. Never felt the need with basic through 3.5, they always worked for me. If 4e wasn't DnD I wouldn't even bother to be honest, it's such a poor match for anything I want to do with a game, but the fact is it's going to be the most played game. I almost wish they had copied MMOs even more directly, because I've come to hate the at-will/encounter/daily shit. A simple point pool and various point costs to use powers would be far superior in my opinion... far less disassociated for sure.

Now THIS - I can agree with, and tis a good point. 3.0 and 3.5, even with all the bells and whistles, was still D&D "fighter bash, mage cast, cleric heal, thief get hand cut off" - same thing we've done since 1977 or so. But 4e DOES ratchet up the power level, and adds abilities that were never present before (that I know of) like healing "surges" and such. Using that as an example, in the rules as writtent, its just recovering your wind after or during a battle, as HP dosn't JUST represent damage but fatigue and bruising and such. I'm ok with that. But by calling it a "surge", I get a mental image of someone shouting something in a foreign language and glowing white as the "surge" does its work. I fall back on my "D&D meets Dragonball Z" analogy that I used. Its got an "Exalted" feel to it now that D&D didn't have in the past.

Put yet another way, ever since I started playing D&D, my mental image of a fighter was of a slightly grubby guy in well-used armor in a dark tunnel with a torch and nicked longsword. Now I think he'd be more of an anime character.

THAT said, I think I'm ok with that as far as it goes. But the "flavor", if you will, is what has (or is intended to) dramatically changed for me.