Quote from: StormBringer;361273If only it were that simple.

Without even digging into the books, I can probably name a half dozen modifiers in 3.x that apply consistently (BaB, Str bonus, etc), another half-dozen that are situational (spells, magic items), and all of them have to be checked against the others to make sure they can stack.  4e may have trimmed the list a bit, but added another whole section of complexities with the powers and their effects, especially the movement effects.

And those modifiers are scattered among at least two books, and gods help you if you are using splats.  Further, with the 4e design goal of 'each monster is special', you now have an additional set of books to reference for modifiers and movement effects.  

You have a unique definition of 'streamlined'.

That might be your point, but you have yet to show how it is valid.  In other words, your positive assertion doesn't make it true.  In fact, as I have just shown, your premise isn't even necessarily correct.

Typed bonuses do not stack with themselves, untyped bonuse however, do. It's really not that difficult.

Unified challenge resolution mechanics > disjointed subsystems or pages upon pages of charts and tables.

It's easy to remember, apply and alter.

While this may be subjective, it really is only in the most technical sense...the only people who can't agree that this is an improvement are quixotic whackjobs who dogmatically argue tradition for tradition's sake. And just because you happen to frequent a board full of such quixotic whackjobs who are more than willing to parrot your old-timey gaming sentiments, doesn't make this not true.

Believe it or not, there is a reason people stopped playing the older editions in favor of the new ones....and if you actually think that more people are playing Basic/AD&D than are playing 3.x/4E/Pathfinder, then it's time for you to step up your haliperidol dosage.

So like I said before...people who are actively contributing to the hobby in a meaningful way. The kids picking up their first copies of the PHB are the game designers of tomorrow, and your ilk simply does not have anything of value to offer them. All you do is sit on your lawn and yell at them to keep it down.

P.S.
Movement rules in 4E are all contained in the PHB and encompass about 2 pages.

I love the phrase 'saving throw'. It's awesome.

Gotta correct myself on one point: there's actually no shortage of utility magic in 4E once you look beyond the core rulebooks.

Even for people who never bought anything beyond that first Player's Handbook, there's this handy free article.

And for people who bought stuff beyond, there's plenty. By my reckoning, there are 268 rituals in print currently (including from DDI only the aforementioned article). I really hope the upcoming Rules Compendium for 4E will collect them in a handy place for those who (like myself) don't subscribe to DDI.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361262Objectivitely improved?

It depends on what the objective of your game is. For me, 3.0 and higher aren't improvements overall as they ALL make combat take far longer than I want it to. I like my average combat to be no longer than 10-15 minutes and wondering monster combat to take about half that. Easy to do in TSR editions before the Player's Option stuff, harder to do with each edition after that as they all seem to have decided that most of the fun in the game is in the combats and the longer and more detailed the better. That's a game-killing negative for the types of games I run. If the gamesystem can't easily to 10 minute or less combats regularly, then it is totally useless for me.

QuoteThere are always a few random nutjobs out there who obstinately refuse to believe that things like streamlining core mechanics and consolidating disparate subsystems is a good thing.

It certainly can make learning the game easier, although the execution of it in WOTC editions of D&D just adds back the complexity in modifiers and feats and other exceptions to the standard rules. It's quite possible to do old school with the D20 standard mechanic, my own Microlite74 (and the upcoming "Microlite75") demonstrate this. They use the D20 core mechanic without all the modifiers and exception-based things to retrofit 0e.  It works well.  However, I doubt it is intrinsically better for all things -- in fact, it limits design by "forcing" one to use one core system even when something different specially designed for its purpose might map to "game reality" better or even be easier for a specific activity.

QuoteAnyone who can't agree that this is an improvement has been sticking their fingers in their ears and arguing "LALALALALA" for the past 20 years.

Or they just have different objectives for their game.  For example, a critical hit in D20 systems has none of the flavor you get by using a huge table of critical hit results for each weapon type like you get in Rolemaster. If your objective is flavor, a universal, tableless mechanic may not be an improvement even though is is faster and easier to use in play.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361308Steelmax is a 4E haters sock puppet account trying to incite you guys into anti-4E unity once again. I would just ignore him.

Got proof of that you want to share with us?

Otherwise, the guy can speak for himself and his nature will become self-evident.

Quit trying to shut down the voices of those who do not share your opinions.

Quote from: jeff37923;361326Got proof of that you want to share with us?

Otherwise, the guy can speak for himself and his nature will become self-evident.

Quit trying to shut down the voices of those who do not share your opinions.

Look at his only other post. I mean, do you enjoy being manipulated emotionally under false pretenses? Are fake posts all you have left?

Quote from: Shazbot79;361312Typed bonuses do not stack with themselves, untyped bonuse however, do. It's really not that difficult.

And you have every type for every spell and magic item memorized?

AD&D is even simpler.  There is no stacking, so add in all your bonuses and roll a d20 to see if you hit.

You are arguing in bad faith and you know it.

QuoteUnified challenge resolution mechanics > disjointed subsystems or pages upon pages of charts and tables.

It's easy to remember, apply and alter.

Unified challenge resolution mechanics are not really unified, so you are incorrect.

QuoteWhile this may be subjective, it really is only in the most technical sense...the only people who can't agree that this is an improvement are quixotic whackjobs who dogmatically argue tradition for tradition's sake. And just because you happen to frequent a board full of such quixotic whackjobs who are more than willing to parrot your old-timey gaming sentiments, doesn't make this not true.

No, it's subjective in every sense, and that is the point.  But thanks for conceding that.  Now go back to your Candyland M:tG MMO on paper ruleset, the adults are having a discussion.

QuoteBelieve it or not, there is a reason people stopped playing the older editions in favor of the new ones....and if you actually think that more people are playing Basic/AD&D than are playing 3.x/4E/Pathfinder, then it's time for you to step up your haliperidol dosage.

It's the same reason people upgraded their iPods when they came out with new ones, too.  It's human nature.  Sadly, your argument is utterly false, relying on people's innate neophilia to assume something is better because it is popular.  I can't help you with your miserable high school years of never being popular, but perhaps you can start a support group around here, there seem to be several people suffering from the same delusion.

QuoteSo like I said before...people who are actively contributing to the hobby in a meaningful way. The kids picking up their first copies of the PHB are the game designers of tomorrow, and your ilk simply does not have anything of value to offer them. All you do is sit on your lawn and yell at them to keep it down.

Except for the resurgence of vintage style rules that you are unable to comprehend.  It must be baffling that some people don't want the new shiny just because it is new and shiny, but none of this matters, because you have utterly failed to show how a new ruleset is objectively better than an older one.  Remember Monopoly?  Aside from re-arranging the properties and moving it to Atlantic City, it hasn't changed in over 100yrs.

Take your angsty, hate your parents, emo whining elsewhere.  You haven't stumbled on the coolest thing EVAR which will garner you the popularity the other kids in your class cruelly denied you.  The more you insist it is objectively better, the less credible your argument becomes.  It doesn't help that you only offer opinion and positive assertions, I promise.

QuoteMovement rules in 4E are all contained in the PHB and encompass about 2 pages.

So, none of the movement effects in a couple hundred pages of power listings are really there?  Or are you saying they aren't actually movement effects?  Or are you trying to deny their impact because you know looking all those up is far, far more involved than a couple of 'to hit' charts from older editions?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361329Look at his only other post. I mean, do you enjoy being manipulated emotionally under false pretenses? Are fake posts all you have left?

Hello?  Who?  Let me check.

Yeah, he's here...  Just leave a message?  Ok.

Yeah, I got it, I will let him know.


The pot called.  He said "You're black".

well, I had no idea sock puppetry and  manufactured outrage were held in such high regard!

Quote from: RPGPundit;361221If a 1st level wizard has one spell (and maybe a couple of cantrips) within a very short time they will be out of any magical attack possibility.
They are thus obliged to either be a useless lump, or to get a staff, sling, crossbow, whatever, and fight in a way they are neither designed to do, nor are they stylistically attractive in doing. Some people say "Gandalf didn't shoot fireballs all over the place". That's true. But I also didn't see Gandalf having to carry around a bag full of darts in order to be good for something after using up his one and only "light" spell.

Since players are going to equip their magic-user with darts or whatever anyways (because they'll be bored out of their mind if they don't, and the other players will want to kill them also, if they don't contribute regularly to the group's survival), it doesn't actually do ANYTHING to change the "balance" of the game, it makes the magic-user no more powerful in any way to say "the magic-user can fire a bolt of energy as a ranged attack that does 1d4, just like a dart". And it means that it looks and feels like the magic-user is doing what he's supposed to, rather than being a really really crappy fighter or rogue.

So yes, I think that's a good idea.

The other side of that is the way that the abilities in 4e make just about every fighter class feel like they're casting spells or using magic powers, it totally sucks. But that's not the theme of this thread in particular.

I have played three sessions of 4e with the same character, a warlock. I have never once used a weapon. If I play again, and if I take a casting class, I likely will not take any weapons as I can't see why I would need them.

So yes, that's a big change - not necessarily a bad one.

Re: cantrips - we've always allowed 0-level spells to be "at-will" spells, at least since 3.0, and it works nicely to help the mages feel more like magic-users than walking scroll cases.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331Remember Monopoly?  Aside from re-arranging the properties and moving it to Atlantic City, it hasn't changed in over 100yrs.

Well apart from the junior edition, oh and Star Wars monopoly obviously, oh and Monopolgy Deal the Card Game obviously, oh and the Monopoly Here and Now edition with the cute little credit card and digital cost tracker, oh and the online Monopoly game. Apart from those, well and the city editions for everywhere from London to Paris, Toyko to Springfield, it hasn't changed for 100 years   well obviously apart from the Mega Version produced in 2006 ... it hasn't changed for over 4 years .... well apart from the 2008 world edition and all that messy business in removing Isreal from the Jerusalem city location and the fuss that caused ... it hasn't changed in almost 2 years  

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361329Look at his only other post. I mean, do you enjoy being manipulated emotionally under false pretenses?

You have not provided any evidence that this is a false pretense. In fact, you are attempting to use an emotional appeal yourself here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361329Are fake posts all you have left?

If you are saying that steelmax73 is a sockpuppet of mine, then you really need to provide some proof of that and provide that proof to the admin and mods. Considering that in all the times before I just countered your own points and mocked you directly, it is pretty unlikely that I would create a sockpuppet. It is more likely that you just do not like the opinion presented and are trying to shut it down by any way you can.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361337well, I had no idea sock puppetry and  manufactured outrage were held in such high regard!

You are throwing shit up against a wall to see if anything sticks and that is all.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361337well, I had no idea sock puppetry and  manufactured outrage were held in such high regard!

As a veteran of the edition wars I would have thought you would be used to this around here.

Quote from: IMLegend;361341As a veteran of the edition wars I would have thought you would be used to this around here.

Abyssal Maw is using the tactic of manufactured outrage right now.

Quote from: jeff37923;361343Abyssal Maw is using the tactic of manufactured outrage right now.

Oh I'm not pointing fingers, just saying manufactured outrage runs rampant in any 4e "conversation" around here from both sides of the argument. I've probably been guilty of it myself. Or, at least guilty of falling for it.