Pathfinder

[DrForrester]

Please also note that our "official" stance if there even is such a thing, is that we like both just fine, but this video was made
for the funny.

That's the gist i get from anything where you guys do the whole 3.5/4e thing

[Kag]

Oh, so I'm silly but valid because I object to the absence of half-orcs?

No, saying 4th edition is A BAD PRODUCT because it doesn't have half-orcs is silly. Wizards only has so much dev time. You can make them yourself, if you want.

alignment stuff

Alignment no longer has gameplay implications (like detect evil). There may as well not be an alignment system because it DOESN'T MATTER.

If your alignment is affecting your role playing, you are doing it wrong. With the small exception of situations in which your alignment has been forcefully changed for some reason.

Why call them 'powers' then - the word itself implies magic. 'Tricks' would've worked for rogues, 'tactics' for martial characters?

THEY DID. B|

Well, not those words exactly, but power is used as a generic term. Fighters and rogues get "exploits," which is not only non-magical, but quite descriptive.

Me and mine never seemed to have more than scope disagreements on the use of skills; can't see where the comprehension problem arises from...

I don't have a problem with the system at all. Lying was objecting on the basis of some kind of flavor logic, which has always been kind of flawed. My fault for not explaining fully.

If you don't see the problem inherent in your hint, I don't know what else to say on this issue.

Okay, maybe that's a little strong, but Clerics are REALLY powerful in 3.5. Calling them superfluous because they don't need to heal is insane.

CORE SETTING is a game mechanic

No, it isn't. You don't have to use the core setting and you never did. And anyway, just disliking the new cosmology is a preference thing. If you prefer the great wheel, go for it, but it doesn't make 4th edition bad. Lots of people like it.

Really? I wonder what I was doing wrong when I DM'ed a battle between two nations, with the PCs being just one unit of one nation's military, without minis, map or anything more than a tally sheet?

Uh, nothing. Maybe you misunderstood my point. You took it as fact that you NEED minis for 4e. I said you don't need them any more than you did before. If you didn't need them, that's fine.

Too bad; it is enough for me, and others.

Your issues with forgotten realms are outside the scope of this discussion. If you don't want to play 4th edition because of it, fine. Do that, but don't say it makes 4th edition bad, because the two are distinct products.

And what's stopping you from using the old setting with 4th edition rules?

I'll meet you on the piste; don't forget to bring some muscle rub for all the sore spots you'll have from my foil bending against your ribs.

EPIC FAIL.

3.5 fighters with low intelligence were exactly as skilled at that kind of swordplay as they are in 4e.

And again, exploits are not brilliant strategies or delicate techniques. Hitting a guy a lot of times does not take a lot of thought to figure out.

All-in-all, though, I think this all boils down to an 'apples and oranges' situation. You keep talking about Roll-Playing, and I and others are bringing up issues that impinge on Role-Playing. By this point in the conversation, "East is East & West is West and never the twain shall meet." So I'm out of this.

The rule books do not talk about how role playing works. They never have, and they NEVER SHOULD (the entire point of a role playing game is that you're just pretending, but you have rules so you can't get into arguments about whether or not Billy missed or who shot first [it was Han]). So issues that impinge on your role playing are...imaginary*?

So, once again, if you don't like 4th edition, that's fine. That is also a totally separate idea from 4th edition being bad.

To illustrate what I mean, some people may REALLY LIKE F.A.T.A.L. (I can't find a working link to the review, unfortunately, but hopefully you've heard of it). It is bad. REALLY bad. Like the worst RPG ever. Of course, you could still have some really fun games with it if you don't let the rules get in the way of your role playing.

Or, as Gary Gygax put it, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

*ooh, wait, actually, I thought of one. They took out multiclassing (mostly). It makes situations like my fighter making a deal with the devil and becoming a warlock mid-campaign somewhat difficult to deal with. Of course, that's not really the same as what you're saying, since that's only because there are no rules for that scenario. But still.

[Jillers]

RE: 4th edition argument.
Want to throw my two cents in with this one, because I'm a old school (2.5 was my favorite) fan, and don't hate 4th edition.
I have complaints - combat gets really repetetive, especially in the beginning, when your choices are either fight or magic missile basically, and every character falls in to one of four roles in the party, and if you don't have one role you're screwed.
BUT! It's fun, easy to set up and do a mindless dungeoun crawl, and feels balanced - it's quite a good system for a beginner to jump into and not feel overhwelmed.

As far as story telling and actual role playing goes? I'll stick to Legendary Adventures (and Mythus)... and White Wolf when I'm feeling emo and/or nostalgic.

[Kag]

if you don't have one role you're screwed.

Really? I never actually tested it.

But you've just given me a brilliant idea! Dwarf Fortress campaign.

[theDreamer]

Well, it depends. If you have a fighter and a Rogue, you can own encounters way beyond your level, as long as that rogue can sneak attack.

Also, I can't believe I forgot about multiclassing.

It exists, it just exists in the most stupid way possible: you take feats and get a small sampling of the other classes abilities.

I hate it. Also, the lack of true prestige classes is irritating. I'm sure as time goes by, more specific paragon paths will be made, but their still limiting you, a lot, and don't change your character all that much.

[Jer]

Wow. Just wanted to jump in and say that while my preference for system is pretty clear, I think both 3.x and 4e are awesome (if different) games, and I like both of them a lot.

Justifying why parts of something do or do not suck, and then extrapolating the points made in those arguments to be representative of some kind of whole presents a degree of abstraction that I am not entirely comfortable with ... and playing D&D I'm fairly comfortable with abstraction.

It is impossible to draw conclusions about which game is better, and while it is possible to make generalizations about the kind of person each game is aimed at and thereby cast dispersions n each other as people, I'd prefer we not do that, thanks very much .

I love bringing up the 3.x/4e debate because I think it's hilarious; however I think as long as we can all play the game we want to play, we are all winners.

[Lyinginbedmon]

As far as advertising markets go, 4E was aimed at the newer blood of the genre anyways, there was a big deal about making it more accessible to new players.

But yeah, I'm fine dropping it (the argument) for now.

[tak197]

I have to say, if only to validate your comment Lying, I am trying out 4e in a solo game right now online, and it's been pretty solid as my first exposure to the overall concept of RPG.

[RytelCSF]

For what it's worth, I don't think people who see little if any merit in 4e are necessarily wrong. That's their opinion, and often (as well as now) many valid points are brought up, which I was simply curious to hear.

Also, I like to think that PCs being more resilient in 4e is the main reason cH-Jer refuses to run it.

[Jer]

Also, I like to think that PCs being more resilient in 4e is the main reason cH-Jer refuses to run it.

No comment.

[Kag]

But yeah, I'm fine dropping it (the argument) for now.

As long as we can agree that neither 4th nor 3.5/pathfinder is inherently evil/sucky.

Actually, the only reason I prefer 4th at all is because of the Warlord. Every character I've made has basically been Kamina. Roleplaying him NEVER gets old.

[empath]

Oh, Chemistring - you are equal parts epic win and awesome.

And I LOVED the 'red yarn = spurt of blood'

[tak197]

Also, I like to think that PCs being more resilient in 4e is the main reason cH-Jer refuses to run it.

No comment.

Question: does LRR-Jer actually feel bad for killing characters so much, while cH-Jer has a +100 modifier to Bloodlust?

[Jer]

Real Jer is a lot more concerned with folks actually having fun playing in his games .

[RytelCSF]

As long as we can agree that neither 4th nor 3.5/pathfinder is inherently evil/sucky.

Well, the Warriors of Darkness support it. So I guess there's one inherently evil thing about Pathfinder.

Or four, depending on how you count.

[tak197]

Real Jer is a lot more concerned with folks actually having fun playing in his games .

A democratic answer. Well played

So I'd totally love to see the Warriors of Darkness PLAYING D&D or Pathfinder as a tabletop RPG. I think Derek would probably play as a half-elf cleric named Fuzzy.

[RytelCSF]

A couple badly timed natural 1s and there'd be smoldering plastic everywhere.

[Master Gunner]

That's why you should always pre-roll them out.

[theDreamer]

Am I the only person who hates rolling characters?

I know I can end up with a less powerful one, but I prefer buying my stat points.

[RytelCSF]

I don't like it either. No matter how traditional it is, point-buying makes a lot more sense to me than having certain people be more powerful than others over the course of the entire campaign just because they got lucky with a few rolls right at the start.

[Metcarfre]

I'd just like to jump by saying that I'm currently playing my first-ever tabletop RPG in AD&D, and LORD I wish I were playing 4e. The old system is incredibly annoying. I am, though, still having fun. Especially when I piss off my DM.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Oh, you don't like THAC0?

[Kag]

I find it hard to believe that anybody liked THAC0. Yeah it works, being that it's exactly the same as what we have now, but it's just such a ridiculous design choice.

[theDreamer]

I never really understood the mechanics of THAC0, but I only ever played Torment (not a lot of it, too), and no tabletop versions of AD&D so I didn't really NEED to know.

[Kag]

In new D&D attacks resolve this way:
[ROLL] + [BONUSES] vs. [AC]

THAC0 works this way:
[ROLL] + [AC] vs. [THAC0]

In new terms, your old AC and THAC0 would be equivalent to the opposite of your AC and Attack bonus, plus 20 (THAC0 = -Bonuses + 20).