TheRPGSite

using all the rules of Next, and you can approach something similar to 3e in complexity.  Not as much, but close.

But can it emulate a more basic character too?  What does it look like when you don't play with feats or background skills/lore?

One of the key metrics for how simple B/X was is that you could put your character on a postcard.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you a "basic" fighter in Next (assume he'll take the warrior path at level three, instead of the maneuver heavy gladiator), and therefore when you gain levels, you aren't really adding a whole lot to the character sheet.

(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/5efighter_zpse1d7d3ea.jpg)

Dude, you have exquisite penmanship.

It's almost fontlike! :D

Quote from: Imp;684251It's almost fontlike! :D

Almost ;)


Doods, I wanted you to be able to read it :P

What I really want to see is a Moldvay 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Magic-user. Then underneath that a 3e 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Wizard, and then a 4e 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Wizard, and finally a 5e 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Wizard.

I've been gaming since the mid-80's and I just picked up Mongoose's Traveller on the recommendation of the owner of my FLGS. I must have jerked off three or four times while I was making my first two characters. Then I started reading the rest of the book. Yeah. No. I think a lot of casual players are like that.

While in time I think games with complexity like 3e and 4e can be very popular, players must first get past that book of rules wall. I think a game that allows a new player to start with a character that fits on one side of an index card will always be more successful than those like 3e and 4e. Without an influx of casuals who may become consistent hobbyists, we will remain a Balkanized community

Quote from: JasperAK;684253What I really want to see is a Moldvay 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Magic-user. Then underneath that a 3e 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Wizard, and then a 4e 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Wizard, and finally a 5e 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Wizard.

I don't play 4e, so sorry I can't do that one.  And I did humans for everything, because in B/X, there isn't an option to have a fighter and another race.  Oh, and I don't have lore in the Next sheets.   If you choose to play with Lore, you just note down 2 of them, like "trade" and "forbidden"

(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/bx_zps5d447b78.jpg)
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/35_zps10a248e4.jpg)
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/next_zpsb6faa901.jpg)

What are these special abilities.

action surge?
second wind?

This is sounding like 4e powers already.

CAN I JUST HAVE A FUCKING FIGHTER WITH A SWORD TO HITS THINGS ALREADY?!?!!

Quote from: 1989;684269What are these special abilities.

action surge?
second wind?

This is sounding like 4e powers already.

CAN I JUST HAVE A FUCKING FIGHTER WITH A SWORD TO HITS THINGS ALREADY?!?!!

Action surge: take another action.  Need to do a short (1 hour) or long (8 hour) rest before you can do it again.

Second Wind: once per day, heal up to 1/2 of your HP max.

Thanks. I didn't think anyone would do it. Its strikes me that when shown this way, they don't 'look' all that different from each other. I suspect that a 4e character wouldn't look that different if its powers were only listed and not typed out in full.

The Next stat block looks pretty bearable to me, and if most of the fighter abilities have descriptions that short, consider me more optimistic than before.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684248using all the rules of Next, and you can approach something similar to 3e in complexity.  Not as much, but close.

But can it emulate a more basic character too?  What does it look like when you don't play with feats or background skills/lore?

One of the key metrics for how simple B/X was is that you could put your character on a postcard.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you a "basic" fighter in Next (assume he'll take the warrior path at level three, instead of the maneuver heavy gladiator), and therefore when you gain levels, you aren't really adding a whole lot to the character sheet.

(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/5efighter_zpse1d7d3ea.jpg)

Yeah I really don't care for that kind of "Simple."  My first character sheets were AD&D.  They are far more detailed than that. In fact it was one of my favorite things to do, was to detail a character sheet.

Quote from: hamstertamer;684283Yeah I really don't care for that kind of "Simple."  My first character sheets were AD&D.  They are far more detailed than that. In fact it was one of my favorite things to do, was to detail a character sheet.

Well, that's the most streamlined and simple that you can get.  The actual official character sheet (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/winner_chsheet.jpg) is much more detailed.

Quote from: JasperAK;684272Thanks. I didn't think anyone would do it. Its strikes me that when shown this way, they don't 'look' all that different from each other. I suspect that a 4e character wouldn't look that different if its powers were only listed and not typed out in full.

I don't know how you could do it.  For example, each of the powers in Next can be summarized in a quick short one liner.

Second wind: heal 1/2 max hp 1x/day
Action surge: +1 action 1x/short rest


I have no idea how to shorten:

QuoteDaily ✦ Polymorph, Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You assume the guardian form of the willow sentinel
until the end of the encounter. While you are in this
form, you can negate being pulled, pushed, or slid. In
addition, any ally gains a +2 power bonus to Fortitude
while adjacent to you.
Once during this encounter, you can make the following
weapon attack while you are in this form.
Immediate Interrupt Melee 1
Trigger: An enemy adjacent to you makes an attack roll
against your ally
Target: The triggering enemy
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target
takes a –4 penalty to the triggering attack roll.
Miss: Half damage, and the target takes a –2 penalty to the
triggering attack roll.

That's pretty awesome Sac, thanks for putting the effort into that.

I'd also be curious as to how long each character takes to make. A B/X character takes all of 3-4 minutes, I recall taking our 3e characters home after the first session so we could work out feat trees and skills and such on our own time.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684271Action surge: take another action.  Need to do a short (1 hour) or long (8 hour) rest before you can do it again.

Second Wind: once per day, heal up to 1/2 of your HP max.

Eek. Those once per day abilities bug me if there's no in-game logic for why I can't take my other action until 12:01 a.m.

Quote from: languagegeek;684300Eek. Those once per day abilities bug me if there's no in-game logic for why I can't take my other action until 12:01 a.m.

I think the "once per day" abilities are generally predicated on eight hours rest, not the clock hitting 12:01.

Ooh, ooh! Now a tightrope walker in Comic Sans!

Quote from: languagegeek;684300I'd also be curious as to how long each character takes to make. A B/X character takes all of 3-4 minutes, I recall taking our 3e characters home after the first session so we could work out feat trees and skills and such on our own time.

I think a lot of it depends on how familiar you are with the system.  For the b/x character, the only think I needed to look up was Saving throw values, so they were only a couple minutes each.  3.5 took about a half hour for both, because I had to look up most everything to make sure I wasn't royally screwing up.  The Next characters I only had to look at the Mage class since I've never played a mage yet.
I think the biggest time consumer in 3e is that even though a character might be done at creation, a huge chunk of time is preplanning stuff as to what kind of build you want.  Not my particular cup of tea, but whatever.

QuoteEek. Those once per day abilities bug me if there's no in-game logic for why I can't take my other action until 12:01 a.m.

Robiswrong is, ironically, correct.  It's not really per day.  That's me using familiar terminology.  It's 8 hours.

This may just say something about Merdock, but I think the throwing knives are listed there with his melee stabbing bonus...(Unless throwing uses Str in Next and I didn't notice).

And yeah, good penmanship.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684313This may just say something about Merdock, but I think the throwing knives are listed there with his melee stabbing bonus...(Unless throwing uses Str in Next and I didn't notice).

And yeah, good penmanship.

Didn't strength bonus also apply to damage in 3e? I'm 99% sure ti did.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684313This may just say something about Merdock, but I think the throwing knives are listed there with his melee stabbing bonus...(Unless throwing uses Str in Next and I didn't notice).

And yeah, good penmanship.

in 5e, thrown weapons use str
 modifier.  I may have an error or two in 3e if I had that wrong

Quote from: Rincewind1;684314Didn't strength bonus also apply to damage in 3e? I'm 99% sure it did.

Yep, everything except crossbows gets Str bonus to damage, including thrown weapons and slings.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684318in 5e, thrown weapons use str
 modifier.  I may have an error or two in 3e if I had that wrong

Ah, right, I've learned something then.

In 3E, melee is Str bonus to hit, Ranged is Dex bonus to hit.
The bonuses look right on the level 3 fighter?

I did notice something else - the damage should be d8 for longsword not d6/d8, and d4 not d3/d4 for the daggers.

(The Small and Medium-size columns in 3E weapons charts are for the size of the user so whether its a halfling longsword vs. a human longsword, its not like the "larger than man-size" damage row in AD&D).

I wasn't going to say anything, but I think you're also missing 2 feats on both the fighter and wizard character sheets for 3.5e, because the fighter gets:

level 1: 1 feat, 1 human bonus feat, 1 fighter bonus feat
level 2: 1 fighter bonus feat
level 3: 1 feat

and the wizard gets:

level 1: 1 feat, 1 human bonus feat, scribe scroll, summon familiar
level 3: 1 feat

oh and also the fighter should have a +6 fort save thanks to his Con.

The last time I whipped up a sample 3e character for this forum, I think I used AD&D descending armor classes, though. :D

Quote from: robiswrong;684302I think the "once per day" abilities are generally predicated on eight hours rest, not the clock hitting 12:01.

I was being sarcastic.

The point stands though. D&D includes in-game logic for why spells can only be cast once per day - it takes time to rememorize / pray for fogotten spells. Like it or not, it makes sense in the D&D universe and it's something the characters themselves would understand. What I fail to get is the in-game logic for why my fighter can do a cool move only once, then rest for 8 hours to do it again. What am I recharging?

Out-of-game, yeah, ok. But what does resting 8 hours tonight have to do with getting an extra attack this morning?

Quote from: languagegeek;684327I was being sarcastic.

Ah, sorry.  I've heard a number of people that do have that misconception, going back to 4e.

Anyway, the "once per day martial abilities" thing has been hashed over for years.  There's explanations some accept, and others don't accept them.  I don't think anybody is going to change anyone's opinion at this point.

Quote from: 1989;684269What are these special abilities.

action surge?
second wind?

This is sounding like 4e powers already.

CAN I JUST HAVE A FUCKING FIGHTER WITH A SWORD TO HITS THINGS ALREADY?!?!!

I concur. Can Next be run without all the 'kewl powarz'? One thing that puts me off a lot of newer systems are the feats/actions/abilities/cool that is stuffed in.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;684337I concur. Can Next be run without all the 'kewl powarz'? One thing that puts me off a lot of newer systems are the feats/actions/abilities/cool that is stuffed in.

Seriously.  Why do wizards need more than Magic Missile, anyway?

Quote from: robiswrong;684329Ah, sorry.  I've heard a number of people that do have that misconception, going back to 4e.

Anyway, the "once per day martial abilities" thing has been hashed over for years.  There's explanations some accept, and others don't accept them.  I don't think anybody is going to change anyone's opinion at this point.

The real problem were of course, Once Per Encounter powers.

That's not a bad level of complexity.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684320(The Small and Medium-size columns in 3E weapons charts are for the size of the user so whether its a halfling longsword vs. a human longsword, its not like the "larger than man-size" damage row in AD&D).

This is something that has never made sense to me. Logically shouldn't most of these weapons do a lot less damage to a big creature? If you stab a storm giant with a short sword, shouldn't that basically be like stabbing a human with the short blade of a Swiss Army knife?

Quote from: languagegeek;684327I was being sarcastic.

The point stands though. D&D includes in-game logic for why spells can only be cast once per day - it takes time to rememorize / pray for fogotten spells. Like it or not, it makes sense in the D&D universe and it's something the characters themselves would understand. What I fail to get is the in-game logic for why my fighter can do a cool move only once, then rest for 8 hours to do it again. What am I recharging?

Out-of-game, yeah, ok. But what does resting 8 hours tonight have to do with getting an extra attack this morning?

It's tiring enough that you're not about to do it again, but not so tiring that you instantly take some kind of fatigued condition from it. It might be an interesting houserule to make it so you can at least attempt to trigger those again without a rest but at the cost of being fatigued afterwards.

Quote from: Melan;684346That's not a bad level of complexity.

Agreed, it looks a lot like my preferred level of complexity actually (I find Basic to be a bit too simple and streamlined, allthough still very good mind! "Basic D&D plus some customization", however, sounds like something very fun. :)).

Darnit, I'm turning into a 5e fanboy, allready. :o

Quote from: LibraryLass;684348This is something that has never made sense to me. Logically shouldn't most of these weapons do a lot less damage to a big creature? If you stab a storm giant with a short sword, shouldn't that basically be like stabbing a human with the short blade of a Swiss Army knife?

I think the idea is that most weapons are doing 'less' damage proportionally because the giant or dragon or whatever has lots of Hit Dice/Hit Points. So a weapon with larger damage vs. Size L gets the larger damage range to counteract some of that and be almost as lethal, regardless of size.

I don't know that's the official explanation but its how I've always thought of it.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684357I think the idea is that most weapons are doing 'less' damage proportionally because the giant or dragon or whatever has lots of Hit Dice/Hit Points. So a weapon with larger damage vs. Size L gets the larger damage range to counteract some of that and be almost as lethal, regardless of size.

I don't know that's the official explanation but its how I've always thought of it.

The "different damages vs different sizes" bit of AD&D was always a bit weird imo.

That being said I do miss it in later editions. It was generally speaking cool to do d12 dmg vs Ogres and such (also, that stuff made Gnolls way less dangerous than they'd otherwise be. I mean 2 HD don't last long when several weapons to better dmg against Large than Medium - including most of the most popular weapons like longswords, shortswords, daggers, spears...).

And yeah I'd say that generally the big monsters have lots of HD because they're big.
(While say medium-sized supernatural critters have lots of HD because supernatural)

Quote from: JasperAK;684253What I really want to see is ...a 4e 3rd-level Fighter next to a 3rd-level Wizard...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684268I don't play 4e, so sorry I can't do that one.

By popular demand I created with the DDI Character Builder a 4E Quick Essential 3rd  level human fighter and a mage (Evocation school). I left the choice all  the equipment, powers and other stats to the Builder software.

The Character sheet for the fighter is 5 pages long; the wizard's counts 6 pages.

I'll try to fit these on an Excell sheet like above later, but now I have to run (dinner date with a blonde lawyer, in Bruges).

But here are the basic stats as delivered by the character summary (I'm sure I could tighten that up a bit):

QuoteMoldvay, level 3
 Human, Wizard (Mage)
School: Evocation School
Human Power Selection Option: Heroic Effort

ABILITY SCORES
STR 10, CON 14, DEX 8, INT 20, WIS 11, CHA 10

AC: 17
Fort: 15
Ref: 18
Will: 15
HP: 32 Surges: 8 Surge Value: 8
 
TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +11,
Dungeoneering +6,
History +11,
Nature +6,
Religion +11
 
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +0,
Athletics +1,
Bluff +1,
Diplomacy +1,
Endurance +3,
Heal +1,
Insight +1,
Intimidate +1,
Perception +1,
Stealth +0,
Streetwise +1,
Thievery +0
 
POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Human Racial Power: Heroic Effort
Wizard Utility: Suggestion
Wizard Utility: Mage Hand
Wizard Utility: Ghost Sound
Wizard Attack 1: Fountain of Flame
Wizard Attack 1: Sleep
Wizard Attack 1: Charm of Misplaced Wrath
Wizard Attack 1: Illusory Obstacles
Wizard Attack 1: Arc Lightning
Wizard Attack 1: Freezing Burst
Wizard Attack 1: Magic Missile
Wizard Utility 2: Instant Friends
Wizard Utility 2: Shield
Wizard Attack 3: Blissful Ignorance
Wizard Attack 3: Maze of Mirrors
 
FEATS
Level 1: Aggressive Advantage
Level 1: Hidden Sniper
Level 2: Bow Expertise
 
ITEMS
Defensive Quarterstaff +1 x1
Cloth Armor (Basic Clothing) of Cleansing +1 x1
Cloak of Resistance +1 x1
Cloth Armor (Basic Clothing)
Adventurer's Kit
Quarterstaff x1

QuoteMoldvay, level 3
Human, Fighter (Knight)
Knight Option: Shield Finesse
Human Power Selection Option: Heroic Effort
 
ABILITY SCORES
STR 20, CON 14, DEX 11, INT 10, WIS 10, CHA 8
 
AC: 22
Fort: 20
Ref: 15
Will: 13
HP: 41 Surges: 13 Surge Value: 10
 
TRAINED SKILLS
Athletics +9,
Diplomacy +5,
Endurance +6,
Heal +8
 
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics –1,
Arcana +1,
Bluff +0,
Dungeoneering +1,
History +1,
Insight +1,
Intimidate +0,
Nature +1,
Perception +1,
Religion +1,
Stealth –1,
Streetwise +0,
Thievery –1
 
POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Human Racial Power: Heroic Effort
Fighter Attack: Battle Guardian
Multiple Class Utility: Defender Aura
Fighter Utility: Cleaving Assault
Fighter Utility: Hammer Hands
Multiple Class Attack: Power Strike
Fighter Utility 2: Push Forward
 
FEATS
Shield Finesse
Level 1: Combat Medic
Level 1: Disciple of Strength
Level 2: Durable
 
ITEMS
Vicious Warhammer +1 x1
Delver's Plate Armor +1 x1
Cloak of Resistance +1 x1
Plate Armor
Adventurer's Kit
Warhammer
Heavy Shield x1

Edit to add: both characters took 15 seconds to create in DDI. IRL I suppose it would take between 15 minutes and 2 days, depending on the player.

Quote from: Godfather Punk;684373Edit to add: both characters took 15 seconds to create in DDI. IRL I suppose it would take between 15 minutes and 2 days, depending on the player.

If it takes software to make chargen not be a pain in the ass-thats a red flag.

Quote from: 1989;684269What are these special abilities.

action surge?
second wind?

This is sounding like 4e powers already.

CAN I JUST HAVE A FUCKING FIGHTER WITH A SWORD TO HITS THINGS ALREADY?!?!!

I had the same reaction when I first played a 1E fighter from level 1 to 16.
Too many fancy quasi mystical powers for my personal preference.

For what it's worth, in 4E they eventually realized that many people (like you and me, for example) prefer simpler fighters over 'power christmas tree' fighters. They added many classes that are far simpler, one is a fighter that is mostly all about just swinging his sword.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684357I think the idea is that most weapons are doing 'less' damage proportionally because the giant or dragon or whatever has lots of Hit Dice/Hit Points. So a weapon with larger damage vs. Size L gets the larger damage range to counteract some of that and be almost as lethal, regardless of size.

I don't know that's the official explanation but its how I've always thought of it.

Well part of the thinking seems to be along the lines of: you have a short sword. You stab a bandit in the belly with it. You can only stab so far before the short sword comes out the other side. But if you stab an ogre with it, you can plunge it in to the hilt. 100% stab!

So, generally, weapons that can be used to stab do more damage vs. Size L, slashing weapons do the same, and bludgeoning weapons do less, thinking about it that way.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684380If it takes software to make chargen not be a pain in the ass-thats a red flag.

It depends why the software is being used in the first place. It mainly because the heart of D&D 4e is a library of powers. Character Creation is not tough but writing down all the information so it is at your fingertip is a pain in the ass.

If you had a deck of index cards with each with a single power. then making a character wouldn't take long at all.

Now it is not something I prefer but it does work well and it highly effective at making a game with detailed tactics understandable to average gamer.

In fact I found adopting a power card approach for my GURPS games also makes the game more understandable for novices.  Basically a cheat sheet of maneuvers, spells, and abilities with the rules printed right there.

It is something that Magic the Gathering honed and really works well.

Doesn't make up for the fact the game is not D&D or change the fact it is High Fantasy 24/7.

Quote from: estar;684402In fact I found adopting a power card approach for my GURPS games also makes the game more understandable for novices.  Basically a cheat sheet of maneuvers, spells, and abilities with the rules printed right there.

That's a great idea! Don't mind that I'm going to steal it, please! :)
(Especially if Powers and/or Martial Arts are used and/or the setting's magic-heavy, that'd help A LOT.)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684357I think the idea is that most weapons are doing 'less' damage proportionally because the giant or dragon or whatever has lots of Hit Dice/Hit Points. So a weapon with larger damage vs. Size L gets the larger damage range to counteract some of that and be almost as lethal, regardless of size.

I don't know that's the official explanation but its how I've always thought of it.

I suspect the large damage was based on what I would call well intended, but flawed logic.


Bigger sword can impale huge creature more....

I assume actual physics would make larger creatures take less damage, not more from weapons.

Do mosquitoes do a d6 to collosal humans?  :)



Or possibly just for a fun factor over logic.

Well the broadsword actually performed worse against Large creatures. :confused:
(But then there seems to at times have been some confusion about what weapon it was meant to represent. In late 2e they seem to have concluded that it's both Dark Age "barbarian" slashing swords (aka pre-longsword/arming sword big one-handers like Viking swords) and 16th-17th c. single-edged slashing swords that aren't sabers or cutlasses...:D)

I can sorta see the logic re: stuff like longswords and two-handed swords doing more damage to bigger monsters, allthough at some point I suppose it ceases to make sense (that a two-handed sword does more damage to an ogre than a dwarf because either the ogre gets impaled more, or quite simply a longer bit of edge connects meaning it actually causes a way bigger wound than it'd do on said dwarf), but against say 100' long dragons this sort of is just weird...

Wow..I had forgotten the broadsword.

                   damage vs mansized              damage vs large creature
Longsword               1-8                                        1-12
Broadsword              2-8                                        2-7




Say what!???   :)

I guess the idea is that the broadsword is too broad to be effectively used as a thrusting weapon.

* throws up hands, shrugs *

Stabby weapons maybe more damage since if you can hit a vital spot it'll hurt no matter how big you are? Whereas a blunt thing is going to be less effective since good luck breaking an ogre's bones with your club.
 
Thinking about it more though, it seems like a pretty random piece of faux-realism, so most likely there's some game balance justification as well (to make fighters better than clerics or something ?).
 
No idea what's up with the broadsword - probably what Imp said. Either they assumed its just not good for stabbing, or somewhere in some random Appendix N book a hero broke his broadsword trying to stab a dragon.

Quote from: Bill;684419Wow..I had forgotten the broadsword.

                   damage vs mansized              damage vs large creature
Longsword               1-8                                        1-12
Broadsword              2-8                                        2-7




Say what!???   :)

Quote from: ImpI guess the idea is that the broadsword is too broad to be effectively used as a thrusting weapon.

* throws up hands, shrugs *

The broadsword: the red-headed stepchild of AD&D swords. :D
(...well actually I suppose that'd be the khopesh but, who cares about the khopesh!? :D)

But yeah it's weird how the broadsword's just plain worse than the longsword. Well okay that's not 100% true, I mean it does one point more minimal damage wich probably helps when fighting 1HD thrash like orcs or goblins, I mean a specialized fighter with Str 17 would do 5-11 rather than 4-11 wich makes a one hit kill somewhat more likely against such creatures but...really! :D He does half as much base damage against an ogre! Why!!?:D

...I sometimes played broadsword-wielding fighters because underdog weapon yay! :D

OTOH, for another example, in 2e scimitars and battleaxes are equal except scimitars are faster (and battleaxes might or might not be 2-handed). But then, battleaxes kinda get shafted in Basic too...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684320I did notice something else - the damage should be d8 for longsword not d6/d8, and d4 not d3/d4 for the daggers.

(The Small and Medium-size columns in 3E weapons charts are for the size of the user so whether its a halfling longsword vs. a human longsword, its not like the "larger than man-size" damage row in AD&D).

I haven't played 3e in over a year, but play AD&D a lot more frequently.  I guess that's what I get for rushing a character ;)

Quote from: Imp;684325I wasn't going to say anything, but I think you're also missing 2 feats on both the fighter and wizard character sheets for 3.5e, because the fighter gets:

level 1: 1 feat, 1 human bonus feat, 1 fighter bonus feat
level 2: 1 fighter bonus feat
level 3: 1 feat

and the wizard gets:

level 1: 1 feat, 1 human bonus feat, scribe scroll, summon familiar
level 3: 1 feat

oh and also the fighter should have a +6 fort save thanks to his Con.

The last time I whipped up a sample 3e character for this forum, I think I used AD&D descending armor classes, though. :D

I didn't include any of the stat bonuses into the saves no purpose.  I just listed the base values.  And Wizards don't get another feat until level 5.  I think I did miss one of the fighter's bonus feats though.

As for just a character sheet comparison:

B/X (http://jaspersrantings.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/basic-dd-character-sheet-updated_page_1.jpg?w=300)
1e (http://bahumuth.chaosnet.org/dnd/sheets/Custom.gif)
2e (http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln2xcpdUhY1qk0goi.jpg)
3e (http://www.rpglibrary.org/sheets/blackmoors3e/images/dnd3_character_sheet_std_104.png)
4e (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JsHYSyoTdJI/T1xzLzmTr7I/AAAAAAAAUkI/hU__5TSdNHU/s1600/adnd4e.jpg)
5e (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/winner_chsheet.jpg)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;6844325e (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/winner_chsheet.jpg)

That's one beautyful, classic-looking character sheet. :)
Seriously, that's a really classic look. I like it a lot.

Also btw, the 2e one really took me back - I loved the old green 2e character sheets! They were very cool.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684431I didn't include any of the stat bonuses into the saves no purpose.  I just listed the base values.  And Wizards don't get another feat until level 5.  I think I did miss one of the fighter's bonus feats though.

Yeah but every character gets the one feat at level one and then feats at levels 3, 6, 9, etc. and the class bonus feats happen on top of that.

Quote from: The Ent;684429The broadsword: the red-headed stepchild of AD&D swords. :D
(...well actually I suppose that'd be the khopesh but, who cares about the khopesh!? :D)

But yeah it's weird how the broadsword's just plain worse than the longsword. Well okay that's not 100% true, I mean it does one point more minimal damage wich probably helps when fighting 1HD thrash like orcs or goblins, I mean a specialized fighter with Str 17 would do 5-11 rather than 4-11 wich makes a one hit kill somewhat more likely against such creatures but...really! :D He does half as much base damage against an ogre! Why!!?:D

...I sometimes played broadsword-wielding fighters because underdog weapon yay! :D

OTOH, for another example, in 2e scimitars and battleaxes are equal except scimitars are faster (and battleaxes might or might not be 2-handed). But then, battleaxes kinda get shafted in Basic too...

Yeah AD&D weapon damage was wonky.  I think OD&D was better for an abstract system. A 6' 2 hander or a 15" dagger can both end a life in one shot.

Next campaign I'm preparing to run (LL with AEC) will use class as the basis of weapon damage. Different weapons will have other properties that make them more or less suitable in certain situations.

Quote from: Godfather Punk;684373By popular demand I created with the DDI Character Builder a 4E Quick Essential 3rd  level human fighter and a mage (Evocation school). I left the choice all  the equipment, powers and other stats to the Builder software.

The Character sheet for the fighter is 5 pages long; the wizard's counts 6 pages.

:( And we still hear 4vengers claiming 4e is a very accessible game for new and casual players.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684444Yeah AD&D weapon damage was wonky.  I think OD&D was better for an abstract system. A 6' 2 hander or a 15" dagger can both end a life in one shot.

Next campaign I'm preparing to run (LL with AEC) will use class as the basis of weapon damage. Different weapons will have other properties that make them more or less suitable in certain situations.

Hm. Agreed about OD&D, the LBB damage system is in many ways much more elegant than later systems.

Personally I have a soft spot for the Swords & Wizardry White Box system (like OD&D but two-handed weapons (except staves) do 1d6+1 and small weapons like daggers do 1d6-1. Critcal = +1 dmg if used. Neat two-weapon fighting rules, too.).

The class based damage idea is very neat (but I don't think I'll be using it myself, I find myself against it for some irrational reason :confused: no seriously I actually don't quite know why I wouldn't use it...)

Quote from: Haffrung;684445:( And we still hear 4vengers claiming 4e is a very accessible game for new and casual players.

Haha yes. For some insane and stupid reason I can't quite fathom I went to the trouble of reading 20 or so pages of an anti-Mearls hatefest thread on TBP and oh yes several claimed 4e is very acessible. What are they on!? I want some of that, whatever it is!!! (allthough to be fair I don't think 4e is less accessible than 3.5e. Well actually I think it is, allthough it's a bit less trap-y/newb-bait-y.)

The accessability and ease of creating a 4E character is completely dependent on being connected to WOTC's E-nipple to suckle content.

This is fail point for an easy access tabletop game.

My observations:

The 4E character sheets are only 5-7 pages long because of the way it is laid out visually, with abilities and items looking like cards. Tons of wasted blank space on the sheets from the generator. A 1E cleric could easily have a multipage sheet if spells were included.

The 4E generator is fantastic, and makes character creation a breeze compared to a 3X character using paper.

1E/2E still kicks 4E's ass though; Everything after 2E has too many fiddly bits in my opinion.

I have an ongoing mission to get my pathfinder and 4E gamer friends to play 1E.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684453The accessability and ease of creating a 4E character is completely dependent on being connected to WOTC's E-nipple to suckle content.

This is fail point for an easy access tabletop game.

I am one of the victims of the E-nipple.

However, I get a lot of mileage out of it.

For example, in a current 4e game I am playing in, and another one I am gming, of each has the players log into the gm's account and store the character sheets in that accounts generator.

It makes updating and printing character sheets a breeze.

Sure, I wish it were free, but its an amazingly usefull utility.

I would gladly pay for a 1E version. Take my money! please!

Quote from: Bill;684458I am one of the victims of the E-nipple.

However, I get a lot of mileage out of it.

For example, in a current 4e game I am playing in, and another one I am gming, of each has the players log into the gm's account and store the character sheets in that accounts generator.

It makes updating and printing character sheets a breeze.

Sure, I wish it were free, but its an amazingly usefull utility.

I would gladly pay for a 1E version. Take my money! please!

I was a subscriber and actually used the tools back when it was offline. Once my computer with the offline tools died I realized how much I depended on it to prep my campaign. No fuckin way was I gonna prep 4E statblocks for a sandbox campaign.

 I then had a moment of clarity and realized that any pen & paper rpg that required a subscription/software to prep was too much hassle to run. So I no longer run games that make me dread prep. No WOTC D&D no PF, etc.

If 5E passes the prep test and I like it then there is a chance I might run a campaign with it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684472I was a subscriber and actually used the tools back when it was offline. Once my computer with the offline tools died I realized how much I depended on it to prep my campaign. No fuckin way was I gonna prep 4E statblocks for a sandbox campaign.

 I then had a moment of clarity and realized that any pen & paper rpg that required a subscription/software to prep was too much hassle to run. So I no longer run games that make me dread prep. No WOTC D&D no PF, etc.

If 5E passes the prep test and I like it then there is a chance I might run a campaign with it.

I find 4e a breeze to prep, but I would gladly only play pre 3X if I could pry the pathfinder and 4E from players hands.

Quote from: Bill;684475I find 4e a breeze to prep,

Without DDI or a working version of the offline tools would you still consider it a breeze?

I was running a Mystara sandbox campaign and pretty much modifying every npc/monster to custom fit in the MB.

Without that, the "stats" part of prep became more than I wanted to bother with.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684479Without DDI or a working version of the offline tools would you still consider it a breeze?

I was running a Mystara sandbox campaign and pretty much modifying every npc/monster to custom fit in the MB.

Without that, the "stats" part of prep became more than I wanted to bother with.

4E is unplayable without DDI.

But I have had it for years with no issues, so my experience is breezy :)

Customizing with 4e has been easy for me using every seetting from Vault of the drow, Dark sun, ravenloft, no issues.

Its effortless compared to 3X.

That being said, I do dream of 1E.


I have been reluctant to 'force' people to play 1E. I am too nice.

When the Apocalypse happens and the power grid goes down, you 4e players are SCREWED!

;)

Fastest way to pry WotC D&D/PF from player hands is make them run it as a GM.

I also have the "prep test" as a hard demarcation line.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684484Fastest way to pry WotC D&D/PF from player hands is make them run it as a GM.

I also have the "prep test" as a hard demarcation line.

Letting them run it will not work.

Many of my gamer friends love the overengineered crunch.

One guy did actually admit it was burdensome to run pathfinder, but he still would use it if he was dm.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684484Fastest way to pry WotC D&D/PF from player hands is make them run it as a GM.

:cheerleader:

I find it funny that the players who are most adamant about ONLY playing such systems never want to GM them.

The biggest enthusiast for a system is the logical choice to run thing IMHO.

I really enjoy B/X but the reality is that anytime I get to play, then I suspect I will be the one running it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684484Fastest way to pry WotC D&D/PF from player hands is make them run it as a GM.

Bring it. I love running PF and D&D 3.x.

Your test has some merit, though. Running Over the Edge took to setting-induced shine of the game for me, and showed me it was an inadequate piece of dross.

In short, "try it" doesn't make taste-based criterion any less subjective.

Edit: 4e still sucks, though.

My view is that 4e is near unplayable with just pen and paper. But with either cards or DDI it is fine.

The other thing I feel that the exception based design it is very hard to come up with new classes as not only you need to make up the class itself but all the attendant powers. Sure you could always use existing powers but if you wanted to do something novel then it was a ton of work.

It not like prior editions where you could easily just make something up out of left field and plug it in.

This is I feel was why D&D 4e continued to be High Fantasy 24/7 but it would be way too much work to make a low fantasy version, a swords & sorcery version and so on.

Quote from: estar;684498My view is that 4e is near unplayable with just pen and paper. But with either cards or DDI it is fine.

The other thing I feel that the exception based design it is very hard to come up with new classes as not only you need to make up the class itself but all the attendant powers. Sure you could always use existing powers but if you wanted to do something novel then it was a ton of work.

It not like prior editions where you could easily just make something up out of left field and plug it in.

This is I feel was why D&D 4e continued to be High Fantasy 24/7 but it would be way too much work to make a low fantasy version, a swords & sorcery version and so on.

I agree a new class in 4e would be burdensome, but they have a TON of base classes, then hybrids are essentially a 50/50 dual class, and multiclassing on top of that. Paragon paths as well, essentially presige cllasses. I don't see a huge need for more 4e classes.

I don't think DDI is necessary for playing 4e. In fact I think it gets in the way. But I've only been a player, maybe it's different for the GM?

Quote from: soviet;684510I don't think DDI is necessary for playing 4e. In fact I think it gets in the way. But I've only been a player, maybe it's different for the GM?

If you use ddi you don't need any of the books other than ph/dmg for basic rules.

All the books info is built into the character creator.

So ddi equals no books needed for the gm.

Quote from: Bill;684514If you use ddi you don't need any of the books other than ph/dmg for basic rules.

All the books info is built into the character creator.

So ddi equals no books needed for the gm.

From what remember thats not quite true.

The character stuff from splat books is all included in the DDI. The RULES governing such things is not.

For example, familliars from Arcane Power are in the DDI. Rules for how familliars work are still in the book only.

Unless things have changed.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684529From what remember thats not quite true.

The character stuff from splat books is all included in the DDI. The RULES governing such things is not.

For example, familliars from Arcane Power are in the DDI. Rules for how familliars work are still in the book only.

Unless things have changed.

Never ran into a lot of problems like that. I pretty much ignore that the books exist when I gm 4e. On a few rare occassions someone at the table looked something up with a laptop but it was certainly no worse than digging through a book wood be.

In any case, I find 4E to be a vast improvement over 3X for the 'chore factor'

I get to ignore the minutia and focus on the actual game.

Quote from: Haffrung;684445:( And we still hear 4vengers claiming 4e is a very accessible game for new and casual players.

You think it's easier to read a bunch of books to make a character, rather than PUSHING A BUTTON?

4e character generation is the easiest character generation of any of the versions of D&D other that Basic D&D, if you have access to the DDI.  It does it all for you, and whatever level of complexity you want, it comes down to just a minimal number of choices from pushing buttons.

The reason the sheet is so long, is because it reprints the full text of EVERYTHING on the sheet.  Seriously, there is a full sized index card explaining all the rules for your friggen magic sword.  And while you can count "sheets", most of the sheets get cut into index cards and laid out the way you want them in front of you, with many out of sight but available in case you need them.

This, while lengthy, is very accessible for the new player.  Just about everything they need is there, always.  You don't even need a PHB to bring to the game.  Almost all the rules particular to your character, are right there in the section for the thing you might have a question about.

However, as others have said, the game is very inaccessible if you do not have access to the DDI.  Which is why almost all groups, the DM had a subscription at the least, and usually they shared that account access with the players so they could generate and level their characters.

Urgh.

If I wanted to play an RPG that requires a computer programme I'd play a crpg.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684444/snip
Next campaign I'm preparing to run (LL with AEC) will use class as the basis of weapon damage. Different weapons will have other properties that make them more or less suitable in certain situations.

I've been toying with the idea of using a character's type of Hit Dice being the damage dice for your weapon. I like the idea of Wizards wielding Two-handers even if they aren't as good with them. May even make one attack bonus chart for everyone.

Quote from: The Ent;684534Urgh.

If I wanted to play an RPG that requires a computer programme I'd play a crpg.

You don't need the program while you are atually playing; it just creates a character sheet for you.

I am still a 'stack of papers gm' but I love the character generator.

Quote from: Mistwell;684533You think it's easier to read a bunch of books to make a character, rather than PUSHING A BUTTON?

4e character generation is the easiest character generation of any of the versions of D&D other that Basic D&D, if you have access to the DDI..

If you expand "DDI" to "electronic support", than there are easier and faster ones.  Some of the JAVA character generation programs out there are very fast and easy.

And if you do narrow it down to "officially supported software", then even Core Rules for 2e was very simple and fast.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684542If you expand "DDI" to "electronic support", than there are easier and faster ones.  Some of the JAVA character generation programs out there are very fast and easy.

And if you do narrow it down to "officially supported software", then even Core Rules for 2e was very simple and fast.

In the 4e game I am gming right now, one player has an iphone he uses to roll electronic dice, and has an app for his character that is different from ddi.

A second player has a tablet with his character in an app; not sure if its the same as the first guys app, also not ddi.

The three other players use paper; with printouts from ddi of their character sheets.

I have a huge stack of paper; all sorts of stuff I print out. If I was smart I would have a neat binder :)

Quote from: Mistwell;684533You think it's easier to read a bunch of books to make a character, rather than PUSHING A BUTTON?

4e character generation is the easiest character generation of any of the versions of D&D other that Basic D&D, if you have access to the DDI.  It does it all for you, and whatever level of complexity you want, it comes down to just a minimal number of choices from pushing buttons.

The reason the sheet is so long, is because it reprints the full text of EVERYTHING on the sheet.  Seriously, there is a full sized index card explaining all the rules for your friggen magic sword.  And while you can count "sheets", most of the sheets get cut into index cards and laid out the way you want them in front of you, with many out of sight but available in case you need them.

This, while lengthy, is very accessible for the new player.  Just about everything they need is there, always.  You don't even need a PHB to bring to the game.  Almost all the rules particular to your character, are right there in the section for the thing you might have a question about.

However, as others have said, the game is very inaccessible if you do not have access to the DDI.  Which is why almost all groups, the DM had a subscription at the least, and usually they shared that account access with the players so they could generate and level their characters.

Wtf argument is this? Of course there could be software for every edition simplifying things a lot. Alas, you could very easily in two minutes make a character in "baldur's gate" or "temple of ee".
That does not mean that 3.x was easily accessible for newbies, especially for DMs.

Quote from: xech;684563Wtf argument is this? Of course there could be software for every edition simplifying things a lot. Alas, you could very easily in two minutes make a character in "baldur's gate" or "temple of ee".
That does not mean that 3.x was easily accessible for newbies, especially for DMs.

Idk, I think in a way DDI is more accessible to a younger crowd, who are used to using computer assistance for tons of things.

Even being somewhat younger myself though, I still prefer my character generation to be able to be done paper/pencil though like I did in the late 80s/early 90s when I started.

But man you should see the stuff I do use computers for. Custom character sheets, vehicle sheets, maps, play aids... Its all stuff that I don't NEED to do to run a good game, I just like to do them. And I think that is the level of computer use I'm PERSONALLY comfortable with in a game.

But who knows, I could imagine teenagers and people in their early 20s don't think twice about computer assisted character creation, and for them DDI is super accessible and they don't see the downside. (I've used DDI, the character creation is super simple while using it. I just wouldn't want to personally be tied to it for a game).

Quote from: Bill;684541You don't need the program while you are atually playing; it just creates a character sheet for you.

I am still a 'stack of papers gm' but I love the character generator.

Now that does sound reasonable. :)
(and it's not like say 3.5 was Easy to maneuver through either)

Quote from: Mistwell;684533You think it's easier to read a bunch of books to make a character, rather than PUSHING A BUTTON?

4e character generation is the easiest character generation of any of the versions of D&D other that Basic D&D, if you have access to the DDI.  It does it all for you, and whatever level of complexity you want, it comes down to just a minimal number of choices from pushing buttons.

This is a useless comment. Anything with an automated process is easier than doing it longhand. And yet the automators for 1e, 2e, etc. are far, far faster than using DDI. Editions must stand on their own merits; automators exist for pretty much all editions.

Your comment is as fruitful as saying printing essays from computer printers is faster than writing it from scratch, ergo MLA is better than Chicago Style citation because Microsoft Word. Total WTFBBQ talk.

Do you ever get bored spinning yourself into a tizzy?

Quote from: Mistwell;684533You think it's easier to read a bunch of books to make a character, rather than PUSHING A BUTTON?

4e character generation is the easiest character generation of any of the versions of D&D other that Basic D&D, if you have access to the DDI.  It does it all for you, and whatever level of complexity you want, it comes down to just a minimal number of choices from pushing buttons.

No, it's not.  After assigning ability scores (a cumbersome task for new players who don't really understand how their classes work), you have to calculate the numbers of Armor Class, defenses, basic attacks, at-will attacks, encounter and daily and utility abilities, skills, initiative, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting.  Oh, yeah, healing surges.

It's a huge, convoluted pain in the ass.

Quote from: xech;684563Wtf argument is this? Of course there could be software for every edition simplifying things a lot. Alas, you could very easily in two minutes make a character in "baldur's gate" or "temple of ee".
That does not mean that 3.x was easily accessible for newbies, especially for DMs.

I wasn't talking about 3.x, it's 4e I was talking about.

We're talking about what actually is, as opposed to what there could have been.  And what there actually is, is a game that was almost entirely run around the official electronic interface for character creation.  You COULD make a character without it, and I am sure some did, but I sure never met any of them.  And if you look across the nation, at conventions and online games and "gamers looking for gamers" ads and game stores and every source you can imagine, they will all tell you the same thing: the overwhelming majority of people who played 4e used the DDI, at some point, to create their character.  It is constantly mentioned in the books in fact.

Because that was the case, it was very easily accessible to new players and new GMs.  The electronic tool support was top notch for 4e, and that makes a difference in accessibility.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684595This is a useless comment. Anything with an automated process is easier than doing it longhand. And yet the automators for 1e, 2e, etc. are far, far faster than using DDI. Editions must stand on their own merits; automators exist for pretty much all editions.

Your comment is as fruitful as saying printing essays from computer printers is faster than writing it from scratch, ergo MLA is better than Chicago Style citation because Microsoft Word. Total WTFBBQ talk.

Do you ever get bored spinning yourself into a tizzy?

LOL your inability to read my attitude is not my problem.  Tizzy? Where did you get that.  As for my comment being useless - lots of people are talking about it, some agree, some do not, so you're conclusion about the comment is provably false.

4e was officially built around the DDI.  It *IS* 4e, in a sense.  Unlike previous editions, DDI became inseparable from the game itself, in a way no other edition did.  That was both a boon and a drawback, depending on the issue.  But for character generation, it was a boon.  It was far better and more comprehensive support than anything that came before, for any version of the game.  I used the best of the 3e software, and it was crap compared to the DDI.  And the 1e and 2e ones out there are extremely limited and simply don't produce the level of detail you get from 4e, though more detail would have been useful IF THE TOPIC IS ACCESSIBILITY FOR NEW PLAYERS.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;684615No, it's not.  After assigning ability scores (a cumbersome task for new players who don't really understand how their classes work), you have to calculate the numbers of Armor Class, defenses, basic attacks, at-will attacks, encounter and daily and utility abilities, skills, initiative, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting.  Oh, yeah, healing surges.

It's a huge, convoluted pain in the ass.

Uh, did you miss the part where I said "if you have access to the DDI" (it's right there in the paragraph you quoted)?  All that stuff is done for you.

I'm actually curious if people replying at this point have ever even seen the DDI in use in it's current form? Not what originally came out, but what's been around for the past two years or so?

Quote from: languagegeek;684327The point stands though. D&D includes in-game logic for why spells can only be cast once per day - it takes time to rememorize / pray for fogotten spells. (...) What I fail to get is the in-game logic for why my fighter can do a cool move only once, then rest for 8 hours to do it again.

But stuff like that has been part of older (A)D&D forever. Paladin's special abilities, lay-on-hands three times per day, etc? The limitation on Cleric's turn undead (in 3e, wasn't it)?

Color me positively surprised as to the direction Next seems to have taken. I like what I see. (But then, I very much liked what WotC previewed in demo rounds after the Big Announcement, one year prior to 3e street date, and I heavily disliked the finished product.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684286The actual official character sheet (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/winner_chsheet.jpg) is much more detailed.

Ok, that doesn't look like D&D at all (on first sight and compared to BECMI/AD&D, that is) but is is stylish and it is a huge improvement over the Excel spreadsheet "charm" of the various 3.x sheets.

Quote from: Mistwell;684620Uh, did you miss the part where I said "if you have access to the DDI" (it's right there in the paragraph you quoted)?  All that stuff is done for you.

I'm actually curious if people replying at this point have ever even seen the DDI in use in it's current form? Not what originally came out, but what's been around for the past two years or so?

If you need software to make chargen simple, than it's a shit system.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;684754If you need software to make chargen simple, than it's a shit system.

I disagree with that. I don't like 4e, but I now believe that software is just a tool to help make gaming more convenient (and hopefully, fun). The problem, is that even great software is not enough to make a shit game into a great game. And the 4e software did not change the fact that combat in 4e takes fucking forever.

I also believe that creating characters in D&D should not always be a chore. I play 3.5 right now, and I think it's a great game...but it has one huge problem.

3.x character creation takes way too long, even for simple characters.

5e needs to avoid this flaw, by making the game with more modular amounts of detail and complexity (going from simple to complex), while still making it work for the AD&D, OD&D, Basic D&D, and 3.x player base.

If WoTC was smart, they'd cast aside the 4e crowd in regards to the D&D trademark. Just let the 4e crowd have a separate non-D&D fantasy roleplaying game of their own. Then fully embrace the OGL for 5e. That's the only chance that WoTC has to save themselves, but I don't think they're smart enough or far-sighted enough to do that. So basically, they're fucked. :pundit:

Quote from: Mistwell;684618We're talking about what actually is, as opposed to what there could have been.  And what there actually is, is a game that was almost entirely run around the official electronic interface for character creation.  You COULD make a character without it, and I am sure some did, but I sure never met any of them.  And if you look across the nation, at conventions and online games and "gamers looking for gamers" ads and game stores and every source you can imagine, they will all tell you the same thing: the overwhelming majority of people who played 4e used the DDI, at some point, to create their character.  It is constantly mentioned in the books in fact.

Because that was the case, it was very easily accessible to new players and new GMs.  The electronic tool support was top notch for 4e, and that makes a difference in accessibility.

In addition to electronic support being cumbersome as a necessity to tabletop gaming, there is the subscription issue.

Tabletop gaming is a hobby that one can enjoy and play with for a long time without buying new stuff. Once something like the DDI becomes a needed part of the experience, what happens when the provider no longer offers the service?

In this case, your "books" literally CAN be taken away from you once you have made the transition from hobbyist to passive consumer. You are at the mercy of whatever the provider chooses to offer via the electric nipple or you can wake up from the matrix, stick to your dice, pencil & paper, and remain a hobbyist.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;684754If you need software to make chargen simple, than it's a shit system.

Yes and No.


The system itself is fine.


Its the 'sell a ton of books' business strategy that is shit.

Too many books speading out what should be in one book.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684769In addition to electronic support being cumbersome as a necessity to tabletop gaming, there is the subscription issue.

Tabletop gaming is a hobby that one can enjoy and play with for a long time without buying new stuff. Once something like the DDI becomes a needed part of the experience, what happens when the provider no longer offers the service?

In this case, your "books" literally CAN be taken away from you once you have made the transition from hobbyist to passive consumer. You are at the mercy of whatever the provider chooses to offer via the electric nipple or you can wake up from the matrix, stick to your dice, pencil & paper, and remain a hobbyist.

4E is very accessible in my opinion.

I have never met a player that could not easily jump into 4E when the character generator was made available to them.

I have met many people that do not like 4E as well, but accessibility was never an issue.

Quote from: Bill;6847724E is very accessible in my opinion.

I have never met a player that could not easily jump into 4E when the character generator was made available to them.

I have met many people that do not like 4E as well, but accessibility was never an issue.

When WOTC decides to pull electronic support for 4E how accessible and friendly will it be then?

If a game is to survive beyone the shelf life set by its creator, it needs to be sustainable without support from that creator.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684774When WOTC decides to pull electronic support for 4E how accessible and friendly will it be then?

If a game is to survive beyone the shelf life set by its creator, it needs to be sustainable without support from that creator.

Yep.

Oh well, at least we'll be able to hear the hysterical screams of the TBP 4ons* all the way to here :D:D:D

*=just to be clear I don't use this word for people who like 4e in general, just guys like those people on TBP.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684774When WOTC decides to pull electronic support for 4E how accessible and friendly will it be then?

If a game is to survive beyone the shelf life set by its creator, it needs to be sustainable without support from that creator.

If they pull the generator I will abandon 4E for other games.

Personally I hope 4E and Pathfinder both vanish so I can get people to play 1E.

Quote from: Bill;684781Personally I hope 4E and Pathfinder both vanish so I can get peopel to play 1E.

Indeed, that'd be quite something. :cool:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684769In this case, your "books" literally CAN be taken away from you once you have made the transition from hobbyist to passive consumer. You are at the mercy of whatever the provider chooses to offer via the electric nipple or you can wake up from the matrix, stick to your dice, pencil & paper, and remain a hobbyist.

Not to mention that when it is done the way the DDI has been done by WOTC, you lose control of the rules of your campaign. If whatever errata (or whatever other changes to the rules the company wishes to make to fit new stuff they want to release) are automatically added. replacely what you were using, you have no choice but to use said rules changes even if they disrupt your campaign.

I have zero interest in turning the control of the rules used in my campaign over to a third party. Errata is great, but I want to decide if I use it in my campaign. Changes to fit new material might be good or bad for my campaign, so the decision to use or not use them has to be mine as GM. The DDI took all of that away -- especially when it went online only.

I don't pay for stuff like that -- I would have to be paid to use it. I want to own (and control) everything I need to run my campaign so I can run it under the rules I want for as long as I want to, even if that is 20 years after the company has stopped supporting it.

Quote from: The Ent;684783Indeed, that'd be quite something. :cool:

I miss playing 2nd Edition, personally. I have the core and the DM's guide, mint first printings, but no one to play them with.

Makes me a sad Squee.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;684787I miss playing 2nd Edition, personally. I have the core and the DM's guide, mint first printings, but no one to play them with.

Makes me a sad Squee.

2e is "my" edition, it's the edition I started playing. Loved it to bits and, looking back, can't quite see why we started using 3e instead. Oh well.

My own PHB and DMG are the ones I bought 20 years back and, well, not mint. :D
(I had to throw away the box of my old Gold Box Forgotten Realms, it had basically disintegrated. Not the contents, mind, and I kept the front page of the physical box as that horseman looks way too badass to throw away.)

I wonder if 4e people will need to d/l illegal programs to keep playing this ever so accessible game.

Quote from: JasperAK;684808I wonder if 4e people will need to d/l illegal programs to keep playing this ever so accessible game.

[cough]

umm.....Dr. Evil, that too has already happened.:p When WOTC discontinued the offline 4E tools, the code was kept alive, shared and distributed on torrent sites.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684248Ladies and gentlemen, I present you a "basic" fighter in Next (assume he'll take the warrior path at level three, instead of the maneuver heavy gladiator), and therefore when you gain levels, you aren't really adding a whole lot to the character sheet.

Thank you for posting this, Sacrosanct. You just completely reversed my opinion on Next. This looks like something I can actually use, as opposed to "a steaming mountain of fiddly bits", which is how it was looking.

Now I'm actually looking forward to it.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: The Ent;6848022e is "my" edition, it's the edition I started playing. Loved it to bits and, looking back, can't quite see why we started using 3e instead. Oh well.

My own PHB and DMG are the ones I bought 20 years back and, well, not mint. :D
(I had to throw away the box of my old Gold Box Forgotten Realms, it had basically disintegrated. Not the contents, mind, and I kept the front page of the physical box as that horseman looks way too badass to throw away.)

Well, they are not my original books. Those are missing, not sure where. My wife, on the other hand, gave my my current books when we were dating after she learned I was into it. Which was date 3 or 4.

And now I'm tempted to get a PbP going here, although I'm way to rusty to try to run it.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;684815Well, they are not my original books. Those are missing, not sure where. My wife, on the other hand, gave my my current books when we were dating after she learned I was into it. Which was date 3 or 4.

And now I'm tempted to get a PbP going here, although I'm way to rusty to try to run it.

I would play a 2e PbP in a heartbeat.

I've never done PbP so I don't think I'd run it but I'd definitely play.

Quote from: Piestrio;684839I would play a 2e PbP in a heartbeat.

I've never done PbP so I don't think I'd run it but I'd definitely play.

There are a lot of 2e fans here. Someone would run it. I would prefer to play to get familiar with pbp, something I have not done before.

Quote from: Piestrio;684839I would play a 2e PbP in a heartbeat.

I've never done PbP so I don't think I'd run it but I'd definitely play.

Quote from: Bill;684843There are a lot of 2e fans here. Someone would run it. I would prefer to play to get familiar with pbp, something I have not done before.

I'd definitely join a 2e pbp, myself! :)

I played pbp at TBP a couple times back in the day, but the only game that was going anywhere was a Buffy one where the GM got permabanned :-/

The biggest difference between pbp end normal play is that pbp is slow. Even if all players Are present, stuff happens way slower than in RL gaming.

It's still fun though. :)

Quote from: Bill;684781If they pull the generator I will abandon 4E for other games.

Personally I hope 4E and Pathfinder both vanish so I can get people to play 1E.

Pathfinder is just another iteration of 3.x, and 3.x has been around in some form for 13 years. Do you really expect it to vanish any time soon? I don't.

Oh, and why can't you get people to play 1e? What's up with that?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684769In addition to electronic support being cumbersome as a necessity to tabletop gaming, there is the subscription issue.

Tabletop gaming is a hobby that one can enjoy and play with for a long time without buying new stuff. Once something like the DDI becomes a needed part of the experience, what happens when the provider no longer offers the service?

In this case, your "books" literally CAN be taken away from you once you have made the transition from hobbyist to passive consumer. You are at the mercy of whatever the provider chooses to offer via the electric nipple or you can wake up from the matrix, stick to your dice, pencil & paper, and remain a hobbyist.

I didn't say it was a good idea...I said it was easily accessible to new players.  We can debate if 4e was a good system, or if using DDI was a good idea for the game overall, but I think those are different issues.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684774When WOTC decides to pull electronic support for 4E how accessible and friendly will it be then?

I'm not really sure why that is relevant to this topic.  The question was whether it was accessible while it was the main D&D edition.  Why would it be important, for that issue, whether a dead version of the game remains accessible? They try to attract new players to the currently supported game of course.  

QuoteIf a game is to survive beyone the shelf life set by its creator, it needs to be sustainable without support from that creator.

The survivability of a dead game is, again, a different topic that the accessibility to new players of a living game.

Quote from: Mistwell;684914I didn't say it was a good idea...I said it was easily accessible to new players.  We can debate if 4e was a good system, or if using DDI was a good idea for the game overall, but I think those are different issues.

We've somehow game from the complexity of low-level characters to the accessibility of online tools.

The point of the comparison of PCs over various editions is that low-level PCs with lots and lots of skills and talents and feats and abilities can be a barrier to new players, and to those who prefer a more rules-light game. People who turned away from D&D in the WotC era because of complexity may be enticed back by the ease of play offered by basic character setups.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684769You are at the mercy of whatever the provider chooses to offer via the electric nipple or you can wake up from the matrix, stick to your dice, pencil & paper, and remain a hobbyist.

Well said. One of the things I love about this hobby is the ridiculous amount of fun you can have with the simplest of tools. If it reaches the stage that you have to consult a website to make something playable, it's stopped being playable.

Quote from: The Traveller;684918Well said. One of the things I love about this hobby is the ridiculous amount of fun you can have with the simplest of tools. If it reaches the stage that you have to consult a website to make something playable, it's stopped being playable.

What hogwash.  Have we now gone from "4e wasn't D&D" to "4e wasn't playable"? Come on man, dislike 4e all you want, but it was playable, and was played by thousands.  Shit, the nerdrage over 4e seems to have reached some epic levels these days around here.  You're game is not only badwrongfun, but you never played it because I don't think it could be played! LOL

Quote from: Mistwell;684919What hogwash.  Have we now gone from "4e wasn't D&D" to "4e wasn't playable"? Come on man, dislike 4e all you want, but it was playable, and was played by thousands.  Shit, the nerdrage over 4e seems to have reached some epic levels these days around here.  You're game is not only badwrongfun, but you never played it because I don't think it could be played! LOL

Its simple logic. If the electronic support is a good part of what makes the game playable, and the people running the games don't have control over whats in that content or how long it remains available then your game is only playable while the producers say it is.

Fuck    that     shit.

Thats an MMO. When blizzard decides to shut down the servers, no more WOW. Hobbyists don't have to put up with that.

I don't think 4e is unplayable without DDI. Its playable but a hassle, and if you don't use every splat ever published it gets easier. Even using every splat book its more of it just being a pain to cross reference everything rather than unplayable.

Its not as simple as Pre 3.x, but the chargen was about on par with 3.x, and in my opinion had less hassle DURING play than 3.x did. Also, I think creating other portions of the game outside of characters (NPCs, monsters, etc.) was much simpler.

I would probably put the chargen at 3.x/Hero level, and most other things at actually below that.

Unless you are going to tell me 3.x and Hero are unplayable now.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684931Its simple logic. If the electronic support is a good part of what makes the game playable, and the people running the games don't have control over whats in that content or how long it remains available then your game is only playable while the producers say it is.

Fuck    that     shit.

Thats an MMO. When blizzard decides to shut down the servers, no more WOW. Hobbyists don't have to put up with that.

I agree the eventual yanking of the DDI for 4e could hamper future games (I have no idea how far in the future that is, and if they will release a downloadable version or release it to a third party to continue on or what).  But, we're talking about in the past to right now.  The idea that, some day electronic support will be yanked, that means the game right now is not playable, is ludicrous.  

4e is a very playable game.  Again, no longer my favorite edition, but it's some high level stupidity to go around right now claiming it's not playable because you fear what might happen in the future.  "Fuck that shit" is, again, a different thing from "It's not playable".  I'm cool with the "Fuck that shit, that's a level of risk I am not willing to take."  I am not cool with "The game isn't playable".

It will never cease to amaze me that some people seem actually offended by RPGs others like, that they do not like.  And that irrational emotion comes out in threads like this, where people claim 4e isn't playable.

Quote from: Mistwell;684937It will never cease to amaze me that some people seem actually offended by RPGs others like, that they do not like.  And that irrational emotion comes out in threads like this, where people claim 4e isn't playable.

I don't care about D&D. Whether it conquers the world or dies in the nearest available conflagration bothers me not in the slightest. When you yourself admit that

Quote from: Mistwell;684937I agree the eventual yanking of the DDI for 4e could hamper future games

That's a problem. No ifs or buts about it, that is a game that is way too reliant on outside support, and I speak from as near an impartial perspective as this hobby makes possible. Imagine playing chess and having to refer to a website to figure out how to best set up your pieces. It wouldn't last a week. And from the sounds of it, it's a miracle 4e lasted as long as it did.

I think an underrated and important aspect of an RPG is how easy it is to play if you're given the book, pencil, paper, and dice.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684959I think an underrated and important aspect of an RPG is how easy it is to play if you're given the book, pencil, paper, and dice.

Yep. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the things that held 4E back was the reliance on minis and a grid. WotC is making support for theatre of the mind a core element of Next, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

Quote from: Mistwell;684619LOL your inability to read my attitude is not my problem.  Tizzy? Where did you get that.  As for my comment being useless - lots of people are talking about it, some agree, some do not, so you're conclusion about the comment is provably false.

Ahh, I see. The point of your responses is to read attitude, not a cogent argument. This explains quite a bit, especially since your comparison has zero validity as true parity exists in available automators for every edition. Also explains why you find it useful that people talk about your comment, regardless of its merits. You just like the noise around you like an attention whore.

I now see why white knighting is your thing. Without conflict somewhere around you there is naught but the yawning void. Essentially "to argue, therefore I am."

Well might as well make you useful, since you have nothing to contribute currently. I do have some vegetable clippings that could use an advocate, if you're free: stock, compost, or other?

Quote from: Opaopajr;684963Ahh, I see. The point of your responses is to read attitude, not a cogent argument.

So now I ask the obvious question: are you just an asshole, an idiot, or both?

I was responding to a question ABOUT my attitude.  When someone claims to have read my attitude and comes to a wrong conclusion, I correct them.  The point of my responses is not to read my attitude - I didn't raise the topic of my attitude at all.

QuoteThis explains quite a bit, especially since your comparison has zero validity as true parity exists in available automators for every edition.

Yes, automators exist for all editions, and no, that does not in any way equate with parity.

And you saying that tells me, with certainty, you've never used the current version of the DDI.  Nobody who had used it would be so foolish a to claim prior games have achieved any level of electronic support parity with the DDI.

QuoteAlso explains why you find it useful that people talk about your comment, regardless of its merits. You just like the noise around you like an attention whore.

I didn't say I found it useful, I said the proof that others found it useful was in the responses.  If it were an entirely useless thing, everyone would just ignore it.

QuoteI now see why white knighting is your thing. Without conflict somewhere around you there is naught but the yawning void. Essentially "to argue, therefore I am."

Yeah it couldn't possibly be I liked 4e and think you have no fucking clue what you're talking about when it comes to issues about 4e.  

QuoteWell might as well make you useful, since you have nothing to contribute currently. I do have some vegetable clippings that could use an advocate, if you're free: stock, compost, or other?

Compost mang, compost.  Just remember to water it frequently, and turn it often as well.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684931Its simple logic. If the electronic support is a good part of what makes the game playable, and the people running the games don't have control over whats in that content or how long it remains available then your game is only playable while the producers say it is.

Fuck    that     shit.

Thats an MMO. When blizzard decides to shut down the servers, no more WOW. Hobbyists don't have to put up with that.

DMed 4e for a few years and I have never even seen what DDI looks like.  We just used books like with every other rpg.  I will grant that 4e combat is kind of a pain in the ass, but lack of electronic support is not what caused it to be a pain in the ass.  It is tracking the constantly shifting, short duration status effects that makes it that way.

Quote from: Mistwell;684533You think it's easier to read a bunch of books to make a character, rather than PUSHING A BUTTON?

4e character generation is the easiest character generation of any of the versions of D&D other that Basic D&D, if you have access to the DDI.  It does it all for you, and whatever level of complexity you want, it comes down to just a minimal number of choices from pushing buttons.

The reason the sheet is so long, is because it reprints the full text of EVERYTHING on the sheet.  Seriously, there is a full sized index card explaining all the rules for your friggen magic sword.  And while you can count "sheets", most of the sheets get cut into index cards and laid out the way you want them in front of you, with many out of sight but available in case you need them.

This, while lengthy, is very accessible for the new player.  Just about everything they need is there, always.  You don't even need a PHB to bring to the game.  Almost all the rules particular to your character, are right there in the section for the thing you might have a question about.

However, as others have said, the game is very inaccessible if you do not have access to the DDI.  Which is why almost all groups, the DM had a subscription at the least, and usually they shared that account access with the players so they could generate and level their characters.

You may call me a luddite, grumpy, whatever, but if a game requires that I use some kind of software, I will not play it. Period. I want my pencils, my eraser, my sheet of paper, and my dice, thank you very much.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;684912Pathfinder is just another iteration of 3.x, and 3.x has been around in some form for 13 years. Do you really expect it to vanish any time soon? I don't.

Oh, and why can't you get people to play 1e? What's up with that?

I said 'hope'; I realize pathfinder is not going anywhere.

I know many, many 3X and 4E players that have zero interest in 1e.

Quote from: Bill;685034I said 'hope'; I realize pathfinder is not going anywhere.

I know many, many 3X and 4E players that have zero interest in 1e.

I like 1e. :)

But I also like 3.x/Pathfinder.

Um...maybe you can coax some players into 1e, by using some of that Dwarven Forge terrain? It's expensive, but awesome. Maybe you could use it to break through people's mental "force field". It's worth a try, right?

Or create a super-huge, awesome dungeon map...and show it to your players. Then ask 'em to play it with 1e.

Or maybe you could create some online ads looking for 1e players.

Or ask some non-gamer friends to play? They might not have any preconceived notions. I don't know. I'm just throwing paint at the wall here.... :o

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;685037I like 1e. :)

But I also like 3.x/Pathfinder.

Um...maybe you can coax some players into 1e, by using some of that Dwarven Forge terrain? It's expensive, but awesome. Maybe you could use it to break through people's mental "force field". It's worth a try, right?

Or create a super-huge, awesome dungeon map...and show it to your players. Then ask 'em to play it with 1e.

Or maybe you could create some online ads looking for 1e players.

Or ask some non-gamer friends to play? They might not have any preconceived notions. I don't know. I'm just throwing paint at the wall here.... :o

The mental force fields are very strong.

Quote from: Old One Eye;685000DMed 4e for a few years and I have never even seen what DDI looks like.  We just used books like with every other rpg.  I will grant that 4e combat is kind of a pain in the ass, but lack of electronic support is not what caused it to be a pain in the ass.  It is tracking the constantly shifting, short duration status effects that makes it that way.

I ran a 4e game and played in several others long before any of us ever got a DDI account. Insider makes it EASIER, but its not impossible without it. So yeah, I agree.

But everyone else here has already made up their minds to not listen to anyone with actual play experience. No one responded to my post before saying that playing without DDI is entirely possible, so I doubt anyone besides me will respond to yours either.

Its easier to feed into the hatefest that Mistwell is easily building up himself than to face nonconfrontational posts asserting that they might be wrong.

I'm not saying 4e chargen was simple. But it was no more difficult without DDI than I found 3.x or Hero system, both of which are playable.

Quote from: Haffrung;684961Yep. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the things that held 4E back was the reliance on minis and a grid. WotC is making support for theatre of the mind a core element of Next, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

Yeah, the first time I played 4th, the whole pull/push/shift/shove/twirl mini-game was really interesting, definitely something different. About the fifth fight it got old, about the 10th fight setting up a board and miniatures became a real chore.

Quote from: Bill;685040The mental force fields are very strong.

I am truly sorry to hear that. You must be dealing with a tough crowd. Maybe you could try..

http://www.penandpapergames.com/

or...

http://www.meetup.com/find/

There are lots of gamers on these two sites. It might be possible to find some AD&D gamers in your area. It's worth a shot anyway..

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684252Almost ;)


Doods, I wanted you to be able to read it :P

If you don't mind, I would really appreciate if you could give me the name of that font. Perhabs even a link if it isn't a standard font and you got it.

Hi all! Just joined.

Caesar Slaad: You name may well be the best forum name I've ever seen. I tip my hat.

EDIT: Sacrosanct: Thank you!

Quote from: johnnih;685121If you don't mind, I would really appreciate if you could give me the name of that font. Perhabs even a link if it isn't a standard font and you got it.

Hi all! Just joined.

Caesar Slaad: You name may well be the best forum name I've ever seen. I tip my hat.

It's the Bradley Hand (http://www.freefontsdb.com/detail/6576/Bradley-Hand-ITC) font.

And welcome to the site!

Quote from: Emperor Norton;685070I ran a 4e game and played in several others long before any of us ever got a DDI account. Insider makes it EASIER, but its not impossible without it. So yeah, I agree.

But everyone else here has already made up their minds to not listen to anyone with actual play experience. No one responded to my post before saying that playing without DDI is entirely possible, so I doubt anyone besides me will respond to yours either.

Its easier to feed into the hatefest that Mistwell is easily building up himself than to face nonconfrontational posts asserting that they might be wrong.

I'm not saying 4e chargen was simple. But it was no more difficult without DDI than I found 3.x or Hero system, both of which are playable.

In fairness, the way many if not most self-prescribed fans of 4e describe their games on online forums is wholly alien to my experiences with the game, and frankly sounds dull as shit.  

Reminds me of the time a new player joined the group I was running through the Temple of Elemental Evil.  She picked up a cursed item, failed the ability check I had her roll, and became permanently blinded.  Cue a ten minute discussion where I had to convince her that it is perfectly fine with the rules of 4e for a character to be permanently blinded from a cursed item.

The people on this thread making odd statements about the playability of 4e remind me of her mindset.

[SIDETREK]To anyone who has wanted a 'custom' handwriting font, check this site out. http://www.myscriptfont.com/ (http://www.myscriptfont.com/)[/SIDETREK]

Best way to make crazy fonts for handouts. I had my first one installed on computer in about 15 min.

Quote from: Mistwell;684966So now I ask the obvious question: are you just an asshole, an idiot, or both?

I was responding to a question ABOUT my attitude.  When someone claims to have read my attitude and comes to a wrong conclusion, I correct them.  The point of my responses is not to read my attitude - I didn't raise the topic of my attitude at all.

Yes, automators exist for all editions, and no, that does not in any way equate with parity.

And you saying that tells me, with certainty, you've never used the current version of the DDI.  Nobody who had used it would be so foolish a to claim prior games have achieved any level of electronic support parity with the DDI.

I could not give a toss about your opinion about me. I care about the content of your posts, which offered nothing. As to your perception of replying to MY response to the content YOUR point, as if it is about YOUR attitude to the group at large, explains quite a bit of your viewpoint. This is about your point making no sense.

Now, I have used DDI (so you are wrong here, but I could care less). My friends paid for it and used it during a 4e kick and I used it as well. It's an automator, snazzy and new due to advances in technology, but it's still just an automator. 4e is not "better" because of its automator, period. I've used it and it's not the sine qua non advantage that separates 4e from other editions -- as was your contestation. The reason to play 4e is not because of DDI; it is a utility, nothing more. If you are going to use 4e it helps, it however does not convince you to use 4e when you are otherwise not interested. And yes, THAT is why there is parity.

Quote from: Mistwell;684966I didn't say I found it useful, I said the proof that others found it useful was in the responses.  If it were an entirely useless thing, everyone would just ignore it.

This goes to the point that you see any noise is good noise. Most of the replies were "you're off your rocker" variety, and yet you interpret that as useful contribution, not a disruptive red herring. By this you make yourself easily pegged as tedious, to argue for argument's sake.

Quote from: Mistwell;684966Yeah it couldn't possibly be I liked 4e and think you have no fucking clue what you're talking about when it comes to issues about 4e.  

Incorrect. And how I know so is this: 4e and your like of it is not topical. So this is not an issue about 4e, lest it needs to be "defended," and our knowledge thereof is irrelevant. The only way this can be justified is if you are defending 4e like a white knight by means of red herrings.

This topic is about Next being close to Basic. It could care less about 4e knowledge in general, and I could care less about your opinion about my 4e knowledge. This is about how to emulate a feel for older styles as the company mitigates ill will generated previously. 4e is just not that important to this discussion here.

Quote from: Mistwell;684966Compost mang, compost.  Just remember to water it frequently, and turn it often as well.

Incorrect. The correct answer is stock, then compost. However you may craft some before composting. The important thing is not to hoard, otherwise you may end up on The Learning Channel.

Nah, I'm just playing. Vegetable clippings are nowhere near as serious stuff as RPGs. :p

I played the new version of 5e last week. Meh. The session was okay, nothing in the rules made me excited or upset, just a feeling of banality. If this is what the final rules look like (which is unknown) I would play 5e with the right group, but I do not see any reason AS YET why I would trade 0e or 4e for 5e.

That said, my group isn't jazzed enough about the playtest to do more than occassional one shots as convention prep. They are more excited about trying to get together a L5R or Shadowrun campaign instead.

I've looked over some of the 5e material, and it really feels like 3rd, with a few tricks tagged on from 4th to let you boost a wee bit.

Quote from: Claudius;685022You may call me a luddite, grumpy, whatever, but if a game requires that I use some kind of software, I will not play it. Period. I want my pencils, my eraser, my sheet of paper, and my dice, thank you very much.

I have no problem with that at all.  I am not overly fond of it either.  I am speaking to the issue of accessibility to new players - not my personal preference for gaming.

That said, my life is just too fucking busy these days to go through all the stuff required to form a 3e character that will function with what DMs tend to create/use these days.  That was a fun  minigame for me, back before I had a kid.  But now, I just don't have the time or patience to spread out 15 friggen books on the floor to pour through stuff to match things to my character concept that will actually work OK with each other and make for a survivable character in the overpowered deathtraps DMs seem to like to use these days (often from Paizo).

So, for now at least, 5e is hitting that sweet spot for me.  And God knows you don't need a computer program to make that one page character sheet work.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;685070I ran a 4e game and played in several others long before any of us ever got a DDI account. Insider makes it EASIER, but its not impossible without it. So yeah, I agree.

But everyone else here has already made up their minds to not listen to anyone with actual play experience. No one responded to my post before saying that playing without DDI is entirely possible, so I doubt anyone besides me will respond to yours either.

Its easier to feed into the hatefest that Mistwell is easily building up himself than to face nonconfrontational posts asserting that they might be wrong.

I'm not saying 4e chargen was simple. But it was no more difficult without DDI than I found 3.x or Hero system, both of which are playable.

You know, you're right.  It was entirely possible to make a 4e character without the DDI.  In fact, Essentials made that easier, and had quick generation rules as well.  

It's just that, once you use DDI, it's hard to imagine going back to doing it by hand.  Because DDI made it SO much easier.  And that's what most people I knew ended up doing as well.

But sure, I grant your point, it not only could be done, but I bet your right that more people did it than I was aware of.

My point remains that 4e was highly accessible to new players.  That was, entirely, my point.  This stuff about how people don't like the electronic tool they never even saw or used is just more random drive-by 4e hate, not even addressing the point being made to begin with.

Quote from: Opaopajr;685166It's an automator, snazzy and new due to advances in technology, but it's still just an automator. 4e is not "better" because of its automator, period.

Wow, way to completely not follow the conversation dumb dumb.  I am not arguing the DDI makes 4e a "better" game than other games - it's not even my game of choice you jackass.  I was purely arguing it was highly accessible to new players.  That's it, the beginning and end of my point.

QuoteI've used it and it's not the sine qua non advantage that separates 4e from other editions -- as was your contestation.

My what? My contestation?  I think the word you're looking for is contention, and no it was not my contention.  I said it made the game accessible to new players, not an advantage that separates it from other editions.  Are you confusing my posts with someone else's posts?

QuoteThe reason to play 4e is not because of DDI; it is a utility, nothing more. If you are going to use 4e it helps, it however does not convince you to use 4e when you are otherwise not interested. And yes, THAT is why there is parity.

Yeah, dumbass, when I used the word parity, I was talking about whether the UTILITIES amongst various games had reached parity with each other, NOT THE GAMES.  Which you knew.  You were following that part of the conversation before.  So now you're brain has either wandered off and lost track of the conversation, or you're just constructing a strawman.

All I said was the DDI electronic utility is superior to the electronic utilities available for the other versions of D&D (and thus makes 4e accessible to new players) - Not that 4e was better than other versions of D&D! 5e is my preferred version of D&D, and it has NO electronic support that I am aware of.

QuoteThis topic is about Next being close to Basic. It could care less about 4e knowledge in general, and I could care less about your opinion about my 4e knowledge. This is about how to emulate a feel for older styles as the company mitigates ill will generated previously. 4e is just not that important to this discussion here.

I didn't raise the topic of 4e, dumb dumb.  I simply replied to an erroneous comment concerning it, and you went off like someone pulled your cord, Chatty Cathy.  If it's not relevant to you - stop acting like it's highly important and shut the fuck up already and let the adults continue their conversation.

I did like the compost discussion though!

Mistwell, is there anything you won't argue pedantically?

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;685281Mistwell, is there anything you won't argue pedantically?

Mistwell is really notorious for the whole "white knighting" thing, to the point of idiocy. Get used to it. He's been doing it years.

Quote from: Mistwell;685276I have no problem with that at all.  I am not overly fond of it either.  I am speaking to the issue of accessibility to new players - not my personal preference for gaming.

That said, my life is just too fucking busy these days to go through all the stuff required to form a 3e character that will function with what DMs tend to create/use these days.  That was a fun  minigame for me, back before I had a kid.  But now, I just don't have the time or patience to spread out 15 friggen books on the floor to pour through stuff to match things to my character concept that will actually work OK with each other and make for a survivable character in the overpowered deathtraps DMs seem to like to use these days (often from Paizo).

So, for now at least, 5e is hitting that sweet spot for me.  And God knows you don't need a computer program to make that one page character sheet work.

Dude, I am really liking the direction DDN is going as well such that I suspect its final form will be my favorite edition, but you do not have to make hyperbolic statements about 3.x to get there.

Quote from: Old One Eye;685409Dude, I am really liking the direction DDN is going as well such that I suspect its final form will be my favorite edition, but you do not have to make hyperbolic statements about 3.x to get there.

Sorry if it seemed like I was saying that was generally true for 3.x.  What I meant was, that was true for the games I was playing in, right before we ditched 3.x..  I don't think it's generally true that you need 15 books for 3.x.

I probably have a picture on an old harddrive my wife took of me with 15 books open on our family room floor as I figure out my next character.  I think it was a higher level shadowcraft gnome build.

I am just saying that's the point *I* got to with 3.x prior to leaving it behind.