I've heard that 4e removes the orthogonality between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil, which seems like the worst idea I have ever seen ever to me, but YMMV.
Is this undone in whatever the more-recent version is?
They pared down what are arguably similar/redundant alignments in 4E. Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil are essentially combined under just simply "Evil," while likewise Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are under the umbrella of "Good." Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good still exist. The X Neutral alignments became "Unaligned." Alignment based effects are so rare in 4E that alignments are more of just a roleplaying hint.
We have very different views on this. I think the power mechanic is where 4e lost me for good.
I can hardly imagine why. Rogues ands Fighters finally having cool abilities and aces-in-the-hole on par with spells is the best idea the designers ever had, in my opinion. It reminded me of 3.5's Book of Nine Swords, only every class in the game was now essentially using the Maneuvers system. It's also the most balanced the game has ever been.
Rogues ands Fighters finally having cool abilities and aces-in-the-hole on par with spells is the best idea the designers ever had, in my opinion. [...] It's also the most balanced the game has ever been.
That's one of my problems with it - every class essentially feels the same. Sure, powers have very different descriptions, but the mechanics are too much alike. They are all combat-oriented, which feels too much like an MMO to me (and yes, I know this argument has been made too many times already). Not that I have anything against MMOs, I just don't think they translate very well to a PnP game. D&D had its own strengths and 4e in general feels like a completely different game with rules loosely based on previous editions.
That's one of my problems with it - every class essentially feels the same. Sure, powers have very different descriptions, but the mechanics are too much alike. They are all combat-oriented, which feels too much like an MMO to me (and yes, I know this argument has been made too many times already). Not that I have anything against MMOs, I just don't think they translate very well to a PnP game. D&D had its own strengths and 4e in general feels like a completely different game with rules loosely based on previous editions.
The game has always been combat-oriented. It's not like a Paladin is using his +2 to saving throws to talk his way through a challenge. 4E only feels more combat-oriented because it is so finely-tuned mechanically. Everything WORKS, and that's a pretty new, scary thing for D&D players. ;P
The game has always been combat-oriented. It's not like a Paladin is using his +2 to saving throws to talk his way through a challenge. 4E only feels more combat-oriented because it is so finely-tuned mechanically. Everything WORKS, and that's a pretty new, scary thing for D&D players. ;P
That's not very accurate. The game was about exploration, collecting treasure, gaining followers and yes, killing monsters. Combat plays a large role but it was hardly the be-all, end-all of D&D. Playing a Mage, Wizard, Magic-User or however you prefer to call them was always fundamentally different from playing a Fighter (or Thief, for that matter). They had spells for all kinds of situations and a completely different power curve.
The Paladin is not a very good example because he was designed as a Fighter variant with a few Cleric qualities mixed in. Now they're all "defenders" and play the same way, only one has "martial powers" and the other, "radiant magic". Same goes for the Warlord and Cleric.
This is my problem with 4e. You have 4 types of characters (Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller) that play different roles in combat, but the mechanic behind their power is pretty much the same. Power Sources are only different in flavor - they play the same way, and it's all about combat. Hell, even non-combat situations are considered "encounters" and "skill challenges". Spells were turned into Rituals, almost an afterthought.
You call it a finely-tuned system, I call it dumbed down. The rules are obsessed with balance and symmetry and griding classes/power sources to the point where it gets ridiculous - I'm referring specifically to the Primal power source and classes like Shaman and Warden (variants of the Druid created just so they would fill different roles). I get a headache from reading those class descriptions. They feel contrived, as if it's obvious that they're desperately trying to find some in-story reason to say "no, these are not Druids."
I used to think the WoW argument was an exaggeration until I actually started playing WoW. Once you see the similarities that weren't there prior to 4e it's hard to think that there's been no effort to cater to the MMO-playing audience, which IMHO is a stupid move. Why should PnP RPGs try to emulate or compete with computer games? It's done nothing but alienate a legion of players and I don't think they brought enough new people to compensate for that.
I could go on and on with this, but I already derailed the topic with Edition Wars, so I should probably stop it. Please don't take my bashing of 4e personally. I don't look down on the game itself or its fans.
I'm not even saying it's a bad game on it's own. I just hold a firm opinion that it's a complete bastardization of D&D rules, so much that they're going back on practically every major change it brought to the system and rolling out a new edition a mere 5 years later so it doesn't end up killing a game that's already way past it's heyday once and for all.
I say... keep it 2nd edition... drop the 3rd edition classes In Bg3 or change them to 2nd edition version of them...
I must say 4th edition has some good qualities... all edition has some good and some bad... I do like the ascpect of the war between gods and primordal.. also I love the war between Titans and Genies for total domination of elemental planes....
One returning classes that always comes back in DnD are the Shadow mage and Shai'rs class they should save us some mony and time and add them from begining in DnD next core player handbok
Shadow mage is the 2nd edition name, in 3.5 DnD shadow mage was called Shadowcaster and in 4th edition Shadow mage is called Nethermancer .... persionally i love the Nethermancy name of shadow mage...
with BG3 i just hope they don't rush it. i mean after BG2/TOB:EE comes out they'll have at least a year of people happily playing that, before there's even any call for BG3.
i'd like a good selection of joinable NPCs (7-12) to create a party between 4 and 6
with BG3 i just hope they don't rush it. i mean after BG2/TOB:EE comes out they'll have at least a year of people happily playing that, before there's even any call for BG3.
i'd like a good selection of joinable NPCs (7-12) to create a party between 4 and 6
and option to play it MMO would be amazing
hmmm I'm more like You got to catch them all type of guy... I love Suikoden games just because you can recruit more than 108 followers lol.... soo more followers than I'll be happy....
It's a video game. I'd wager that most people who played this game probably didn't care that it used DnD rules. All that matters in a game is that you pick a set of rules (whether borrowed from somewhere else or no) that suit the gameplay style. Having multiple sets of rules, especially ones so different from each other, just creates a large amount of pointless effort.
It's like taking an action game and then having people select whether they want to play it as an FPS, RTS, racing game or Point-and-click adventure.
I've heard that 4e removes the orthogonality between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil, which seems like the worst idea I have ever seen ever to me, but YMMV.
Is this undone in whatever the more-recent version is?
They pared down what are arguably similar/redundant alignments in 4E. Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil are essentially combined under just simply "Evil," while likewise Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are under the umbrella of "Good." Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good still exist. The X Neutral alignments became "Unaligned." Alignment based effects are so rare in 4E that alignments are more of just a roleplaying hint.
When you have something as iconic as the 9 classic alignments, changing in this way, especially in a way that removes the philosophically-interesting distinction between Ethics and Morality, is a bad idea IMO.
Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are totally different and should not be grouped together. I've heard that some GMs put LN with LG in the 4e system, though, to get around this kind of obvious shortcoming.
It sounds like 4E might have underemphasized RP elements and overemphasized power-gaming elements. I don't know much about D&D, but I'm just repeating the impression I'm getting.
I'm interested to hear more about how this is "back but changed" in 5E. The links I find online just refer to the fact that a beta "will be happening" (lol) in Spring 2012, but no other news.
I love the way 4e handles combat. Granted, in PnP you sacrifice a great deal of creativity in resolving combat situations non-combatively, but it more than makes up for it by giving everyone something interesting to do at all times. It's a shame they put so little effort into non-combat aspects of the game. Still, any system that does away with Vance's nonsense is alright by me.
I still maintain that 4e would make an excellent computer game.
I'm far less convinced that it's a good choice for Baldur's Gate.
The Vancian magic system is a little silly in BG tbh. Resting to recover spellcasting ability is pretty trivial, but it's a chore. I like it for the flavor, though.
I love the way 4e handles combat. Granted, in PnP you sacrifice a great deal of creativity in resolving combat situations non-combatively, but it more than makes up for it by giving everyone something interesting to do at all times. It's a shame they put so little effort into non-combat aspects of the game. Still, any system that does away with Vance's nonsense is alright by me.
I still maintain that 4e would make an excellent computer game.
I'm far less convinced that it's a good choice for Baldur's Gate.
4E has just as much non-combat stuff as any previous edition. Anybody who might suggest otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. There are plenty of skills, utility spells, rituals, feats, and magic items that have nothing whatsoever to do with combat. Paragon paths (kind of like 3E prestige classes but every character takes them at level 11 and they don't affect your original class progression) and themes allow you to further define your character, and many of them have bonuses that are more about social or knowledge checks rather than hitting things.
It sounds like 4E might have underemphasized RP elements and overemphasized power-gaming elements. I don't know much about D&D, but I'm just repeating the impression I'm getting.
Alignments are ultimately just a roleplaying aid, and they still serve that role in 4E. Keeping their game mechanics impact to a minimum (some items, rituals, and supernatural effects still refer to alignment) is for the best, imo.
@Kilivitz The game is still about exploration, finding treasure, gaining followers, and killing monsters. As a DM I still say "you find a jeweled scepter in the rubble. Though tarnished and dented, it appears to be of fine dwarven make" the same way in 4th Edition as I did in 3.5E. The Edition switch did not change my ability to make non-combat content, nor did it convert my narrative to some alien language that cannot express things that are not pugilism. The emphasis on any one of those aspects has not shifted in the least.
Even if the Paladin wasn't "the best example," the fact is that all the classes' progression in any given Edition is largely geared toward combat. THAC0 goes down, Base Attack Bonus goes up, Saving Throws improve, spellcasters get more spell slots. Granted, those spell slots can be used for utility spells, but the vast majority of spells still deal with hurting/hindering enemies or buffing/healing friends in battle.
As for the roles, you're oversimplifying, as even within a given role, the mechanics are different. The Fighter and the Paladin, for example, both have different methods for "marking" foes that lead to different playstyles. Marks encourage an enemy to attack the character who placed the mark, and the Defender classes each have ways of punishing enemies for disobeying their marks. The Fighter must generally attack an enemy he wants to mark. Hit or miss, he can choose to mark that enemy. If he attacks multiple enemies with a power, he can mark all of those targets. This gives the Fighter a great deal of versatility in the kinds of powers he can use to taunt his enemies and does not require him to spend an action on his marking, but it also means that he is usually limited to hindering a single enemy. The Paladin is also usually limited to marking a single enemy, but can do so from a distance without having to attack that enemy as a minor action. As long as he either attacks or gets adjacent to that target by the end of each of his turns, that mark can last the entire encounter. This means that the Paladin could mark one enemy while simultaneously attacking another adjacent enemy. If the power he uses to attack that other enemy marks or immobilizes, then he has two enemies more or less tied up with him. These classes differ both mechanically and in flavor.
Not to exacerbate a slightly (though not terribly) off-topic edition war, but I take exception to the suggestion that I don't know what I'm talking about. I consider myself a 4e apologist, but that includes acknowledging the system's flaws. Especially when you look at what was there at launch, 4e's non-combat offerings were meager. Comparing 4e's systems for resolving non-combat situations with 3.5's is like comparing apples with significantly larger apples. If I ever DM 4e again I'll be reinstituting 3.5's skill system and including large amounts of homebrew rituals
Anyways, I think 4e makes a bad choice for BG3 because it just doesn't work in the psuedo turnbased combat that works best in overhead isometric viewpoints. It demands a fully turnbased & gridbased system to function properly. I still really would love to see this implemented in a computer game, but it just wouldn't feel like Baldur's Gate.
I'm currently DMing 3.5 (players' choice), heavily houseruled to turn it into some sort of Legend hybrid. I learned immensely from 4e encounter design - it's amazing, really - but were I to go back to it, the very FIRST thing I'd houserule would be the rituals. They seriously screwed up that part.
The second would likely be the economy, or perhaps the to-hit/hp ratio.
4e would be terrible for a real-time video game -- single player or MMO style, doesn't matter. Why?
Interrupts.
4e was a game which relied on the specific kind of communication possible in face-to-face table-top play, which is where one player interrupts the actions of another -- usually a PC's player interrupting the DM's monsters, but sometimes the other way around.
If the game were turn-based, it might be possible, but even then you'd have to have something clunky like making the player confirm every single enemy action, just to ensure he doesn't miss his chance to interrupt the one he wants to interrupt.
From what I've seen so far, 5e ("D&D Next") would be a much better choice.
Comments
Actually playing is far too simple to be fun.
And the Vancian magic system is back, too. No more at-will/encounter/daily powers.
In a good way, I think.
The Paladin is not a very good example because he was designed as a Fighter variant with a few Cleric qualities mixed in. Now they're all "defenders" and play the same way, only one has "martial powers" and the other, "radiant magic". Same goes for the Warlord and Cleric.
This is my problem with 4e. You have 4 types of characters (Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller) that play different roles in combat, but the mechanic behind their power is pretty much the same. Power Sources are only different in flavor - they play the same way, and it's all about combat. Hell, even non-combat situations are considered "encounters" and "skill challenges". Spells were turned into Rituals, almost an afterthought.
You call it a finely-tuned system, I call it dumbed down. The rules are obsessed with balance and symmetry and griding classes/power sources to the point where it gets ridiculous - I'm referring specifically to the Primal power source and classes like Shaman and Warden (variants of the Druid created just so they would fill different roles). I get a headache from reading those class descriptions. They feel contrived, as if it's obvious that they're desperately trying to find some in-story reason to say "no, these are not Druids."
I used to think the WoW argument was an exaggeration until I actually started playing WoW. Once you see the similarities that weren't there prior to 4e it's hard to think that there's been no effort to cater to the MMO-playing audience, which IMHO is a stupid move. Why should PnP RPGs try to emulate or compete with computer games? It's done nothing but alienate a legion of players and I don't think they brought enough new people to compensate for that.
I could go on and on with this, but I already derailed the topic with Edition Wars, so I should probably stop it. Please don't take my bashing of 4e personally. I don't look down on the game itself or its fans.
I'm not even saying it's a bad game on it's own. I just hold a firm opinion that it's a complete bastardization of D&D rules, so much that they're going back on practically every major change it brought to the system and rolling out a new edition a mere 5 years later so it doesn't end up killing a game that's already way past it's heyday once and for all.
I must say 4th edition has some good qualities... all edition has some good and some bad...
I do like the ascpect of the war between gods and primordal.. also I love the war between Titans and Genies for total domination of elemental planes....
One returning classes that always comes back in DnD are the Shadow mage and Shai'rs class they should save us some mony and time and add them from begining in DnD next core player handbok
Shadow mage is the 2nd edition name, in 3.5 DnD shadow mage was called Shadowcaster and in 4th edition Shadow mage is called Nethermancer .... persionally i love the Nethermancy name of shadow mage...
I'm an old timer.
i'd like a good selection of joinable NPCs (7-12) to create a party between 4 and 6
and option to play it MMO would be amazing
It's a video game. I'd wager that most people who played this game probably didn't care that it used DnD rules. All that matters in a game is that you pick a set of rules (whether borrowed from somewhere else or no) that suit the gameplay style. Having multiple sets of rules, especially ones so different from each other, just creates a large amount of pointless effort.
It's like taking an action game and then having people select whether they want to play it as an FPS, RTS, racing game or Point-and-click adventure.
BG3 (should there ever be a BG3) will be done with whatever is the current D&D ruleset. Which, if you ask me, basically leaves me cold.
As D&D parted ways from 3.5ed to 4ed, I went with Pathfinder for all my D&D ruleset needs.
I will be merrily playing games like BG2:EE, NWN:EE, etc as you are playing your BG3.
Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are totally different and should not be grouped together. I've heard that some GMs put LN with LG in the 4e system, though, to get around this kind of obvious shortcoming.
It sounds like 4E might have underemphasized RP elements and overemphasized power-gaming elements. I don't know much about D&D, but I'm just repeating the impression I'm getting.
I'm interested to hear more about how this is "back but changed" in 5E. The links I find online just refer to the fact that a beta "will be happening" (lol) in Spring 2012, but no other news.
I still maintain that 4e would make an excellent computer game.
I'm far less convinced that it's a good choice for Baldur's Gate.
@Kilivitz
The game is still about exploration, finding treasure, gaining followers, and killing monsters. As a DM I still say "you find a jeweled scepter in the rubble. Though tarnished and dented, it appears to be of fine dwarven make" the same way in 4th Edition as I did in 3.5E. The Edition switch did not change my ability to make non-combat content, nor did it convert my narrative to some alien language that cannot express things that are not pugilism. The emphasis on any one of those aspects has not shifted in the least.
Even if the Paladin wasn't "the best example," the fact is that all the classes' progression in any given Edition is largely geared toward combat. THAC0 goes down, Base Attack Bonus goes up, Saving Throws improve, spellcasters get more spell slots. Granted, those spell slots can be used for utility spells, but the vast majority of spells still deal with hurting/hindering enemies or buffing/healing friends in battle.
As for the roles, you're oversimplifying, as even within a given role, the mechanics are different. The Fighter and the Paladin, for example, both have different methods for "marking" foes that lead to different playstyles. Marks encourage an enemy to attack the character who placed the mark, and the Defender classes each have ways of punishing enemies for disobeying their marks. The Fighter must generally attack an enemy he wants to mark. Hit or miss, he can choose to mark that enemy. If he attacks multiple enemies with a power, he can mark all of those targets. This gives the Fighter a great deal of versatility in the kinds of powers he can use to taunt his enemies and does not require him to spend an action on his marking, but it also means that he is usually limited to hindering a single enemy. The Paladin is also usually limited to marking a single enemy, but can do so from a distance without having to attack that enemy as a minor action. As long as he either attacks or gets adjacent to that target by the end of each of his turns, that mark can last the entire encounter. This means that the Paladin could mark one enemy while simultaneously attacking another adjacent enemy. If the power he uses to attack that other enemy marks or immobilizes, then he has two enemies more or less tied up with him. These classes differ both mechanically and in flavor.
Anyways, I think 4e makes a bad choice for BG3 because it just doesn't work in the psuedo turnbased combat that works best in overhead isometric viewpoints. It demands a fully turnbased & gridbased system to function properly. I still really would love to see this implemented in a computer game, but it just wouldn't feel like Baldur's Gate.
The second would likely be the economy, or perhaps the to-hit/hp ratio.
Interrupts.
4e was a game which relied on the specific kind of communication possible in face-to-face table-top play, which is where one player interrupts the actions of another -- usually a PC's player interrupting the DM's monsters, but sometimes the other way around.
If the game were turn-based, it might be possible, but even then you'd have to have something clunky like making the player confirm every single enemy action, just to ensure he doesn't miss his chance to interrupt the one he wants to interrupt.
From what I've seen so far, 5e ("D&D Next") would be a much better choice.