It really is a shame, I prefer some good ol' 2e myself, but it's just not the flavor of the times.


I still miss my NES.

I think everyone is fond of what they grew up playing. I grew up on 2e, and still enjoy it.

But as far as I'm concerned, Rys is right in that 4e is what 3e should have been. 3.5's only saving grace was the HUGE amount of customization.

I just get a kick out of seeing the same people who said we only resisted the change to 3e because were too old eight years ago complaining about 4th now, and with far less substance, since the core system is pretty much the same this time, really.

How can you can that? Comparing 4th compared to 3.5 ed. is like comparing bingo to chess

The magic system sucks I played it on that first day it came out and was able to buy the books at half off. Which I did because I will probably run into 4th ed. at the gaming conventions I go too.

The one slight change in the magic system to the positive was that they have a few spells (almost worthless because they are so easy to save from) to cast at will. All this to the positive is totally cancel by the huge negatives, in that they get so few encounter spells and daily spells.

I also understand that there is no way mages can make magic items. Magic seems to arrive out of a vacuum somewhere. At least I have not found any way yet in the books

The magic system does suck in 4e, and as I've played 2e and 3e+3.5e i can say their not that great.

The few spells at will are good but apart from that it's not worth mentioning.

Magic items are admittedly too powerful in 3e as well so not being able to make them is good.

And as for comparisons, you've got it pretty much spot on. Lets keep D&D for the creative, intellectual part of the world.

You're mistaken. There is a feat in 4e that anyone can take that allows them to cast. Almost everything in that series of posts is true. A heavy steel shield DOES require a 13 Str, and a light DOES require an 11 Str. We read the books before and during posting. There are some jokes, I will admit. That does not make the majority of it false.

Brianna I'm not sure how you can get mentally challenged - the rules are significantly more complex than 2e or 3e.

Probably one of the most creative moments in my live groups history is working out and narrating a skill challenge, where the group was chasing a thief through urban streets.

I have heard complaints from my wizard player about feeling underpowered next to the others, but wizards have been changed from powerhouse nukers to support characters. And very good ones at that. The game is about powers, not spells.

Gone are the days when a caster can destroy his entire party in the blink of an eye.

Yeah, wizards are support characters, warlocks are nukers.

Sui, you are very, very wrong. There is no feat that allows anyone to cast spells, unless you're referring to the multiclassing feats... Or are you talking about the ritual feat, which lets you cast rituals (not spells). No fireballs or anything of the sort, just the classic fantasy trope of lighting the right candles, reading the scroll, marking the runes, and chanting... only in most fantasy, ANY person at all can do the ritual if they have the instructions... In fact, previous editions of D&D had the same rule. ANYONE could do rituals. Now you need a feat. A feat which requires skill training before you can take it. So it's MORE restrictive, not less. There is NO strength requirement to use shields of any kind. The requirement is to take the feat. A feat you don't need to take if you get it from another source; like, for example... being a guard. Read your DMG. NPC soldiers have proficiency in all armor and shields except for plate. The MM lists Human guards as having a Str of 16, so they would pass your imaginary stat requirements anyway. The equipment chapter in the PHB says nothing about ability requirements for any piece of gear. Players can begin enchanting magic items at level 4, though they cannot make items above their level (and they will often be finding items above their level), using the Enchant Magic Item Ritual, which is nice because no one has to spend XP (always a stupid idea) to make it, and you only need one feat instead of half a dozen or so to be able to make them all. If you read the books, you didn't read them very thoroughly. I can provide you with page numbers to back up everything I've said if you're having trouble following me.

Quick word of advice - if I don't know what I'm talking about, I keep my mouth shut, so if I actually say something, you can bank on it.

I'm not going to get involved in deciding whether a particular comment is right or wrong, but frankly I tend to agree with the general sentiments expressed by Bri and Suicidolt.

Having said that...

I never objected to the changes in 3rd edition, even though I had been playing AD&D. As I saw it (at the time) 3rd edition was a logical progression of what had appeared in 'Skills and Powers' and 'Combat and Tactics', and I liked the fact that a character could be customized to reflect the vision of how one wanted them to be. 4th edition is not a logical progression of what has gone before (for the reasons I've cited before).

Secondly, to claim that charisma never represented appearance is incorrect. It never just represented how physically attractive a character was, but I doubt anyone's vision of orcs is of them having magnetic personalities.

Finally, 3.5 rangers are actually pretty funky, and are certainly funkier than their 3rd ed. counterparts. The class that really suffered in 3rd edition was Bard...and they've disappeared entirely in 4th edition it seems.

Anyway, as I posted a while ago, each to their own. If you enjoy 4th edition, all power to you. But I'll stick with 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Charisma has often INCLUDED physical attractiveness, but it has never REPRESENTED physical attractiveness. It has always been a stat of that certain something hard to define. More and more, it has come to represent force of personality over anything else, a quality I can very much see Orcs having in spades. In point of fact, the only orcs listed as having a charisma above 10 in the MM are the chieftains (for obvious reasons) and the Eye of Gruumsh, which is basically a warlord - a charisma class... both, by the way, with enough levels under their belts to account for the enhanced scores.

Yes, bard got boned in 3e. It should have been a prestige class (since it was the first prestige class, really). Many things in 3e were kind of screwy that way. I always said Paladins should have been prestige classes as well. It was, however, never as completely without value as the 3.5 ranger.

If you view charisma in those terms (which is fine), then I still don't see why the average orc has more charisma than the average human (or whatever other race you wish to bring up).

But as I said I'm happy to just agree to disagree. Everyone has their own tastes and preferences and 4th edition isn't agreeable to many people (some of whom hang around on rdinn).

Of all the things in 4e that I have noticed from my brief time considering the books, there is one thing I wish we could have: The artwork.

I've decided on a whole not to hate 4e, but to hate what it represents and to hate the little changes to details that mess with a previous gamer's head. Why is there no tyrant alignment? no liberator alignment? You know which ones I mean- Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good. 'Tis an outrage. Also, as a matter of personal preference, I don't like one thing that they did to the monster manual, and that is that they came up with random creatures of the same type, like the skeleton. I don't think any of these extra types are necessary or make sense. Oh, and lastly I guess this point will be, as I have been rambling on too long, look at what they did to the elemental! Outrageous! The mixed and matched and combined a couple of them but left out most of them if their intention was cross-elemental creatures.

Rys, I'm not going to get into an argument. We disagree on the merits of 4e. That doesn't bother me. That does NOT mean that I am a liar, and I'd appreciate it if you quit calling me a liar. Those posts are 90% true, aside from the jokes.

I never called you a liar. I said you either misread or didn't read the pertinent sections of the rules. There's a profound difference. If you can find a place where I called you a liar, I'll give you a thousand dollar bill wrapped around a gold brick from Ft. Knox.

I'm not talking about the merits with you, I'm talking about the rules. They simply do not say what you think they do.

"I said you either misread or didn't read the pertinent sections of the rules"

The point still stands, you insulted my integrity. If you'd READ the feats section of the PHB, every argument here is proven by it. Rituals are SPELLS. The difference is that the rituals require spell-components, while a caster in 4e can cast ALL DAY without any negative side-effects. Rituals are what is required to enchant items, making casters no-longer crafters. The shield proficiency feats explain at length the requirements to take them, which include STRENGTH requirements. If you READ the equipment section of the phb, you'd see other blatant proof of our arguments. Take a look at the pictures of the items. The wand is loaded with gems. Cost: 7gp. ??? The hemp rope is so thin it would snap under light-weight creatures, not these gigantic Dragons etc. they have as base races. 10ft chain weighs 2 lbs!!! That means 50ft of chain weighs the SAME as 50ft of hemp rope, that stuff that's so thin it will break under even the lightest weight.

Look, none of this is to imply that YOU are wrong. Instead, I am explaining that you have not proven me wrong either. You are determined that I MUST be wrong for YOU to be right, when in reality, you're right and I'm right. We just disagree on the merits.