Posted By bshugg on 05/18/2008 1:22 PM
Wraith, you had your mind made up that way as soon as they announced 4th edition. You've told us all with about 500 of those 3200+ posts you currently have. Why not try the game before leaping to wild conclusions.

Posted By Wraithborne on 05/18/2008 7:52 PM
Maybe it's because my games are nothing like the "horror stories" I hear about 3e, with hours long encounters, 45 minute grapple checks and polymorph nightmares, but 3e works just fine for me.

Posted By bshugg on 05/18/2008 1:22 PM
Then we sat down and tried it. Holy crap it played just like the same game!

Posted By Ghendar on 05/19/2008 9:37 AM
I'd like to see, using the same PC classes and monsters, a comparison between....

a combat encounter for 1st level pcs in 3.5
a combat encounter for 1st level pcs in 4e.

I'm betting they both run pretty quick. Let's see how "quick" 4e combat is at 12th level.

Posted By bshugg on 05/19/2008 3:17 PM
  My little KIA drives nice but I would be happy to trade it for a Ferarri

Posted By bshugg on 05/19/2008 3:17 PM
Just because things weren't terrible with 3.5 doesn't mean I don't want better. Â

Posted By Zenako on 05/19/2008 12:08 PM


With literally 1000's invested in older material,

Posted By sienar on 05/20/2008 7:18 AM
Whether or not 4E is a better game, from my play experience (much like Brad, I can't talk about it until June 6th), it is a ruleset that appeals to me over all. Will I be happy with every part of it? Nah. Was I that unhappy with 3.5? Yes and no. The more we allowed the books to select from, the more "broken" combinations could be discovered, and those, for me, are unfun. Will 4E fix that? Perhaps. Having some directed mathematical theory behind the rules won't hurt. But, my investment in 3.x is content. Those books more than paid for the memories I have from the sessions I played.

Posted By Shottglazz on 05/20/2008 9:38 AM

IMO, this is not a fault of the system per se, it's a problem with a strong/weak DM. If you are introducing new rulesets, you need to peruse them first and decide what you are and are not allowing. If you allow a carte blanche (especially if you haven't read what the players want to use) then you have nobody to blame for "broken" combos than yourself...

Posted By Shottglazz on 05/20/2008 9:38 AM

IMO, this is not a fault of the system per se, it's a problem with a strong/weak DM. If you are introducing new rulesets, you need to peruse them first and decide what you are and are not allowing. If you allow a carte blanche (especially if you haven't read what the players want to use) then you have nobody to blame for "broken" combos than yourself...

Posted By sienar on 05/20/2008 9:51 AM
That takes a dedication and a knowledge not everyone has. Lack of time or motivation to check every new class, feat, magic item, spell, mundane item, weapon, armor, whatever is certainly not on my list of what makes a DM good or not.

I would aslo disagree it is not a fault of the system. A perfect system will not require each and every DM to check each and every thing against each and every other one for balance. Note, I do not believe 4E will be perfect. I know it won't be. I think it will be closer in this regard than others by through design philospohy.

Posted By Shottglazz on 05/20/2008 10:34 AM

A dedication and a knowledge not everyone has? How hard is it to be prepared for the game you're going to run? And regardless of how "perfect" a system is, there are always going to be parts that a DM is or is not going to use...unless they're just spoon-feeding their players...

Posted By sienar on 05/20/2008 10:44 AM

Um. How many books do we have? How many spells? How many feats? How many magic items? How many classes, races, prestige classes, etc?

Be prepared for the game I am going to run? Not that bad. Be prepared for the jillions of potential interactions, any of which could result in an undesired situation that I am somehow supposed to be familiar enough with each and every one to know this up front? That's absurd. Completely and utterly.

Not everyone is capable of picking up rulebooks and identifying potential undesireable situations and have an encyclopedic knowledge of all previous books. Should only those that are be allowed to run games?

I think my former DM had the best policy to handle undesirable interactions. All Wizards products were legal. If you are in a given campaign setting, you don't get to use other campaign-setting specific books. You can use anything once, but if he deemed it overly unbalanced, you got to switch it out for something else. That way he can keep control over unbalancing, but not be required to have encyclopedic knowlege of thousands of pages of material.

Posted By Teflon Jeff on 05/20/2008 10:26 AM


Furthermore, even core alone can be broken. I once had a DM say "We're only using the PHB to keep it balanced" As a player and a member of the CO boards (at the time, I was more active) I took that as a bit of a challenge, and using only PHB rules, was vastly more powerful than he was prepared for. Ruleset, not DM.

Posted By Shottglazz on 05/20/2008 10:54 AM

LOL that's pretty humourous Sienar...it's absurd to actually read a book before you allow it? Wow, must be pretty easy to get things over yer DM...as for the second bolded portion - a blanket "Wizards products are legal" is just as bad...

I'm saying you have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of thousands of pages of material - just make sure you have a passing knowledge of how a feat/skill/spell works before you allow it - in other words, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE QUALITY OF YOUR GAME...I know that may seem strange to you, but people generally have more fun when the DM is well-prepared and knows what he's running...

Posted By Ghendar on 05/20/2008 11:35 AM
Perhaps this whole issue is not a DM problem, not a rules problem, and not a player problem, but instead is a WotC problem for constructing rules that can be manipulated and broken, thus causing all this 'unfun' I've been hearing about for months.

Maybe, just maybe, they should have done their due diligence and not created these monstrosity fun-killing combos.

Posted By Ghendar on 05/20/2008 11:11 AM

I would partially disagree Jeff. You can blame it on the ruleset if you choose, but you can also blame it on the DM for lack of knowledge and also (most importantly, imo) on the player.

Rules optimization/corruption/abuse/manipulation/whatever doesn't happen if the players don't utilize it.

Posted By Shottglazz on 05/20/2008 10:54 AM

LOL that's pretty humourous Sienar...it's absurd to actually read a book before you allow it? Wow, must be pretty easy to get things over yer DM...as for the second bolded portion - a blanket "Wizards products are legal" is just as bad...

I'm saying you have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of thousands of pages of material - just make sure you have a passing knowledge of how a feat/skill/spell works before you allow it - in other words, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE QUALITY OF YOUR GAME...I know that may seem strange to you, but people generally have more fun when the DM is well-prepared and knows what he's running...

Posted By sienar on 05/20/2008 11:50 AM

Do you actually think anybody is capable of this Utopia?

Posted By sienar on 05/20/2008 11:50 AM
Of course, I suspect your comment is more snide than serious. You think us converters are so unreasonable in our lack of understanding your position, yet you take every opportunity to take snipes at people who have their gripes of 3.x, simply because their experience is different than yours.

Posted By Teflon Jeff on 05/20/2008 12:18 PM

Oh, I'll agree that the player and DM is at fault as well. But I can also guarantee that, no matter the safeguards a DM takes, short of making people's characters for them, there will be ways to break a 3.5 game. I would bet 4E will also have some vulnerabilities. But it will take time to find them Every game needs a reboot ocassionally.

And why is it the fault of the player to make a powerful character? It's real life. I found loopholes in my university catalog that is allowing me to get three degrees for the credits of one. (129) Should I be banned from the college? There's nothing wrong with a PC trying to obtain power. Most everyone in real life is trying it, and some succeed. Why shouldn't a PC?

Posted By Ghendar on 05/20/2008 12:37 PM

I'm not knocking players for exploiting loopholes and kudos to you for the three degrees.  

What I'm saying here is let's put the blame in the proper spot. Ultimately, that blame lies at WotC's feet. I'm sorry. I can't give them a free pass. Is it possible to close EVERY loophole? No, I'll admit that. But it should be possible to do a better job than what's been done.

Posted By Shottglazz on 05/20/2008 1:53 PM
Teflon - Not claiming to be a master, just a responsible DM...I haven't studied how to get unlim hp at 1st level, or how to get a +9 BAB at 2nd lvl or anything like that...I just have the common sense to read what I allow before it is allowed...how unrealistic is that?

Sienar - I don't care to choose a custom title for you at all...Did I say I catch every single broken combo? No. Did I say I read what I allow to make sure I have at least a passing knowledge of it first? Yes. I'm not intending to mock you - if you take it that way, meh...I'm just saying that claiming that system is the problem is a cop-out...ANY system can be exploited...a compentant DM, GM, Ref, etc can help limit that and keep the game on an even keel for everyone...