WARNING: D&D TALK

[PopeTom]

The major difference between 4e and M:TG there is that M:TG has over 10k cards, which can be played in any combination, and so many of them outright break the rules of the game - everything from altering the win condition to changing the way blocking damage is assigned.  So to extend the analogy, 4e is like magic where you can only have one copy of each card in your deck (except for lands and one-drops), every deck must consist entirely of cards from one color and block, and no more than 3 of your cards can do things other than "be a creature" and "affect a creature." 

Or to extend the analogy in another way 4e is like MT:G where 5 players use their cards to work towards a common goal rather than beat each other over the head until one of them is 'dead'.  To do this the rules are changed so that while players have less cards available to them in their decks they can cast any card they want at anytime (no random deck draws) without mana cost.  Some cards can be cast over and over again, others can only be used once per challange on the way to accheiving the goal, and yet others can only be used once before achieving the goal.  The common goal they work towards is crafted by an additional player who has his/her own deck of special cards that don't quite follow the same rules as the player's cards do.

The existing multi-class options allow a character to play with more that 'a single color deck'.  PH3 will introduce hybrid characters that will allow a player to mix and match two class from level one onwards.  PH3 will also introduce Skill Powers that any character trained in a skill can take in place of a class utility power.

In other words, I wouldn't have liked MTG until after it was a mature game.

MT:G started off very broken.  While they had the basic elements (lands, summoning creatures, tapping, etc) there what each color did wasn't well defined, if defined at all.  The game has aged well though I think and learning lessons from it is not a bad thing.

If every class had options comparable to what the casters in 3.x had, and I expect as the number of supplements approaches A Lot this will eventually happen, I probably would eventually switch.  (Well, actually, I'm trying to find a group to play HeroSystem with, since the level of customization and modularity in that game is far, far beyond anything I've encountered so far while still having a GM instead of a "Storyteller.")

It was a trade off. To bring some classes up others needed to brought down. In this regards I think they found a good middle ground.

I also think the spell caster classes were more broken up than totally depowered.  Rather than having a swiss-army wizard or cleric a player now has to decide which aspect of those classes they would like to play and picks a class accordingly.

  I like my systems convoluted and arcane; it's magic, it's supposed to be wonky.

Wonky in regards to the world the characters live in is fine.  wonky in regards to the rules system the players are using to access that world I'm not a fan of.

[PopeTom]

Is CRAP.  "Thievery" is ONE SKILL. 

So, gathering info,

This would be a Streetwise, Diplomacy, or Intimidate skill check in most cases.  I can imagine sometimes Bluff may be used as well.

cooking the books,

This is the Bluff skill

moving silently,

Stealth

and disarming a trap

This is actually Thievery, but you'll probably need to pass a Perception check at some point too.

Though in 4th Ed. the DM is encouraged to make traps part of an encounter with monsters rather than wandering damage to soak up, heal up, and move on from.  So rather than a single skill check the character with Thievery would engage in a Skill Challenge to disarm the trap while the rest of the party either directly helps or indirectly help (by holding off the monsters).

are all the exact same thing.

Have you read 4th Ed. rules at all?

Fighters heal themselves.

Explain what Hit Points are to me, I imagine you have it wrong.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

4e never happened.

End of story.

I believe you are thinking of Highlander II: The Quickening.

No, he's thinking of Paranoia

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Explain what Hit Points are to me, I imagine you have it wrong.

Hit points are a combination of physical toughness, skill, luck, the ability to roll with a hit, etc.

Now fuck off you little turd.  I have minis that are older than you are.

[PopeTom]

Explain what Hit Points are to me, I imagine you have it wrong.

Hit points are a combination of physical toughness, skill, luck, the ability to roll with a hit, etc.

Correct, color me surprised as people who complain about 'Fighters healing themselves' usually have no idea to what level HP actually abstract damage.

Now explain why Fighters getting some of their hit points back using a power called 'Second Wind' is bad?

If all HP are not a representation of physical damage then it stands to reason that a Fighter should have a limited ability to get some back solely through a surge of adrenalin and/or findING the will within themselves to fight on.  They still do not have nearly the healing options of a class that falls under the Leader role and therefore would be wise to bring one along with them on their adventure.

Now fuck off you little turd.  I have minis that are older than you are.

Big woop, none of those minis had anything to do with D&D

[Requia ☣]

Because fighters don't heal.  Fighters hit things.  Sometimes they break or throw things instead.

[Golden Applesauce]

Because fighters don't heal.  Fighters hit things.  Sometimes they break or throw things instead.

Unless, y'know, they happened to be carrying a potion.

[PopeTom]

Because fighters don't heal.  Fighters hit things.  Sometimes they break or throw things instead.

If HP represent more than just physical damage then there are more ways to get them back than magically healing physical damage.

If there are more ways to get them back than through magic healing then those ways can be spread out among all the classes.  Though if you want the most efficient/effective healing you still need a Leader (Cleric, Bard, Warlord, or Shaman).

In the PHB the Fighter has a total of 7 healing powers, the Cleric however has 23.  The Fighter's powers are based on finding extra reserves to fight on despite wounds, weariness, and/or loss of moral.  The Fighter's healing powers also only affect the fighter.  The Cleric's powers on the other hand not only heal for all the same reasons that the fighter's do but also add in healing due to divine magic, ie. a character's wounds closing or the exhaustion of battle washing away completely allowing an ally to fight on.  The Cleric's powers affect  anyone on the Cleric's side in a fight.  I've underlined the major difference between the two, the Fighter's best option to help the Wizard is still to get between the Wizard and the bad guys.

The Cleric, or any other Leader class, has not been replaced because the Fighter can restore some of his/her own Hit Points.

[Richter]

Because fighters don't heal.  Fighters hit things.  Sometimes they break or throw things instead.

For muliperson tabletop / computer, I definitely agree.  Keeps more group reliance, and more distinct characterization. 
If people want to play different, their business then.     
   

[Cramulus]

I liked the 4e shift to "everybody can heal themselves a little bit, but with the cleric's help, they can heal themselves better"

the cleric / warlord / shaman / bard is still very necessary, but they don't have to spend all their time playing a support role. In other editions, playing a healer was kind of like taking the bullet for your party. While they're doing the glorious monster slaying, trap disarming, etc, you're ... buffing them? hey, when do you get the spotlight?

"ahhh I just took 100 points of damage, cleric, come save me so I can keep fighting!"
"ah shit, I was just about to cast Flame Strike, but I guess I can heal you instead. Get a better AC you meat sack!"   

On the other hand, the new conception of healer as "leader", is a lot of fun to play. As a warlord, you're constantly shifting your party members around the battle field, giving party members healing or buffs when you hit. You definitely don't feel like you're riding in the back seat.

[PopeTom]

I liked the 4e shift to "everybody can heal themselves a little bit, but with the cleric's help, they can heal themselves better"

I like that 4th has pretty much eliminated the party lugging around a Bag of Holding full of Wands of Cure Light Wounds to top everyone off during/after combat.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Correct, color me surprised as people who complain about 'Fighters healing themselves' usually have no idea to what level HP actually abstract damage.

Yeah, that was explained to me during my first game in 1977, when I pointed out that a 3rd level fighter would be physically tougher than an elephant.

Now, again, fuck off.

[Z³]

I dislike systems that provide to much abstraction of damage. In my opinion, in a system, damage should literally represent physical damage. If you want said system to represent psychological status as well, this should be done seperately. It isnt that difficult to imagine that aspects of psychology could provide certain advantages, and disadvantages in combat.

Basically, I do not dislike the concept of psychological damage, but I dont like the concept of HP representing anything further than physical status. In fact, HP alone has been my major gripe with D&D (and similar games) for many years. My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

Burning Wheel, for me, has everything required for a decent sword and sorcery campaign. A better combat system, more immersive character creation, much better sense of realism, better concept of damage (not to mention wounding, and age), skills that improve through use (as opposed to an arbitrary assignment of points), and accomplishes everything that 4rth ed tries to do.

4th edition is a complete retooling of the franchise to attempt to appeal to a changing market. IMO, IT DOES THE SAME THING THAT THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE DID. Not to mention that I was pretty pissed at the race selection. I still play 3.5, and I still enjoy the game. Its also not hard to adapt the D20 Call of Cthulhu stuff to 3.5, but youd be hard pressed to do it with D&D. All that D20 system era stuff is pretty mix and match, although much of it is crap.

Also, I'd still like to get a chance to play Midnight, if I can ever find a copy of the book.

[Z³]

Correct, color me surprised as people who complain about 'Fighters healing themselves' usually have no idea to what level HP actually abstract damage.

Yeah, that was explained to me during my first game in 1977, when I pointed out that a 3rd level fighter would be physically tougher than an elephant.

These abstractions can be pretty hilarious sometimes. For example, its fun to pit first level characters against mundane creatures. (like housecats).

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Personally, ever since 4th Edition came out I have made a point of not buying any Wizards of The Coast products. I will never buy another one of their products again (unless it is a previously used product that they therefore would not profit from (the sale of) anyway. (...Hey, why should I suffer just because I'm boycotting a company?...) I have actually bought a more expensive copy of some WoTC products on Amazon.com because all of the cheaper copies were new!).   

I seriously hope that they go out of business