D&D 5e released!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.

you sound like one of the second edition gamers who thought that it totally fucked up the entire game when they let non-humans be paladins

WAIT, WHAT?

WHAT THE CHRISTSHITTING BUNGLEFUCK IS THIS CRAP?

NON-HUMAN PALADINS?

YOU FUCKING KIDS CAN'T JUST LEAVE SHIT ALONE WHEN IT WORKS, CAN YOU?



ECH,
stopped playing before 3rd edition came out

Also, Dwarven wizards.

One other thing:  Pathfinder triumphant, 4e is deader than yesterday's fish.

[Telarus]

Also, Dwarven wizards.

One other thing:  Pathfinder triumphant, 4e is deader than yesterday's fish.

I was vaguely interested in 4th (as a game designer, I wanted to understand the mechanics). And then when they came out with the "Essentials" version, I was like "WTF, which one is D&D4e?" as it was the same basic rules, but felt like an MMO patch to address players bitching as it just changed power-activation-flow and a few other things.

Pathfinder is definitely my preferred d20 incarnation.

[Don Coyote]

That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.

you sound like one of the second edition gamers who thought that it totally fucked up the entire game when they let non-humans be paladins

WAIT, WHAT?

WHAT THE CHRISTSHITTING BUNGLEFUCK IS THIS CRAP?

NON-HUMAN PALADINS?

YOU FUCKING KIDS CAN'T JUST LEAVE SHIT ALONE WHEN IT WORKS, CAN YOU?



ECH,
stopped playing before 3rd edition came out

You also don't need a 17 Charisma to play one now.

[East Coast Hustle]

THEN WHAT IS FUCKING POINT?!?

[Don Coyote]

THEN WHAT IS FUCKING POINT?!?

Using the class as a vehicle for obvious sexual innuendo to creep out the only female gamer in 20 miles?

[Freeky]

THEN WHAT IS FUCKING POINT?!?

To smash things in the face?

It's not hard to GET a 17 Charisma, though.  You just don't NEED it.

[Don Coyote]

THEN WHAT IS FUCKING POINT?!?

To smash things in the face?

It's not hard to GET a 17 Charisma, though.  You just don't NEED it.

In 1st ed it was very hard.

Roll 3d6, in order, for your stats.

[Freeky]

Lol, fuck that.  Point buy FTW.

[Cain]

One of my teachers at school was a DM....2nd ed, as I recall.  He used "4d6, throw away the lowest" for stats, and also, if you wanted to lower a stat to boost another, you had to take off two points for every one you put on.

So not impossible to get 17, just fucking difficult.

Also, D&D was ruined when I couldn't play a multiclass fighter/mage/thief from level one.

[Cramulus]

It's possible in 4e again. There are a lot more options now than when the first players' handbook was released.

You can make a hybrid class now, where you essentially build a class from the properties and powers of two different classes.

Then you can take multiclass feats, which give you one or two features from another class.

so at level 1, you could be a fighter/wizard with 1 sneak attack per encounter, or a fighter/rogue who knows a single spell, or a rogue/wizard with the ability to grab a monster's attention.

[The Commander]

My main beef was the skill system.  It seemed specifically designed to prevent someone from building a character who was intentionally bad a combat, but good at other useful things.  I enjoyed the gameplay when it came to combat, but felt the overall design limited "role" playing.  I guess Pathfinder addressed that, but I haven't had any chance to play.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

This just reminds me of how much I hate 4th edition.
Might as well play WOW.

When 4e came out I actually resolved that I would never buy another Wizards of the Coast product again.

[Doktor Howl]

Yep.  When 4e was released, I took a look...And then switched to Paizo and never looked back.

[Cramulus]

My main beef was the skill system.  It seemed specifically designed to prevent someone from building a character who was intentionally bad a combat, but good at other useful things. 

Yeah, part of the design goal for 4th edition was to remove the situation where one character solves the encounter while everybody else waits. This meant actually balancing the classes in terms of both in-combat and out-of-combat usefulness. Gone are the days when the party bard does all the talking and the rogue does all the searching... now, everybody plays in every encounter.

It used to really irk me how when I was running a dungeon, most of the dialogue at the table was between the DM and the rogue. Then when we get into combat, everybody can play again.

It also used to irk me that a character could become bad at combat just by choosing certain conceptual combinations. I ran a campaign where one of the PCs was a thief who ended up becoming ordained as a cleric of the thief god. But it turns out that picking up a few levels of cleric ultimately makes you both a bad rogue and a bad cleric. The multiclass rules are now a bit more permissive of building weird concepts without becoming either game breaking or game losing.

I enjoyed the gameplay when it came to combat, but felt the overall design limited "role" playing.  I guess Pathfinder addressed that, but I haven't had any chance to play.

I always feel mystified by this impression... I run a 4e campaign with a roleplaying emphasis and haven't felt like the rules have gotten in my way in the least.

In terms of the skill system limiting character concept / role play ---
There is nothing stopping you from having a character who is well versed in some certain topic or skill - for example, you can have a character who is a shipwright even though there is no "shipwright" skill on the sheet. Those types of skills usually have little bearing on combat, so I think it was a good design choice to not make people choose between character concept and combat efficacy.

If anything, the "role playing" got taken out in the jump between 2nd and 3rd edition, when they made stuff like Diplomacy into a skill check instead of entirely basing it on a conversation between player and DM. A good change, if you ask me.

[The Commander]

Yeah, part of the design goal for 4th edition was to remove the situation where one character solves the encounter while everybody else waits. This meant actually balancing the classes in terms of both in-combat and out-of-combat usefulness. Gone are the days when the party bard does all the talking and the rogue does all the searching... now, everybody plays in every encounter.

It used to really irk me how when I was running a dungeon, most of the dialogue at the table was between the DM and the rogue. Then when we get into combat, everybody can play again.

I understand the desire to balance play. I've certainly been in my fair share of games where I've sat around while someone else was busy because they had the skills and abilities needed at that time.  But isn't that the point of having different classes to begin with?  Bards are supposed to do the talking because thats what Bards do.  Rogues do the sneaking, wizards do magic, and fighters do the fighting.  You pick a certain class specifically so you can specialize in something that no one else is as particularly good at, otherwise, why bother?

It also used to irk me that a character could become bad at combat just by choosing certain conceptual combinations. I ran a campaign where one of the PCs was a thief who ended up becoming ordained as a cleric of the thief god. But it turns out that picking up a few levels of cleric ultimately makes you both a bad rogue and a bad cleric. The multiclass rules are now a bit more permissive of building weird concepts without becoming either game breaking or game losing.

I can understand being concerned when the results of multiclass combinations result in unintentionally reducing the effectiveness of the character.  But I've always seen that as the point at which the player and the GM get together to figure out how to address the issue.  Perhaps you rework the character completely, perhaps you fudge some of the rules and abilities to balance things a little better.

But what about intentional choices to become bad at combat?  There is more to adventuring than combat...and I like the flexibility that 3e provided in terms of being able to create a character with that in mind that could still be useful.  But lets take it a step further...what if I want to create a character who is terrible at everything, but has a fun personality or that provides challenges for the party to overcome?  The new system prohibits that from ever being an option.  When looking at the system and playtesting it, I saw no way I could intentionally create a "skill monkey" or a "charisma monkey" who only entered combat as a last resort.  I remember asking someone about it, and he said "But why would you want to be bad at combat?"

In terms of the skill system limiting character concept / role play ---
There is nothing stopping you from having a character who is well versed in some certain topic or skill - for example, you can have a character who is a shipwright even though there is no "shipwright" skill on the sheet. Those types of skills usually have little bearing on combat, so I think it was a good design choice to not make people choose between character concept and combat efficacy.

I guess I am confused by this.  I dont see it framed as a choice between concept and combat efficacy...they are not neccessarily opposing qualities. Combat efficacy is part of character concept, not in competition with it, just like skill competancy or magic ability is part of the characters overall concept.

If anything, the "role playing" got taken out in the jump between 2nd and 3rd edition, when they made stuff like Diplomacy into a skill check instead of entirely basing it on a conversation between player and DM. A good change, if you ask me.

I thought the skill check tool was a good way to handle situations where, for instance, a characters ability in something far outstips the players ability.  For example...When trying to intimidate an enemy...if I am playing a character who is much smarter or more charismatic than I am, I can tell the GM what affect I am going for with my opponant..."I say such-and-such...only much prettier", the GM can then use my subsequent role to help gague just how effective I was, rather than just relying on my own personal intelligenceand charisma.  I don't really see it as taking away from role-playing, but adding to it.