...and then pigs flew

[vandebeast]

A while back my "weekly" D&D game finished its previous campaign, and I resumed the helm to run "Rise of the Runelords", the first Pathfinder adventure path. I decided to use a few special rules out of Unearthed Arcana: Weapon Group Feats, Craft Points, Themed Summon Monster Lists for clerics, and Individualized Summon Monster Lists for sorcerers/

Comments

[wandelrust]

The house rules I'm developing for the next campaign after I conclude the current one (players are about to hit level 8, and I have a very-rough outline bringing them to just past 20, so I've got a bit) currently have their own wiki, and by the time I'm done I think the only thing that will survive more or less intact from in-book rules is the Rogue class features per level list. sigh.

[tg2k]

I take it you're playing 3.5E? My group jumped on the 4E bandwagon right off the bat, and hasn't looked back.

[wandelrust]

I am. I've run and played 4E, and it's ok, but it doesn't feel much like D&D to me. Best review that sums up my feelings is "This is a great superhero game, but why did they wrap it with all this magic and dragons crap?"

I will be taking some of the finer points from 4E (static defenses, attack rolls on spells, probably take a cue from their scaling to keep things from getting out of whack by level 20).

[tg2k]

It's definitely a different game, no doubt. We have one player in one of our groups who likes 3.5E more, and most of it seems to be about the fact that he could make a wizard there who generally overshadowed the rest of us thanks to the benefit of some weird magic items and number crunching.

One interesting thing I like about 4E is that when creating or leveling a character, it's not such a slam-dunk what powers and feats to take. That's another sign that the game designers did their job well: no two players will decide they need identical characters to "max out" their combat potential. And no characters who are defined by their magic items, either. In the end we realized that though the new game didn't "feel" like what we all knew, it was a far easier game to fall in love with.

[wandelrust]

There's good in it, no doubt. As you said, the balance is much closer, spellcasters don't get stupid powerful at high levels, and characters are much less defined by their items

[tg2k]

I actually think the new skill system is more realistic. Training gives you a sizeable bonus, as do relevant ability scores. The difference between my scrawny L4 wizard doing an athletics check to jump over a slippery river of blood vs. a brawny L4 fighter would be about 9-10 (or more) points added to a D20 roll. At ANY level. Yes, I'll get more heroic as I get more experience, and so I'll be able to do some things better, but of course difficulty goes up for a lot of things too, so I'll still be at a disadvantage. Meanwhile I have a +15 bonus to Arcana checks, so in that area I frequently roll a 31. In 4E skills are considered to be an osmosis-like thing--as you get experience you can just do more. You pick stuff up, even without trying. See enough bandages applied and you can Heal. See enough tracking and survival stuff done and you can make a decent Nature check. It makes total sense

[wandelrust]

It makes total sense.

I disagree. A level 10 character who has never seen a horse can passably ride. That same character who spent his entire life in an urban wasteland still knows enough about the wilderness to get around. I liked the 3E system, where you were truly ignorant unless you made the specific decision not to be, and if you wanted to be a dabbler, you had to make that decision. In 4E everyone's a dilettante.

I should have been more clear about differing classes. Obviously, they do different things in combat, and have different roles, and their powers different effects, but the way they do them feels the same, and loses some individuality. You could say, with some accuracy, that it's a failure of imagination on my part to need different systems for different classes, but there it is

[tg2k]

Yes, in 4E everyone's a dilettante. I think it would be pretty odd to get to 10th level without having ridden a horse, though riding in 4E is a feat, and without it, you can still ride, you just don't get special benefits.

I'll agree that there's a similarity in form amongst the classes. The designers went the route of formalizing things a lot more than in previous editions, and I do think it takes a little "flavor" away. They put some of that "flavor" back in other ways (removing obvious archetypical choices especially). But yes, something was lost--I consider this a necessary evil to achieve balance.

BTW, in the Arcane Power supplement, they're adding a summoner build of wizard. There's a sneak preview in a Dragon magazine. As for charms, I think they put that more into the Warlock's domain, though I would like to see more charms and illusions as well, and hope they add these in.

[vandebeast]

I'm more on the fence than most gamers.

I run a game in 3.5 (as referenced in this journal entry), I play in a game using 3.0, and I play and run LFR (Living Forgotten Realms) games in 4e. I like how playable 4e feels from first level, no period of too few hit points and the wizard conserving his magic missile and sleep spells. On the other hand some things just don't feel the same about running spellcasters.

Overall, I think 4e is a good system, but they missed the mark a little on the flavor.

[vandebeast]

Is that wiki online? I'd put my rules online, but I imagine that there'd be OGL issuses I'm too lazy to think through.

[wandelrust]

It is, though it hasn't been updated recently. It still has BAB and saves, and I'm working on balancing a system that's much closer to 4E, so that will go by the wayside. Many of the classes are unfinished, though the skeletons are there. I'll send you the link in a PM. I'm avoiding the OGL issues by A) not making it particularly public, and B) putting a big disclaimer that I didn't invent most of it, and will take it down at the request of the copyright holder.