New Hero

[chaoticprime]

Also, that was me trying to be friendly. Don't picture me shouting, picture me like Sherlock Holmes rabbiting on about something.

[Teldurn]

I hate 3rd and 3.5 most of all. Descriptively, 4E was rife with those used to distinguish between multiple types of monster--but was extended further still in describing singular species as well. 3.5 was rife with the templates. I could have said, "Axiomatic Dire Tarantula."

Fair enough.

It must be non-alliterated logical fallacy Wednesday.

My favorite day of the week!

You were able to glean the exact opposite of my beliefs based on what I didn't actually say. I also didn't mention Original D&D, 1st ed, 1.5 ed, 2nd ed, or 2.5 ed. So what I can assume is that you are either a fan of Basic (doubtful) or 4E, and you probably also have a bad history with 3E apologists. I have been banned on Facebook by Monte Cooke and Sean K Reynolds for pointing out their *lemony goodness*. And if you liked being bamboozled by 4E, no one here is going to call you a petulant loser who got roped in by a card/board/miniatures/world of warcraft-game. There were so many pieces, what wasn't to like?

The only RPG I will play is GURPS: Bunnies & Burrows.

I claim my gaming lineage starting with 3.0 (and can arguably stretch it back to AD&D if you count Baldur's Gate 1&2). I've not played any of the older-school versions, BECMI, Moldvay/Cook, B/X, red box/blue box/white box, whatever - so I can't speak to any of those - but based on what I've heard, I think I would like playing them. However, I have played every edition since 3.0. I've always been able to find things I absolutely love about each edition. And interestingly, not much to bitch about for any edition. But do I [i]hate[/i ]any of them? Nope. The absolute worst thing I can say that I've hated was AD&D's THAC0. But I could deal with it at the time.

What chaps my hide is when edition warriors get up on their horse and claim how version X sucks while their preferred version is the best. I've found a great majority of the time, their alleged "hatred" stems from insufficient or flat-out false information.

And y'know what? I had a freakin' awesome time in my years playing 4e. I also had a blast with Next and 3 .x too! Why is it so hard to accept each edition as a cohesive whole while all under the D&D umbrella? Why must so many bash one edition over another...is it a need to feel superior? I don't get it, and it's annoying. Or am I just unique in my viewpoint on this...I dunno.

[chaoticprime]

I didn't decide 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder was bad until I'd finished nearly a decade of running them as DM.

I will let Gary Gygax do the talking as to what's the problem with the d20 system stuff.

"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."

"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things."

"The most extensive requirement is time."

“You are not entering this world in the usual manner, for you are setting forth to be a Dungeon Master. Certainly there are stout fighters, mighty magic-users, wily thieves, and courageous clerics who will make their mark in the magical lands of D&D adventure. You however, are above even the greatest of these, for as DM you are to become the Shaper of the Cosmos. It is you who will give form and content to the all the universe. You will breathe life into the stillness, giving meaning and purpose to all the actions which are to follow.”

3rd editions primary focus was to take away power from the DM while saying they did not. The entire edition was focused on players. When you have one DM, and four players, why sell to the DM? Before "Spot Checks," players would actually call out searches. Monte Cooke hates role-players--the dice should always do the talking with him. The rules engine for D&D was supposed to be there only for combat options. The original DMG was nothing like 3rd Eds--it was just packed full of tables and charts. It tried to supply the DM with a guide to help him answer every type of question about anything. In older editions the lack of a universal mechanic made it so that you remembered each mechanic because of the different dice used for them. With the d20 mechanic, everything gets quantified by a single degree of abstraction. Plus, rules like hardness were just dumb. A breastplate is more powerful when you take it off, because then it would take a +1 weapon to pierce it, as you would then be trying to "break" it. D&D, before 3rd, was a game devoted to giving you stuff to do in your game. 3rd almost completely abandoned adventures, and instead made manuals directed towards players, giving them new options to "cheat by the rules." The class system was also moronic. How is a Fighter comparable to a Hexblade, logically? Pathfinder even has entire countries devoted to a character class. CR never worked. Ever. And boy, did I try.

Its because new versions of the game do stuff like rename Wizard Spells and Priest Spells "Arcane Magic" and "Divine Magic." Neither of those phrases means the same thing as before, and neither in fact have any meaning. "Divine" and "magic" mean the same thing, only one is attributed to have come from the unknown, and the other a deity. "Arcane" means that something is secreted away inside a box (an ark).

What it boils down to, is that completely different camps of people designed each version. This means that the only argument for the game being called "D&D" at all, is because they own the IP. It is illogical to associate one work with another based solely on who owns the rights to the brand. 3rd and up just was not Dungeons & Dragons. New people, with new ideas, came along and made different games with the same name.

I have been playing D&D since I was eight years old, and chances are many of those hide-chappers have as well. I just do not believe you when you claim that "alleged hatred" comes from people being fed false-information about how the game they know inside-and-out is different from the new edition made by completely different people. If you haven't played older editions, HOW THE fraggle DO YOU KNOW *lemony goodness* about "flat-out false" information.

When Monte Cooke scrapped THAC0 for an ascending AC system, he never stopped to think WHY it was the way it was. Turns out, years later, that AC would evolve into a parody of a statistic that only matters at low level, because it scaled 0.5:1.0 with every other ascending system. THAC0 worked better, because it was designed to work specifically against every possible AC.

3rd was also had the big idea to have "used" magic items. Where do the new ones come from? Nobody, by the rules, can sell them for the price you pay for them.

Don't get me started on 4E. Tell me about the time you played an Illusionist.

D&D Next is pretty alright, though.

[Sotiris]

What * means in his movement? I'm curious to hear his 2nd skill.
And which equipment limitations he has?

[chaoticprime]

You accidentally read too much into that. I just forgot to put the number in.

Not sure about any second skill. He doesn't have any equipment limitations, but since throwing two darts would require two hands, he would have to put away any other weapons first. Feudal Japan had logical equivalents for basically all European arms & armor, also. Just change what you write down on your sheet.

Short Sword = Kodachi
Broadsword = Odachi
Hand-Axe = Kama
Battle Axe = Kusarigama
Bracers = Kote
Helmet = Kabuto
Chain Mail = Kusari Gusoku
Plate Mail = Tosei Gusoku
Spear = Yari
Crossbow = Oyumi
Staff = Chigiriki
Shield = Tessen
Cloak = Horo

EDIT: He could get away with using magic. The trappings aren't exactly right, but many of the actual effects suit a Ninja.

[Sotiris]

Isn't he weak now with only 5 body points and 1 skill?
I believe he deserves +1 body point/-1 mind or +1 skill (maybe something relevant to his movement that loses it's effect when he wears the plate armor or wields the battle axe)

[chaoticprime]

I guess I have to make one correction already, so sure.

[Teldurn]

cp, what I mean is that people constantly harp on 4e as being too video gamey and I get that and I agree. But then they go on to say that you can't roleplay and that's just straight up bullshit. And then 3e apologists are like, " You can't customize like you can in 3rd." Well no *lemony goodness* Sherlock, 4e doesn't have a thousand splat books.

These are my primary causes of hide chapping. Plus I think I'm holding a grudge from 2008-9.

[chaoticprime]

cp, what I mean is that people constantly harp on 4e as being too video gamey and I get that and I agree. But then they go on to say that you can't roleplay and that's just straight up bullshit. And then 3e apologists are like, " You can't customize like you can in 3rd." Well no *lemony goodness* Sherlock, 4e doesn't have a thousand splat books.

These are my primary causes of hide chapping. Plus I think I'm holding a grudge from 2008-9.

To be fair, the ability to play outside the scope of the rules isn't something you can give it credit for. Like how XP from gold was taken out of 3E, as was any exp not from monsters, except for tiny ad-hoc social encounter situations. The rules ignored the entire aspect of rewarding XP for role-playing. And that's what 4E did, too, but to a greater extent. 4E gives you experience for precise results--killing *lemony goodness*, and fulfilling objectives. AD&D gave you experience for gold pieces found, treasure obtained, possessing a magic item, destroying magic items, per monster HD (for fighters), per individual spell cast that was successful, role-playing, and least of all, monster slaying. Saying that you can't role-play in 4E is absolutely reasonable. What happens if you do not ever participate in combat? I have ran games that featured maybe one combat per six or seven sessions. Everything about 4E is risk:reward goal-oriented. That's not necessarily as bad as with 3rd, however, where the only possible way for a Blacksmith to practice his craft was to go out into the woods and kill goblins.

[chaoticprime]

Here are two heroes that were designed by my son and nephew, respectively. The latter was killed off in the first Quest he tried, though mostly because he kept soloing into rooms and then running away.