20 réponses à ce sujet

[Joseph Silver]

Hello everyone!

It has been a while since I last played a D&D CRPG, the last one being Dragon Age (which I consider to be a 4e game in spirit) and I recently (about two weeks ago) learned about the 4e Neverwinter game slated for release late next year. I'm not sure if this is the right forum for it, but since there isn't a Neverwinter 4e forum yet, I'm posting this here.  This thread is intended to be a Q&A discussion about 4e, the changes from 3.5, its core mechanics, its fluff, etc. My intent is to dispel the sheer amount of misinformation spread by its detractors. It's fine with me if you don't like 4e for whatever reason, just get your facts straight before bashing it.

[Quixal]

I have no urge to bash it nor do I begrudge those who enjoy it. After reading through the rules and playing a test session, however, I have no interest in it. You will find the detractors are a mixed bag who dislike 4.0 for different reasons.

[painofdungeoneternal]

Just because folks don't like it, does not mean they are not informed, but then i also preferred 2nd edition to 3.5 edition and it took a long time to pull me into 3.5 from that. I take some things from 4th edition, 3.5 and even 2nd edition and see myself as far more informed than most about rules systems.

Frankly i am more concerned about the entire changes in lore and cosmology implemented with 4th edition, it's simplification of alignment to match the railroading in the NWN OC, lack of things like the bloodwar between the Abyss and Hell. The more I learn about the changes, the less i like 4th edition rules.

Mechanically how its done is more logical, and a lot easier to explain, and it ensures things are a lot more fair between classes since every class shares game mechanics and the primary differences are those of lore. However i also see this as a drawback, because in 3.5 and prior you can have entirely new classes which use entirely different rule books for how they operate. Frankly Logic is overrated, and D&D's appeal and spirit has never been something you could measure or improve by "fixing" it's mechanics. It's a lot more like some clunky machine which every logical person says could never work, and yet just so happens to have outlasted all competitors.

Now many of the ideas in 4.0 also are borrowed from things like World of Warcraft and other video games. ( Beyond initially hearing about the game designers trying to do this, i actually compared teh rules to those on WoW Wiki and some of the video games i've played and this is why the basis for this statement, i do know there are some who like 4th rules who disagree with this sentiment. )

Now all this being said, there are a lot of good things in 4.0 rules, things like the Tieflings favored class being warlock, on my PW i have actually implemented 4th edition rules for some races and classes. Nice thing about NWN2 is that you can implement rules from 2nd edition and from 4th edition on your own modules.

And of course the core problem with 4th edition in Neverwinter Online is that it does not even use 4th edition D&D rules. There are not even rolls to hit. I am pretty sure it's using a combat system under the hood based more on Star Trek Online with features added to allow you to do D&D type classes. My gut tells me of all the D&D based video games this one is going to deviate the most from ANY established PNP style rules.

A bigger issue is i am invested heavily in 3.5 edition rules, and if you've spent a lot of money, energy, and have creations that rely upon a given version, moving to the next version just is not a viable alternative. Frankly i see 4th edition as driven by WOTC seeing sales declining than actual game system issues and i am waiting to see a 4.5 or 5.0 version before i consider migrating. Even then Pathfinder looks like it keeps more of the D&D spirit alive and seems more appealing to me, i borrow a lot more rules from pathfinder than i ever borrow from 4.0.

Now before folks get testy about this topic, remember this 4th vs 3.5th Edition is something which many have strong feelings about, some like one, some like the other. My views above are entirely my own personal preferences and based on reading the actual rulebooks, reading numerous threads on this topic, and i remained undecided for a very long time until i learned quite a bit about it. Even though i don't prefer 4th edition, I can entirely see why many people would like it, and everyone is entitled to their opinions regardless of if they prefer 2nd, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 or even AD&D.

At the end of everything i can use ANY game system, however to make it the game i want to play or run i just have to do far fewer changes to the rules to 3.5 rules and lore than to 4.0 rules and lore to get the game to be the one i want to play.

Modifié par painofdungeoneternal, 15 octobre 2010 - 10:58 .

[Joseph Silver]

An interesting answer.

One of the key ideas encouraged by 4e is refluffing. Basically, if you don't like the lore, you can change it. Most 4e games I played take place in homebrewed campaign settings which borrow bits and pieces from the established settings. There is also the idea that classes are simply a package of skills, feats, and powers, and that you are free to follow or ignore the written lore at your leisure.

I think of D&D 4e as a ruleset, with the fluff independent of edition. Good crunch is hard to come by, but good fluff is a dime a dozen. With a little imagination and some willing suspension of disbelief, I can play Dragonlance or Greyhawk or any yet-to-be-converted settings using the 4e ruleset. I can even use the fluff from my favorite 2e book, Chronomancer, in a 4e game.



And finally, this thread was intended to be a question-and-answer thread for those curious about 4e and have questions about it. I started this thread because after all this time, I'm still seeing misinformation about the system here. Also, there isn't an NWO forum yet, so this is the closest I'm going to get until an official one is opened.

[painofdungeoneternal]

The big thing though is, that NWNO does not use 4th edition rules, it's just going to use the lore that comes with 4th edition. It will have many things that look like 4th edition rules, but underneath it's different. ( No to hit, it's just damage that will be random was one quote, which means it's not even a d20 game )

So i don't see how a FAQ on 4th edition rules would have a place on a forum for a 3.5 edition game, nor what it will have to do with NWNO since even if a given thing is true for 4th edition we have no idea if that is how it's going to work in NWNO.

It is interesting of course, but we can just go find that information on official 4th edition site. The thing this game is going to do is cover the lore of 4th edition, have drizzt, and have a great D&D author coming up with the basic things this game is going to be based on.

Modifié par painofdungeoneternal, 16 octobre 2010 - 02:46 .

[Seagloom]

Since this is a thread for Q&A rather than debate, I'll skip my thoughts on 4e. Suffice it to say I agree with painofdungeoneternal. Not all who criticize 4e are uninformed. That aside, this thread probably makes more sense at Off Topic since it's specifically about a tabletop ruleset. Neverwinter is a Cryptic game and is unlikely to get a dedicated forum here. Obsidian had a decent working relationship with BioWare that goes back to their Black Isle days, and there was concern about not fragmenting the community then. Somehow, I don't think that will be a concern this time around.

Modifié par Seagloom, 18 octobre 2010 - 04:07 .

[MerinTB]

Coming into a NWN/NWN2 forum to ask questions about NWO and 4E is... uhm... probably like poking a hornets nest with a flaming stick.



Just saying.

[The Fred]

We already have a thread about NWO, but it makes sense to talk about 4th E, since if there *were* another NWN game, it's more than possible that it'd be 4E, and it's worth discussing whether the edition or the implementation are more important, imo.



What I'd like to know is, why 4th Edition is actually getting so much hate? I'm not really into D&D outside of NWN (I have read a lot of D&D material and stuff, but I mostly use it for NWN and consider myself a toolset dungeon master of sorts) and have only really seen a little 4th E stuff which I didn't really understant. Obviously I know and agree with what Pain said, about (a) time and money investment and ( the huge changes to the lore etc, but do people actually have issues with the rules, too (beyond not being used to them) and if so, could someone give a brief breakdown of what they are? Like, a 3rd/3.5th vs 4th comparison?

[kamalpoe]

The Fred wrote...

We already have a thread about NWO, but it makes sense to talk about 4th E, since if there *were* another NWN game, it's more than possible that it'd be 4E, and it's worth discussing whether the edition or the implementation are more important, imo.

What I'd like to know is, why 4th Edition is actually getting so much hate? I'm not really into D&D outside of NWN (I have read a lot of D&D material and stuff, but I mostly use it for NWN and consider myself a toolset dungeon master of sorts) and have only really seen a little 4th E stuff which I didn't really understant. Obviously I know and agree with what Pain said, about (a) time and money investment and ( the huge changes to the lore etc, but do people actually have issues with the rules, too (beyond not being used to them) and if so, could someone give a brief breakdown of what they are? Like, a 3rd/3.5th vs 4th comparison?

For me, the lore changes represent a huge issue. First they basically overwrote virtually everything, and second they did it in a manner that seems very much deus ex machina instead of implementing one of many ways to change things drastically that were consistent with existing lore.

I've never played a 4th ed game, so I have no opinion on the rules.

[Haplose]

Well I like my classes being different.

I like having multiple different mechanics packages associated with them. I don't want all of them work in a similar fashion. I like multiclassing and powerbuilding.



Variety is the spice of life.



And the greatest DnD asset.

[sneakypetev]

I played 4e for 6 months, didn't care for it. ( I agree w/ Haploses' coment). The group I played with switched to Pathfinder. I also was a big fan of FR and was angry w/ the drastic changes made to that world. That said, I wonder how any PC game could simulate the various movements made during a typical 4e encounter.( bonus moves for allies and moving enemies on certain hits ect.) Unless they impliment the auto stop like TOEE, which I felt ruined that PC game.

Modifié par sneakypetev, 29 octobre 2010 - 05:47 .

[Quixal]

It is a pity we will likely never see a computer game based on Pathfinder.

[kamal_]

Quixal wrote...

It is a pity we will likely never see a computer game based on Pathfinder.

And.... the Pathfinder MMO.
www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/11/pathfinder-mmo/

[Kaldor Silverwand]

I'm still po'd that AC now goes higher as it gets better. -10 is a much cooler AC than 10.

I'll give most things a try that use Con, Char, Int, Wis, Dex, Str as its base and has AC and HP.

[SuperFly_2000]

Umm yeah, the supposedly upcoming Pathfinder MMO. It is probably going to have just as much D&D in it as D&D Online. That is nearly nothing.

It is funny how interested some people can become in a game just knowing it contains a miniscule part from some famous/popular lore. It can blind them to how the game actually is. Throwing in some lore is the least problem when making a game.

I had hopes in PFO when I first read about it. After I realised Neverwinter Online was totally sinking into the stereotype-MMO-swamp I was on the lookout for another contender.

PFO doesn't seem to be it unfortantely. Their boards are full of former WoW-players discussing pretty much "how the end-game is going to be"...the developers agree to that WoW-clones like Archage are competitors to their game...

In any case PFO sounds a lot more interesting than NWO and it still stands a microscopic chance of NOT falling in the stereotype-WoW-clone-MMO-Swamp.

Modifié par SuperFly_2000, 06 décembre 2011 - 09:14 .

[Dorateen]

Pathfinder is the way to go. I've been starting to use their reference books as an influence in designing single-player modules.

Harumph!

[Quixal]

kamal_ wrote...

Quixal wrote...

It is a pity we will likely never see a computer game based on Pathfinder.

And.... the Pathfinder MMO.
www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/11/pathfinder-mmo/

Heh. It only took a year for that to come back to haunt me.

I am hopeful but reserve an opinion until I know more. Whether it ends up being my cup of tea or not, I hope it does well.

As to Pathfinder itself, I have been a fan from the start. I like much of what they have done in terms of the rules. The setting is a mix and from the looks of it the MMO will be starting off in one of the more generic areas which is a shame.

Modifié par Quixal, 06 décembre 2011 - 09:25 .

[Avalon Aurora]

I've played 2nd ed AD&D, I've played and DMed 3rd ed D&D, as with 3.5, and I've also played 4th ed.

4th edition is great in terms of balance, it's mechanics are easier to learn and more stable with leveling. It uses a lot of clever improvements in game design theory that simply hadn't been developed or playtested in time for 3.5.

Lots of fans of 4th ed like to talk about the re-fluffing, and how great it is, and how you can play any setting with it. Unfortunately, this is where their claims begin to break down. 4th edition does not properly support Vancian spellcasting systems. There is a reason they made such drastic lore changes, and it is because a lot of older settings simply can't work with 4th edition rulesets without major suspension of disbelief, fudging things, or severely limiting characters compared to implied setting capabilities, or in other ways severely limiting the way you are using your 4th E build because you don't want to break the lore.

Dragonlance and the pre-4th edition versions of Forgotten Realms in particular do not work very well with 4th E, due to a heavy influence of vancian wizards in the lore. Dragonlance is even more specific in the way it works in the 'memorization and forgetting' aspect of wizard spellcasting than other 3.5 settings, which typically favor 'preparation' rather than 'memorization'. Typical 3.5 generic settings tend to imply that wizards 'prepare' a spell, which is left rather vague, but could be like casting most of the spell ahead of time, but leaving a smaller trigger to finish it off, but Dragonlance has it in the lore that spell patterns are literally memorized into the head, and mystically forgotten as they are cast. This becomes very wonky with 4th E to try to adapt the new version of the wizard class and pretend it is these sorts of old vancian casting. Not impossible, but 3.5 supports that kind of spellcasting more directly.

Another complaint about 4th E is that it gets very 'anime' or over the top even in the non-mystical 'martial' classes as you level up, pulling off impossible feats. This again can be re-fluffed or suspended of disbelief in most ways, but doesn't really catch the old feel as well of older types of 'gritty', non-mystically empowered heroes who can pull off only normal, everyday things that are possible in the real world (except for their magic gear of course).

They also significantly changed the way many types of magic gear work, to the point it doesn't directly work with most old settings, and you are forced to use suspension of disbelief.

The powers and skills of epic heroes and spellcasters in 4th edition also tend to be laughable compared to older 3.5 feats, more balanced perhaps, but still a joke in comparison. 4th edition can start to grasp some of this with advanced 'rituals' built by the DM or something, but those don't really compare well to high level and epic spells of 3.5.

4th edition is more flexible in a lot of ways, due to how much more generic a lot of the abilities are, they can be re-fluffed easily, but it actually is more limited in some ways in comparison to 3.5, especially in how well you can develop new homebrew classes, races, spells, and magic items that work in a variety of different ways.

What it comes down to is 4th usually sacrifices fluff accurate simulation for mechanical balance. 3.5 on the other hand usually sacrificed balance for accurate fluff simulation, although they did try to keep relatively balanced. 4th was also developed after development of all the various 3.5 splatbooks and variant rules and such had been playtested, so they had a broader scope of mechanics to build a new system from the ground up.

I don't think 4th would work well translated to a real time video game, even less well than 3.5, due to more heavy use of small maneuvering and short-range teleportation as part of the new character powers system, classes and races, in ways that don't translate well to any video game control schemes I can think of. 4th edition was mainly designed to be a turn based squad combat minatures game, and the rules are heavily invested in this theme in ways that go beyond just fluff and heavily into how the game system is balanced and built.

They probably won't be able to base Neverwinter Online too heavily off 4th edition if they want it to be easy to play and get into, or to be non-turn based.

I'd actually kind of like to see it turn based though...

[Kaldor Silverwand]

Wow. I got, like, none of that.

[painofdungeoneternal]

It kind of sums up my impression of 4th edition.

To me it seems like in 3.5 rules and prior, each class has it's own set of rules. IE warlocks have spells once per round ( and their 4th level spells are 8th and 9th level ), wizards memorize instances which can be released, sorcerers have a hybrid slot system, and if i wanted to add in more features such as a true mana caster, i can do so. Even psions and wilders can fit. This means i can actually look at the lore, and perhaps if i was doing a Jedi, i can look at the rules the lore has for jedi and make the class work that way. Fighters except in tome of battle don't have any chance at this stuff but can use the combat mechanics more ( which is shared ) and can also use features from tome of battle. Making a new class which gets special powers each time they kill an opponent, or whenever they see a rainbow, or when the sun is shining is easily added just by putting it in the class description. I am working on mana based classes, and they really fit well into the 3.5 rules ( assuming you adjust how powerful they get carefully of course ). The problem is that it's hard to balance disparate abilities and progressions where the rules are completely different.

Rogues in AD&D had their own skill system for their abilties, which is now shared, but something like this is completely ordinary. Feats, points, the rules are written in the class description. Much of the systems are shared, ie a cleric is comparable to a wizard, and everyone uses the same skills now, and the same combat rolls, but even then exceptions on a per class basis are the norm.

Now for 4th edition, In order to achieve balance, they have what i term powers. It does not matter what the power is, but if it's given at a given level it should be as good as another classes power at that level. A wizards spells, or a fighters martial arts, they are all mechanically the same, with only fluff being different. You get so many at will, so many per encounter, and so many per day, or whatever the period might be. But if you ignore the fluff, they are the same thing - a AOE damage spell like fire ball and a AOE whirling flaming blades will do the same damage and could easily mean the same dice are rolled and abilities are checked - both are just powers somewhat customized for each class and the real descriptions are more cosmetic.

However you cannot have a caster which does not fall into the current system in 4th edition. Combat and other things are much improved, but something also was lost. To me the old rules were less of a streamlined easy system, and more of a Borg collective absorbing entirely disparate systems and combining them into a single system. You really have to convert ideas from other systems into the powers arrangement.

To me i like a bit of chaos. And the 4th edition rules can be made to work for an awful lot of scenarios, and it will by definition be more balanced from the get go, i feel they took the simple road out. I see the discussions on which is better, a wizard or a sorceror for example, where the discussions go on forever mainly because they are comparing apple and oranges - things like that are what 4th edition is fixing.

( and i am sure that discussion happens in 4th, but it's no longer comparing apples and oranges )

Modifié par painofdungeoneternal, 14 décembre 2011 - 07:20 .

[The Fred]

Yeah, I fancy that whilst the 3.5th rules could have stood a bit of revision and streamlining, they really threw the whole thing out with 4th. I look at 3.0 and 3.5, and they're essentially the same, and I look at 2nd and yes it's pretty different but you can see the progression. Basically what they did was rationalise and streamline a lot of the 2nd Ed stuff and then built on more and more from there. 4th by contrast looks like a whole different thing. I haven't really spent any time looking at it (I'm not a PnP player anyway) but it's really confusing if you try to think in 3.5th terms.