The Gaming Den

FrankTrollman wrote:People were ready for a 3e reboot. People had grudgingly come to accept that Fighters were underpowered and Clerics were overpowered and were willing to accept major changes to get that fixed.

Yes on the reboot, not necessarily on the balance thing. There are still way too many groups still playing 3.X who think Fighters are fine. A lot of them are playing PF.

Overall though, I agree that they could have just lipsticked 3.X into 4E and it would have sold well.

Actually the feeling I get if I lurk around their forums a bit is that most only play below lvl 13 and that they believe high level is still such a mess in pf that they don't even try it.

So they might not know what exactly is wrong but making the high level game more balanced would most likely appeal to them even if they after that still prefer the lower levels.

FrankTrollman wrote: People were ready for a 3e reboot. People had grudgingly come to accept that Fighters were underpowered and Clerics were overpowered and were willing to accept major changes to get that fixed. People were frustrated by the way items worked in 3e and were willing to accept radical changes to get that fixed. People had grudgingly accepted that there were major problems with 3e multiclassing and there were no easy answers, and they were willing to accept major changes to get that fixed too.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think D&D players as a whole tend to be against major or radical changes. The main complaint I hear about 4E is that it "doesn't feel like D&D". It's not even that 4E is a bad game, it's just a very different game.

People really want the game to look and feel the same. It's not even enough that you try to keep the iconic spells, they pretty much want the systems to be similar. Vancian casting, +X swords, hit points and the 3-18 ability score systems are all things that the majority of D&D players want and they're not good for the game.

A lot of people seem to focus on crap like some of the arbitrary DCs in 4E or that objects are immune to some spells without DM approval or whatever. But that's BS. 2E was like that and nobody cared. It didn't even have any particular system for chopping down walls; It was all up to the DM. And nobody threw their shit. 2E modules were full of special module created rules, odd mechanics like ability checks in place of saves or skill checks. Nobody really cared.

Remove vancian casting and people go crazy.

It's pretty clear that whatever 5E does, it has to work on keeping the sacred cows specifically for the sake of keeping them. Vancian casting needs to be in, because the game won't be accepted as D&D without it.

Swordslinger wrote:It's pretty clear that whatever 5E does, it has to work on keeping the sacred cows specifically for the sake of keeping them. Vancian casting needs to be in, because the game won't be accepted as D&D without it.

Just like 3e wasn't accepted as D&D and was generally regarded as a failure because it removed THAC0, RSW/PPDM/Spell/BW saves, took BBLG &c from attribute charts, turned non-weapon proficiencies & thief abilities into "skills", and so forth?

Yeah, 3e proved you could slaughter all kinds of holy cows as long as you did it well. Even the designers were surprised at how near-universal the acceptance of their changes was.

And the 4e changes were announced (albeit vaguely and deceptively) well in advance. And it still presold more copies than anything else ever. People were totally prepared to accept the murder of sacred cows from all over the system. What they weren't willing to accept was a shitty system that was shitty. The entire non-combat encounter was boiled down to the "skill challenge", which was such a failure that these days even committed 4rries don't defend it.

ishy wrote:Actually the feeling I get if I lurk around their forums a bit is that most only play below lvl 13 and that they believe high level is still such a mess in pf that they don't even try it.

So they might not know what exactly is wrong but making the high level game more balanced would most likely appeal to them even if they after that still prefer the lower levels.

This is why the 4e designers got a fair amount of traction with their "extending the sweet spot" rants before the books came out. People by and large acknowledge on some level that high level play is fucking crazy sauce and wanted the next edition to fix it. They didn't want 25th level characters stuck spending half the combat spamming one of two maneuvers they had at 1st level, but they did want the high levels reigned in.

-Username17

But the math!

It just works!

...

Yes, Mearls, arithmetic works, but what does this have to do with the game?

FrankTrollman wrote:. People had grudgingly come to accept that Fighters were underpowered and Clerics were overpowered and were willing to accept major changes to get that fixed.

You haven't been to their previous editions board recently. This is still "up for debate" with people regularly saying its not true. The core consensus is that it's the case but there is a fairly large minority that doesn't agree. There are also lots of new (to the internet) people who are not up to speed. So it's a fairly regular topic.

Although I do agree, at the time the majority did agree, a massive reboot was needed/acceptable.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Yeah, 3e proved you could slaughter all kinds of holy cows as long as you did it well. Even the designers were surprised at how near-universal the acceptance of their changes was.

3E really didn't slaughter many sacred cows honestly.

THAC0 was never a sacred cow. It existed in 2E only. The proficiency system was straight ass and rarely used anyway for anything important. It was hardly a core aspect to the system. Like nobody really cares that psionics got a complete overhaul every edition, because it's minor. You can always change the small things like how being an armorer works, because you probably did that like once in D&D anyway.

3E didn't touch any of the core concepts of the system. It still has saving throws, ability scores, hit points and vancian casting. The spell list was almost identical.

2E to 3E was codification and elimination of nonsensical concepts. 3E proved that D&D players would accept a much more rules heavy system, but it didn't prove they weren't totally attached to their sacred cows.

Swordslinger wrote: THAC0 was never a sacred cow. It existed in 2E only.

THAC0 was the sacred cow of pre-3rd edition D&D. It's the mechanic which gave D&D its reputation as a convoluted an math-heavy game even in far-detached sources like the Straight Dope. It was not a 2E-only invention, either.

If THAC0 is not a sacred cow then nothing is. The only two things that were more ingrained into D&D culture until then are plussed magical items and dwarves/humans/elves being core.

Swordslinger wrote: 3E didn't touch any of the core concepts of the system. It still has saving throws, ability scores, hit points and vancian casting. The spell list was almost identical.

All of those things you talk about underwent major changes from 2E to 3E. If you don't know about 2nd Edition please don't talk about it.

Saving Throws: Yeah, aside from consolidating them into three types, having stats affect saving throws, tying them to hit dice instead of 'making shit up' they worked totally the same.

Ability Scores: Ability scores go up (theoretically) an unlimited amount in 3rd Edition instead of being capped at 25. They're also completely linear in effect. And ability scores scale in effect linearly.

Hit Points: Yeah, aside from the completely redesigned hit point formula they totally remained the same.

Vancian Spellcasting: Except for universalizing and standardizing extra spells for ability score improvement, dying spell DC to stats and spell level, spontaneous casting, a standardized (if woefully incomplete) counterspelling mechanic, and making metamagic core these were totally the same systems.

Identical Spell List: No. I won't even go into this crap. Just how illusions were changed going from one edition to the next was a complete overhaul of how the system worked.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: THAC0 was the sacred cow of pre-3rd edition D&D. It's the mechanic which gave D&D its reputation as a convoluted an math-heavy game even in far-detached sources like the Straight Dope. It was not a 2E-only invention, either.

THAC0 was an invention of 2nd edition, to change 1st editions table lookup system.

So we have
1st edition: Table
2nd edition: THAC0
3rd edition: BAB
4th edition: Ability score + level bonus.

Given it was different in every edition, it's certainly not a sacred cow.

All of those things you talk about underwent major changes from 2E to 3E. If you don't know about 2nd Edition please don't talk about it.

The concepts remained the same.

Hit by a death spell? Roll a save or die.
Spring a trap? Roll a save or get hit by it.

Yes, 3E refined the save categories into something that wasn't totally insane, but the concept of the saving throw remained, it was just refined.

The main sacred cows of D&D are:
[*] Hit Points
[*] 6 ability scores ranging 3-18
[*] Classes
[*] Vancian casting
[*] Magic items defined by bonuses (+3 swords)

And as far as treading on sacred cows, 3E took very few chances. Note what happened in 4E when they didn't include the druid or the bard in the core book. Seriously, people tend to hate bards, but some of them started flipping tables because it wasn't in the core book. A lot of players simply wanted it there just so they could constantly skip over it and never play one. But having that bard they never play made it feel more like D&D.

You could literally bring a bard and druid in there that totally sucked and was unplayable garbage (god knows, the 2E druid was), and people would be fine. People don't make a big deal of something if it's included and sucks ass. Take away that sacred cow though, and you can expect tables will be flipped.

If anything was proven, it's that D&D players are VERY attached to their sacred cows. You can change the mechanics some, but you better damn well have that class named "Druid" and "Bard". You better damn well have hit points. And you better have those vancian spell levels. Otherwise, it just won't feel like D&D to some people.

Swordslinger wrote: Yes, 3E refined the save categories into something that wasn't totally insane, but the concept of the saving throw remained, it was just refined.

I love the whole conceit of 'because a change wasn't as huge as it could have been, it wasn't a big change at all'. It's totally not disingenuous

Lago PARANOIA wrote: I love the whole conceit of 'because a change wasn't as huge as it could have been, it wasn't a big change at all'. It's totally not disingenuous

Conceptually you could call the change big, but as far as burning sacred cows, not so much.

3E was very cow friendly.

FrankTrollman wrote:And the 4e changes were announced (albeit vaguely and deceptively) well in advance. And it still presold more copies than anything else ever. People were totally prepared to accept the murder of sacred cows from all over the system. What they weren't willing to accept was a shitty system that was shitty. The entire non-combat encounter was boiled down to the "skill challenge", which was such a failure that these days even committed 4rries don't defend it.

Pretty much. I was on board with some of the teasers from 4th edition. I even pre-ordered (and then canceled my pre-order when they told me I'd be waiting 3-6 months because they oversold the preorder, which I suspect was bullshit).

Here's the thing. The setting, the game, is still the same fucking game we've been playing for 30 years. Even with timelines advanced, there's still all the same settings, monsters, and shit. Which means that in D&D, new editions live and die *solely* on their rulesets. You *can't* half-ass it, because that's all you've really got.

And as for the biggest complaint being that it didn't feel like D&D, it didn't. It felt like an experiment. A home-brew game that kind of went out of control.

What's odd is that I've ran Warhammer Fantasy 3rd, and the powers system is actually pretty similar to D&D. However, when writing WFRP, they created a minigame where you could manipulate cooldown timers, and even in some cases (the wardancer) said manipulation created benefits for the PC, it became a lot more interesting. Well, that and the shitty at-will spams more or less weren't there in WFRP. Your special powers all did something interesting and significant.

What does that tangent mean? 4th ed could have been a lot of fun if it was done right. I was on board with it right up until I got the books and started reading.

If you're going to say that conceptually inverting all the attack numbers so that AC counts up instead of down is a minor change, you have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion.

Changing the mechanics so that 3 is better than 1 instead of vice versa is literally as fundamental change as it is possible to make on the mechanics side.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Swordslinger wrote: Yes, 3E refined the save categories into something that wasn't totally insane, but the concept of the saving throw remained, it was just refined.

I love the whole conceit of 'because a change wasn't as huge as it could have been, it wasn't a big change at all'. It's totally not disingenuous

I think Swordslinger is saying they simply changed the colour of the sacred cow, rather than slaughtering it, and I agree to a certain extent. Though I am aware that THAC0 was a huge sacred cow.

People are much more willing to accept changing how a legacy thing, such as saving throws, works, than the complete destruction of it. Yes, there was a huge change, but they're still around. It's not like D&D suddenly went to a WW Soak system and "Seven hit boxes, plus three total things that can give you an extra, final destination."

FrankTrollman wrote:If you're going to say that conceptually inverting all the attack numbers so that AC counts up instead of down is a minor change, you have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion.

Changing the mechanics so that 3 is better than 1 instead of vice versa is literally as fundamental change as it is possible to make on the mechanics side.

-Username17

It is hard to imagine any edition warring and nerd rage because of this thing.

xechnao wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:If you're going to say that conceptually inverting all the attack numbers so that AC counts up instead of down is a minor change, you have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion.

Changing the mechanics so that 3 is better than 1 instead of vice versa is literally as fundamental change as it is possible to make on the mechanics side.

-Username17

It is hard to imagine any edition warring and nerd rage because of this thing.

Oh, you have no idea...

xechnao wrote:It is hard to imagine any edition warring and nerd rage because of this thing.

But sadly, not hard to remember

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50401& ... sc&start=0

That's shadzar being shadzar, it doesn't count.

FrankTrollman wrote:If you're going to say that conceptually inverting all the attack numbers so that AC counts up instead of down is a minor change, you have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion.

Changing the mechanics so that 3 is better than 1 instead of vice versa is literally as fundamental change as it is possible to make on the mechanics side.

As far as from a standpoint of sacred cows and "Capturing the theme of the game", then yes it is a minor change. Don't get me wrong, it's a good change, but it's pretty minor. The 2E system was needlessly convoluted and 3E streamlined it without actually changing anything of how the AC system actually worked. Chainmail still gave you 5 points of AC, whether that was AC 5 or AC 15 didn't really matter. AC/THAC0 did not get changed fundamentally. You still roll a d20, try to get a high number and hit somebody if you roll high enough. Wearing armor makes you harder to hit. All that is the same and it feels very D&D.

Now, arguably you could say that ditching the racial multiclassing system was a major change (I don't count dual classing because nobody did it), but at the very least not having 1st level fighter/mages is a fairly major change from a conceptual standpoint. But that's about the biggest change that 3E really made with regard to sacred cows.

Not being able to make a 1st level fighter/mage/thief or whatever is something that people are going to miss from the game and something you have to sell them on.

Though now that I think about it, there is one major sacred cow that 3E did kill off. And that's the creation of mage mart and easy magic item creation. That change is actually pretty huge.

Point of fact, Stupid dumbfuck Swordslinger thinks 4e killed the sacred cow of saving throws by changing who rolls the dice and who takes ten.

But no way that THAC0 to BAB was a big change?

WTF? The defenses vs attackers roll system is exactly the fucking same as the 3e save system, expect that it changes the event of a tie. WTF!!!!!

Swordslinger wrote:People really want the game to look and feel the same. It's not even enough that you try to keep the iconic spells, they pretty much want the systems to be similar. Vancian casting, +X swords, hit points and the 3-18 ability score systems are all things that the majority of D&D players want and they're not good for the game.

There is a difference between slightly annoying and impossible to work around.

Vancian casters with players who know how to use scrolls/wands/staffs work fine ... it's a lot of bookkeeping but meh, provide them as an option and let the players decide. Just because you have Vancian casters doesn't mean you can't have other resource systems running besides them (ie. alternative caster classes) or on top of them (CAN).

You can keep +X swords/armours and at the same time get rid of all the other +X items and cut down on item slots ... a bit of magic item dependency is not that big a deal IMO.

The 3-18 ability scores are crufty, but it's easy enough to make sure that it's only relevant at leveling.

There are bigger problems which are far more important which are not sacred cows :
Too many actions/attacks in a round at higher level
Focus fire
Nova
Too few niches for non casters (make damage more important and the domain of martials)
Scry and die
Teleportation is too hard to prevent
DM'ing is way too hard

All these are completely orthogonal to the problems you mention, and much more damaging.

You can get away with fundamentally changing the game ... you just need to keep enough to maintain some semblance of continuity. 4e was both a step too far and not very good.

A lot of people seem to focus on crap like some of the arbitrary DCs in 4E or that objects are immune to some spells without DM approval or whatever. But that's BS. 2E was like that and nobody cared.

If one part of your player base cares (the 3e players) and the other part of your player base doesn't care (the 2e/4e players) then you do it the 3e way ... it maximizes your player base.

@Mfa: I'm not saying all the sacred cows are necessarily unworkable, I'm just saying that D&D fans find that stuff to be very important to the product identity. Even irrationally so.

Kaelik wrote:Point of fact, Stupid dumbfuck Swordslinger thinks 4e killed the sacred cow of saving throws by changing who rolls the dice and who takes ten.

Uh oh. Here comes the resident Internet tough guy to once again try to prove his manhood by insulting people who aren't in the same state as him.

First, the major change of 4E is the power system, ditching vancian casting. That's what everyone complains about.

Second, Nobody is buying your tough guy routine, bro. We all know you're a total pussy in real life who has to compensate over the internet by insulting people. It's just sad. I don't know if you're doing it cause you got a really small dick or you're doing it just because you're a total wimp in real life, but whatever. Just cut the shit out. It doesn't make you cool.

Kaelik wrote:... Stupid dumbfuck Swordslinger ... WTF!!!!!

.... and a happy New Year to you, too, Cowlick!

Cent13