Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by vota dc View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition...ns_%26_Dragons
    Some features seems simplified,that is ALWAYS a good thing.

    So for apply the 4E to Birthright you have only to ignore the new races and ignore this "Multi-classing has been eliminated. Players may choose feats to gain abilities from classes." the rest is good.
    You don't need 3.x or 2E multi-classing for it to be Birthright, that is just silly. The statement on that wiki site is in error. 4E did not eliminate multi-classing as the player multi-classes by getting multi-class feats, the Initial feat gives a class skill, a class feature, and a class at-will that can be used as an encounter. Later feats (Novice, Acolyte, Adept) give you the ability to trade some powers between the classes and then you can give up a paragon path to further continue multi-classing in your chosen multi-class.

    That is just the multi-class release with core as now they have multi-only classes (Spellscarred, Dhampyr) which have even better power swapping support. The previews for Hybrid classes which is similar to older multi-classing which will come out in the PHB3.

  2. #22
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    532
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    4e multiclassing is really different from 3e multiclassing (that was broken all around in general): 3e multiclassing was a powergamer dream (and more or less the same in 2e), while in 4e if you multiclass is more of a flavor reason.

    And I agree to dundjinnmasta, multiclassing it's not a feature that defines Birthright at all.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Kgauck, thanks for the comments on roleplaying. I hate to see people blame a system for a problem that is a group and play style issue. No game system can substitute or create good roleplaying; that must come from the players and the GM. A system can help to some degree, for instance by making sense and staying out of the way (through simplicity), and also by encouraging diversity and description (which I feel 4e does with the variety of powers and rituals).

    I still take issue with you about the skill challenges, though. Yes, the concept existed in 3e. The point is that 4e formalized it and created a lot of support for it, providing many ready-to-use challenges (or ready-to-modify slightly), and a greater variety of options that involve the whole group. The seed was there, but it needed to germinate and grow, which 4e has done.

    3e seemed to have so many fixes necessary, and few players/DMs could really agree on what those were. I feel that 4e is more consistent and balanced and simple, requiring fewer major house rules, and fewer controversial ones. Combat options in previous editions were really pretty limited for non-spellcasters, such that your average attack had no inherent flavor or variation. And, frankly, it always really ticked me off that the only worthwhile higher level characters were spellcasters. They outshone everyone else, hands down.

    My 4e groups really have a lot of roleplay and a lot of plot. I have more time to develop that stuff as a DM because the system is easier to administer and there's so much more support for quickly crafting and running combats and skill challenges. So I just really don't see the loss of roleplaying support or focus. I think it's the opposite.

    Oh, and personally, I hated the randomness of hit points at levels and did away with it in 3e as a house rule. 3e was also VERY swingy; shouldn't a character know they can rely on being able to do some things? And if a DM was always streamlining things anyway, why not remove some of that brain damage and help him do it? It sure helped me. And XP for non-combat things--yeah, many people used it, but it was never CORE, not in any significant amounts, anyway. The point is that the system now supports it directly, which is an improvement over having to rule it in just by custom.

    I still do think there are better systems out there, but not better supported ones. I personally dislike classes at all, as well as levels and proliferations of spells/powers. But 4e works well enough, better than D&D ever has before, and the Eden Studios unisystem just doesn't have as much support by the publisher or by my players
    Last edited by Rowan; 06-20-2009 at 02:59 AM.

  4. #24
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Rowan, I have no objection to most of your criticisms of 3x. It is swingy, fixes were needed (although it seems these were more genre specific than game-wide, so in some senses this was a feature of versatility than a defect, but yeah, needed fixes) magic powers up too much, but on the question of extended skill challenges, I'd point you specifically to Unearthed Arcana, page 81, complex skill challenges. As I reread it after 4e, I think I have to take back even what I granted to 4e, because even a failure allowance is discussed.

    I got most of my skills ideas from d20 products, and I'll note many of the best ideas from third party products seemed to turn up in Wizards materials later on (especially products like Unearthed Arcana).

    But ultimately, I'd say it was way more than a mere seed. I think you'll agree if you look at Unearthed Arcana (pub 2004) that the 4e skills challenge is basically, if not totally fully grown there. 4e gets credit for moving it to the PHB, where it belongs, rather than an optional accessory.

    The other example I have to mention is from the Medieval Players Handbook, David Chart for Green Ronin, which had the mechanic where Inspiration would set a target DC and then you would work to achieve it over time. Originally intended for the Artist class for creating new art, I use it for everything, like castle building (how defensible do you want it?) and battles (how intricate is your plan?).

    If I could graft the 3.5 skills system onto 4e, I would, but I need to either totally revise the list of daily, encounter, and at-will powers, or wait for someone else to do it so the powers address what is to me the real game - combat other than fighting. Duels of ideas, duels of rhetoric, combats based on wisdom, intelligence, and charisma skills to persuade others by insight, reason, or charm in court, council, and assembly rather than the physical combats of sword and battlemat movement.

    I used to start characters off as 2nd level characters, everyone was required to take a level of noble, rogue, a PC version of Expert (with feats every 3rd level), or barbarian in addition to their professional class. 1st level characters can get knocked over by a light breeze. 4e starts with a more appropriate level of power for adventurers. I am currently concerned about the power progression of 4e, but I think if I had the powers I want to see, I would be satisfied. Clearly 4e is far more robust, giving a fun challenge out of characters and encounters of more diverse levels, something 3x was very poor at.

    Ultimately I would not be surprised to find myself in 4e in a few years, once I can play a game where a character can make an argument, stun his opponent (no reply this turn), and make a new argument in the next turn. A game where generals debate about crossing the river here or moving upstream to cross at the bridge; where diplomats argue for rapprochement with Avanil while others plead for Boeruine; where one priest can advance the interpretation of Fitzalan while another argues for Orthodoxy.

    I'll play 4e in BR when I can play that game, and I imagine it will eventually get here.

  5. #25
    I just never had trouble with previous systems, of any game. If certain rules were ridiculously hard, you simply streamlined over them. It never took that much work. And the only trouble that ever came from it were the rule lawyers who you can simply house rule over. For the same reason a group determines the level of roleplay, it also determines the level of flow. Some groups can simply mesh, push the story forward and reach exciting conclusions. Other groups cosntantly need to check rules because of some minute detail, or meta gaming rule, or munchkin playing. It's always going to boil down to the group in the end. I guess when it all comes down to it, a streamlined hack and slash system, which is how i, and that is only my opinion, see it, isn't worth buying a new set of books and changing a system i've really never had trouble with. And if i do want that, i can pop on the PC and play a thousand variations of it with real graphics and millions of other players or just my friends.

  6. #26
    Senior Member The Swordgaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    152
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    This was a very good read.

    As for 4e, I went on record here earlier saying I wouldn't touch it with my 10' pole, and was politely told to get out of that thread. Well, it was a thread calling for experiences with that system... Since then, I've read the core-book, and a good deal of discussions about it. I still won't touch it - at least not as a player/GM.

    The way I see it, it was made to keep min/maxers in check. If everybody is equal, no one is special. I know that munchkin-types can be quite a handful, and I respect the effort. Not for me, though. I also believe that no game invented can prevent a devoted rules-lawyer from tweaking his character.

    As for the whole MMORPG-issue, well, yes, pnp was first. Now they are all but indistinguishable...

    Perhaps the main gripe I have with 4e is that it is too much late Feist for me. Too fantastic, if you will. I happen to like elves, dwarfs and the standard races, and all those super-epic templates and whatnots that came with 3.5 never caught on with me. Warforged? Meh.

    Then there is the discrepancy between PC-powers and NPC-powers. This makes for poor roleplaying, in my experience.

    Lastly, as 4e looks to be very much geared towards group-playing, and I mostly run one-on-one or small groups, that keeps me off it as well.

    As a P.S. I'll add that I see the Rogue as the most unballanced 3.5 class. The 8 skill points make them masters of all traits at mid-level. Fighters and spellcasters are awesome to behold on the battlefield, but the world outside of it is ruled by Rogues.
    -Harald

    Today, we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. It was the best day ever.

    Blog

  7. #27
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    532
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    I don't think 4e was so much directed to avoid munchkinism as to avoid spellcasters doing all the work (inside and outside combat, no way a rogue will outshine a spellcaster outside combat unless he has only cared for damage spells and things like that).

    About the group part, another thing that 4e tried with the "healing sources" is to avoid the mandatory cleric in all groups or forcing clerics to spend a good part of their own spell slots in healing (3e tried the same with the swaping healing spells thing). It's easier to play a small group (or a group with weird composition) in 4e than it was in 3e as all characters have access to healing resources. Although in my games we have found that having a leader character helps a lot (not only because of the healing, but because of all the different modifiers they provide).

  8. #28
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    During the second half of 2e's era, story and role play grew into dominant forms of gaming, displacing the standard dungeon crawl with new ways to play D&D. Admittedly most of the people deep into role play and story left D&D for other systems.

    4e has returned to the roots of D&D. Its ideally suited for Keep on the Borderlands, and all those other classic modules.

    But once you know how to role play, how to inhabit a character, serve its needs, rather than simply optimize the character for fighting you don't need a game that encourages that and offers hooks and seeds to build stories and character on. You can role play a game of checkers. Give the pieces names, distinct motivations, and even play a bad game of checkers because the hot-headed piece called Hugo won't wait for his back-up and charges ahead.

    Most of the storyteller and role-playing styles of RPG's only work as games if everyone already wants to play that style of game. This is good because many of them were terribly broken as games. Its much easier to add good story and role-play to a well balanced game than it is to add balance and durability to a game that is designed for story and role-play.

  9. #29
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Actually I think that the Alternity complex skill check system (the last TSR published books and before 3.0) was the precursor for the skill test system.

    I could be wrong though, and have been before.
    Duane Eggert

  10. #30
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Never did play Alternity, so that's quite possible. Given that D&D was a latecomer to the whole skills thing, it would hardly be surprising that these mechanics were developed elsewhere first.

    When I think about how I did Starship combat in Star Trek with ICON, a skills only system, it was a multi-character extended character test. Helmsman makes a pilot check, operations officer makes a sensor check to get a lock, guy in the big chair makes a tactics check, weapons officer makes a starship systems check. Just playing a skills only system would accustom one to these kinds of sequenced skill checks to perform single event tasks like firing phasers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.