D&D 4th (probably to be released soon) and Conan
- Thread starter MGBM
- Start date
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
These days a holiday teaser of D&D4 was released, namely the racial description of the Elf. From this, we can deduce some changes to D&D3.x:
- no more negative ability modifiers. For instance, Elves get +2Dex, +2 Wis. The previous -2 Con is history.
- no more hard rules for favoured class. They now just say Elves are particularly suited for playing a Ranger, Rogue or Cleric.
- each race gets a unique racial power, which however seems to be of limited use. For instance, an Elf can re-roll one attack _once per encounter_, and they call that "Elven Accuracy".
So far, this bears no significance on Conan at all. Of course "we" have entirely different races anyway, so the Conan races would have to be rewritten independently. Basically you'd just eliminate the negative modifier and think up a second major attribute that also gets +2. For instance, "4E Cimmerians" might get +2 Str and +2 Dex or Con, without the -2 Int.
Favoured Class already works differently in Conan, and the Conan way is imho better than just scrapping it entirely.
But maybe 4E will finally have more user-friendly grapple rules.
- no more negative ability modifiers. For instance, Elves get +2Dex, +2 Wis. The previous -2 Con is history.
- no more hard rules for favoured class. They now just say Elves are particularly suited for playing a Ranger, Rogue or Cleric.
- each race gets a unique racial power, which however seems to be of limited use. For instance, an Elf can re-roll one attack _once per encounter_, and they call that "Elven Accuracy".
So far, this bears no significance on Conan at all. Of course "we" have entirely different races anyway, so the Conan races would have to be rewritten independently. Basically you'd just eliminate the negative modifier and think up a second major attribute that also gets +2. For instance, "4E Cimmerians" might get +2 Str and +2 Dex or Con, without the -2 Int.
Favoured Class already works differently in Conan, and the Conan way is imho better than just scrapping it entirely.
But maybe 4E will finally have more user-friendly grapple rules.
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
Boy, you really dug up an old one! Somebody made their threadomancy check! :lol:
From the description, it sounds suspiciously more "politically correct." :? :roll:
Grapple and AoO rules were the sticking point for me, when I started learning d20 6-7 years ago, IIRC.
Clovenhoof said:These days a holiday teaser of D&D4 was released, namely the racial description of the Elf. From this, we can deduce some changes to D&D3.x:
- no more negative ability modifiers. For instance, Elves get +2Dex, +2 Wis. The previous -2 Con is history.
- no more hard rules for favoured class. They now just say Elves are particularly suited for playing a Ranger, Rogue or Cleric.
- each race gets a unique racial power, which however seems to be of limited use. For instance, an Elf can re-roll one attack _once per encounter_, and they call that "Elven Accuracy".
So far, this bears no significance on Conan at all. Of course "we" have entirely different races anyway, so the Conan races would have to be rewritten independently. Basically you'd just eliminate the negative modifier and think up a second major attribute that also gets +2. For instance, "4E Cimmerians" might get +2 Str and +2 Dex or Con, without the -2 Int.
Favoured Class already works differently in Conan, and the Conan way is imho better than just scrapping it entirely.
But maybe 4E will finally have more user-friendly grapple rules.
From the description, it sounds suspiciously more "politically correct." :? :roll:
Grapple and AoO rules were the sticking point for me, when I started learning d20 6-7 years ago, IIRC.
I have read lots on the new edition. I parity much have a good idea on how the game is going to be. Streamlining the game and making it available to new gamers is tops on the list of what they what. Otherwise, its going to be another soulless, systematic, dungeon-crawling Roll-Playing engine. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'm suffering a bad case of New-Edition Fatigue! :|
Yes, you're just being cynical. 3rd edition was a huge change from 2nd. They didn't get everything right, but they got a lot right. Mongoose owes a lot to 3rd edition, damn it, a lot of the industry does.
If 4th edition blows, still play Conan, it's solid and it works. But maybe 4th edition is as much an improvement over 3rd ed as 3rd was over 2nd. This is win/win dude. If it sucks, stick with what Mongoose have put out. If it rocks, Mongoose will adapt to it.
I've spent more of games I've never played than I've spent on 3.0/3.5 and I've played the hell out of d20. Bring on 4th ed. Either it gives me a better system than 3.5 or it gives me new ammo to play with.
If 4th edition blows, still play Conan, it's solid and it works. But maybe 4th edition is as much an improvement over 3rd ed as 3rd was over 2nd. This is win/win dude. If it sucks, stick with what Mongoose have put out. If it rocks, Mongoose will adapt to it.
I've spent more of games I've never played than I've spent on 3.0/3.5 and I've played the hell out of d20. Bring on 4th ed. Either it gives me a better system than 3.5 or it gives me new ammo to play with.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
I haven't read a lot on D&D 4th ed yet, and I'm not holding my breath for it. As you said, the Conan system works and that's my favourite system in the realm of fantasy games.
When I think of my experiences with other RPGs, 4th editions are useful as a hole in the head. The pattern is that a general idea of a system has been developed for years until 3rd ed, and then they break with the basic concept and come up with something very different.
Shadowrun, for instance. I'm too young to have played SR1, but from what I know SR2 had some rather big changes and was quite an improvement. Then SR3 came and the changes were rather subtle; some things were even reverted to 1st ed status; the greatest change was how magic worked. All in all, it was the best Shadowrun ever.
And then, about 5 years ago or whatever, someone opened the designers' skulls and shat in and stirred. And out came SR4, which works radically different and was also made to be more "beginner friendly". I don't know a single SR2/3 veteran who likes it.
Or the German game I have mentioned previously, The Dark Eye (DSA). Again, I don't remember DSA1, but DSA2 was pretty straightforward. Then came DSA3 which was made to a lot more "realistic", which of course means in essence that it got more complicated and all you achieve is pseudo-realism. The basic concept was the same as before, there were several improvements especially in the magic sector, and the only real shortcoming was that combat was made more complicated (which we didn't see at the time, we appreciated the alleged realism).
Finally, the same process occured as with Shadowrun, and around the year 2000 they released DSA4, which has a radically different character generation and development. A system that contradicts itself on so many levels, I can't even begin to sum up its deficiencies.
I haven't played DSA for years, but if I ever should try it again, it would have to be 2nd or 3rd ed.
So to make a long story short, I don't have the best experience with 4th editions. They tend to stink.
When I think of my experiences with other RPGs, 4th editions are useful as a hole in the head. The pattern is that a general idea of a system has been developed for years until 3rd ed, and then they break with the basic concept and come up with something very different.
Shadowrun, for instance. I'm too young to have played SR1, but from what I know SR2 had some rather big changes and was quite an improvement. Then SR3 came and the changes were rather subtle; some things were even reverted to 1st ed status; the greatest change was how magic worked. All in all, it was the best Shadowrun ever.
And then, about 5 years ago or whatever, someone opened the designers' skulls and shat in and stirred. And out came SR4, which works radically different and was also made to be more "beginner friendly". I don't know a single SR2/3 veteran who likes it.
Or the German game I have mentioned previously, The Dark Eye (DSA). Again, I don't remember DSA1, but DSA2 was pretty straightforward. Then came DSA3 which was made to a lot more "realistic", which of course means in essence that it got more complicated and all you achieve is pseudo-realism. The basic concept was the same as before, there were several improvements especially in the magic sector, and the only real shortcoming was that combat was made more complicated (which we didn't see at the time, we appreciated the alleged realism).
Finally, the same process occured as with Shadowrun, and around the year 2000 they released DSA4, which has a radically different character generation and development. A system that contradicts itself on so many levels, I can't even begin to sum up its deficiencies.
I haven't played DSA for years, but if I ever should try it again, it would have to be 2nd or 3rd ed.
So to make a long story short, I don't have the best experience with 4th editions. They tend to stink.
In fairness though, that's just statistical superstition. Like when a football pundit says this team hasn't beaten that team in twenty years, even if they only played twice and every player is different.
To put your mind at ease, 4th edition Warhammer 40K was the best so far. Also 3rd edition D&D was really the fourth edition. "Classic" D&D (where Elves were a character class), AD&D, AD&D 2nd Edition and D&D 3rd.
D&D is the biggest thing in role-playing so it attracts hyperbole like a magnet.
To put your mind at ease, 4th edition Warhammer 40K was the best so far. Also 3rd edition D&D was really the fourth edition. "Classic" D&D (where Elves were a character class), AD&D, AD&D 2nd Edition and D&D 3rd.
D&D is the biggest thing in role-playing so it attracts hyperbole like a magnet.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
Ah yeah right, AD&D was split in two editions. So then you could say that D&D 4E is actually the sixth edition, if you count 3.5 separately.
So were Mega Traveller and Traveller New Era. The next one was still called Traveller 4.
Point is there is no point worrying about 4th edition being jinxed because its a 4th edition. Because it isn't the 4th one. Its the 5th. Or 6th. Or if you count D&D and AD&D separetly it'll be the 3rd. Unless you count Holmes, Cook and Mentzer as different editions of D&D, which would bring us to 5th. 6th if you count the RC version...(and so on)....
Point is there is no point worrying about 4th edition being jinxed because its a 4th edition. Because it isn't the 4th one. Its the 5th. Or 6th. Or if you count D&D and AD&D separetly it'll be the 3rd. Unless you count Holmes, Cook and Mentzer as different editions of D&D, which would bring us to 5th. 6th if you count the RC version...(and so on)....
LordofIllusions
Mongoose
The King said:
Right.
Marketing a roleplaying game the same as a video game is doomed to fail eventually.
~~~
LordofIllusions
Mongoose
Yogah of Yag said:I've been trying this morning to log onto Wizards' site, but no luck.
I think it's 99% hype anyway.
It's altogether possible that WotC is trying to steer the future of the hobby toward the "MTV Generation" who were raised sitting zombie-like in front of a TV or video game screen with their hands surgically attached to a joystick (or whatever they call it these days), and no real human interaction, save their parents yelling at them in vain to clean up their rooms and eat their vegetables. :roll: Minis, Digital Initiative, online content: IOW, less pen-&-paper, more binary, more electronic, more juvenile, less for us grizzled grognards.
[daydream mode]
Then again, the RPG biz came out of historical wargaming, and perhaps things will eventually come full-circle. People will tire of flights of fantasy and wish for a more realistic, grounded hobby. [/daydream mode]
Well WotC did make its name from producing lackluster card games aimed at children. Why do people think they will do anything different with D&D? Most of my players -- that play video games like crazy -- hate the WotC's D&D and prefer the second edition ruleset by TSR.
When people notice this and comment on it they receive the typical Ad Hominem attack of "being old" -- an MTV generation stigma against growing up -- even if the person stating such is a young person. I'm young myself and find most TV shows and D&D books today to be horrible. I actually watch most of my "TV" on Youtube since most of the new stuff is so bad.
It's like the politically correct thing to do is just shut up and let WotC keep shovelling new editions into your mouth.
~~~
LordofIllusions
Mongoose
Yogah of Yag said:Boy, you really dug up an old one! Somebody made their threadomancy check! :lol:
Clovenhoof said:These days a holiday teaser of D&D4 was released, namely the racial description of the Elf. From this, we can deduce some changes to D&D3.x:
- no more negative ability modifiers. For instance, Elves get +2Dex, +2 Wis. The previous -2 Con is history.
- no more hard rules for favoured class. They now just say Elves are particularly suited for playing a Ranger, Rogue or Cleric.
- each race gets a unique racial power, which however seems to be of limited use. For instance, an Elf can re-roll one attack _once per encounter_, and they call that "Elven Accuracy".
So far, this bears no significance on Conan at all. Of course "we" have entirely different races anyway, so the Conan races would have to be rewritten independently. Basically you'd just eliminate the negative modifier and think up a second major attribute that also gets +2. For instance, "4E Cimmerians" might get +2 Str and +2 Dex or Con, without the -2 Int.
Favoured Class already works differently in Conan, and the Conan way is imho better than just scrapping it entirely.
But maybe 4E will finally have more user-friendly grapple rules.
From the description, it sounds suspiciously more "politically correct." :? :roll:
Grapple and AoO rules were the sticking point for me, when I started learning d20 6-7 years ago, IIRC.
I was thinking the same thing. The whole fraudulent "everybody wins/Your special" ideology that has created what I like to call "The Entitlement Mentality" among my generation.
Idiotic Ideology: There are no negatives in life. If you come across a negative run from it or bash it by calling it outdated or "discrimination." Whine your way to power with victimology.
Off Topic, but related: They even have a pro-feminist board geared strictly towards women and are passing around the notion that roleplaying games oppress women(amongst the tons of other things women claim are "discriminating" against them.).
WotC is for the birds.
~~~
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
LordofIllusions said:
ROTFLMAO! :lol:
Sutek
Mongoose
LordofIllusions said:
Wait, is that a gender biased remark??? (lol)
Seriously, I was interrested in 4E for all of 3 hours, then I explored the website and checked the boards and, basically, it's not going to be D&D anymore. Conan RPG has nothing to worry about. They are even changing root mechanics, like getting rid of Flat Footed in favor of targeting REF save value. Technically, it can be the same, however, REF doesnt'take into account natural armore or magical deflection bonus, so I really don't see how it's a fair swap.
Basically, I'll keep playing Conan and 3.5.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
fwiw, I quite like the idea of strengths and weaknesses, as in the form of ability bonuses and penalties, as opposed to having only strengths. That system encourages you to make the best of what you have.
Yeah and how! Wonder what they would say to the Conanesque atmosphere where mighty-thewed Barbarian men have their way with petite slave girls or, if they are in a good mood, come to rescue the Damsel in Distress. :twisted:
Conan must be the diametral opposite of a politically-correct game. And I love it for that. ^^
LordofIllusions said:
Yeah and how! Wonder what they would say to the Conanesque atmosphere where mighty-thewed Barbarian men have their way with petite slave girls or, if they are in a good mood, come to rescue the Damsel in Distress. :twisted:
Conan must be the diametral opposite of a politically-correct game. And I love it for that. ^^
Der Rote Baron
Mongoose
The King said:
And it is still basically 1st edition really! The Basic Roleplaying system hasn't changed since 1978: Roll percentile dice, have skills, characteristics are STR, CON, DEX, SIZE etc. Only CHArisma changed to APPearance and they tweaked with the dodge skill a little (from 2nd ed RQ).
It is basically still your granddaddies Cthulhu, give or take a skill (that works basically the same).
Great for downward adaptability ("Hey, I found this CoC scenario in an old magazine from 1982!2 - "Great! Let's play it now!"), but basically all new developements of roleplaying design passes by unnoticed.
Der Rote Baron
Mongoose
Clovenhoof said:
Oh yes, Conan is refreshingly different here! In a very good way I might add: Black Dafarian cannibals don't make me think that Africans eat their neighbours any more than Nordic barbarians give me any kind of prejudice against Danes or Islanders.
And getting rid of slavery in a pre-modern world would be unrealistic to say the least.
