Why I love Conan (Conan vs 4th edition)

[Ichabod]

The absolute equality of all races and classes is the major drawback of 4e, but I can understand, why they did that. They wanted to end those stupid discussions which race and class is the best.

There does seem to be a strong effort in 4E to balance characters in combat. One of our players was complaing quite a bit that there was no effort made to balance characters outside of combat.

On a side note, I think people are using "balance" in too much detail. By balance, what I want is for there to be good reasons to play every race and every class mechanically. I can't imagine wanting the barbarian and the thief and the scholar to be balanced at combat any more than I can imagine wanting them to be balanced at knowing things. Might as well eliminate classes all together at that point. But, there are many races and classes in Conan that are just dumb choices for PCs. Either the player makes a dumb choice or the player makes a boring choice - that's how I see the problem with lack of balance.

 

[Sutek]

That's what "ballance" should mean, but in 4e it means everybody has an equal and fair chance and there are no losers and noone feels bad...

Heck, there's a "reason" to play a Scholar in Conan, altough it is limited in focus. But that's still "game ballance".

:wink:

 

[Hervé]

-

Original Dungeons & Dragons (white box set, 1974)
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition (1977)
- Dungeons & Dragons 2nd version Basic Set (blue box set, 1977)
- Dungeons & Dragons 3rd version Basic Set (magenta box set, 1981)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th version Basic Set (red box set, 1983)
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition (1989)
- Dungeons & Dragons 5th version Rules Cyclopedia (1991)
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition revised (1996)
[bankrupted, now owned by Wizards of the Coast]
- Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition (2000)
- Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition revised (3.5) (2003)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition (4.1) (2008)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.2) (2008)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.3) (2009)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.4) (2009)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.5) (2010)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.6) (2010)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.7) (2011)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.8 ) (2011)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.9) (2011)
- Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition (2012)
- Dungeons & Dragons 6th edition (2012)
- Dungeons & Dragons 7th edition (2012)
[bankrupted, now owned by Microsoft]

You forgot to mention that Wizards is owned by Hasbro, which is thousand times bigger than any specialist company, GW included.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

You forgot to mention that Wizards is owned by Hasbro, which is thousand times bigger than any specialist company, GW included.

And, of cause the reason Hasbro bought WotC in 1999. They were not interested in D&D (and I doubt that they knew what D&D is about), they only wanted the money WotC made with the Pokemon licence.

 

[Malcadon]

You forgot to mention that Wizards is owned by Hasbro, which is thousand times bigger than any specialist company, GW included.

I did not note that as I forgot about, and could not find info on the buyouts. After some searching, it seems that Wizards of the Coast bought TSR in 1997. Then Hasbro bought Avalon Hill in 1998 (for $6 million), and Wizards of the Coast in 1999 (for $325 million).

And yes, Hasbro would buy it for the Pokemon license. To bad for them Nintendo took back control of their license in 2003. LOL

 

[Strom]

Anyone who has the 3 new D&D 4.0 rulebooks and wants to get rid of them, please PM me and maybe we can workout a trade.

Thanks!

 

[GamerDude]

Anyone who has the 3 new D&D 4.0 rulebooks and wants to get rid of them, please PM me and maybe we can workout a trade.

Thanks!

PM Sent!

Oh, and again.. it's v4 not 4.0 (per WotC) at least not until the decide to 'revise' the rules again in three years (as I figure they will do regardless of what WotC says).

 

[Hervé]

And, of cause the reason Hasbro bought WotC in 1999. They were not interested in D&D (and I doubt that they knew what D&D is about), they only wanted the money WotC made with the Pokemon licence.

Well, yes and no. They also bought the names of Magic and D&D, as the licences had some potential (movies, video games...). Should these lines become suddenly mainstream, they would ready... :twisted:

 

[Ranzadule]

I thought "Age of Conan" was our "Fourth Edition"????

 

[quigs]

I've been away from these boards for some time, mainly due to work and such, but I actually pre-ordered the 4E books off Amazon.com.

Then I got the PDF's off the web and saw the rules. Amazon also emailed me delaying my order for over a month. I snapped at this point. Cancelled my order and came back here. Why? Because it was at that split second in time that I knew Conan was my home.

I don't generally like the d20 rules, but Conan d20 was one game I could actually stand running. After I found the Savage Worlds RPG (along with Solomon Kane) I fell in love all over again.

I'm not saying 4E is bad, but it is just WAY too different than regular d20 for so many reasons. I won't go into that here unless someone wants me to though.

 

[rabindranath72]

I thought "Age of Conan" was our "Fourth Edition"????

Actually, you can play an Age of Conan-style game with 4e:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=35959

And it works quite well.
Since the Age of Conan PC game is endorsed by Conan properties, it seems at least another "valid" view of playing in Hyboria.

 

[Trantor]

I had hoped that 4e would take the 3.xe to the next logical level: the removal of classes, allowing every possible character concept. But they did the opposite.

Sounds like GURPS ... I play GURPS since the 90s because of this.

The weakness of Class/Level games is also the strength of these games - much easier adjustment of npcs or monsters to your group strength, for instance. imho, that is much more difficult in GURPS (or other class/level free games).

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

There is no problem if there are still levels in the game.

 

[kintire]

That's what "ballance" should mean, but in 4e it means everybody has an equal and fair chance and there are no losers and noone feels bad...

Every now and then I look at something someone has said, and I just don't see where they are coming from at all.

So, everyone enjoying themselves is bad? Its good for some people to get a few bad dice rolls at character generation or at hit point generation and spend a whole campaign on the back burner?

I just don't understand why you could think this.