Game Geeks #91 Dungeons and Dragons 4E review:

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat May 09, 2009 11:06 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
Sorry LD, I just can't help but poke at 3e with a 10 foot pole.

It is fun sometimes, isn't it?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Sat May 09, 2009 3:48 pm

concobar wrote:
Why post a youtube vid bashing 4e on the C&C boards and then stand around commenting how the reviewer agrees with you so you must be right? And better the posts that 3e was somehow more D&D than 4e. it is to laugh.

I dunno.

I think honest discussion about gaming is something people do. We critique stuff, exholing merits, putting forth opinions and the like. Just like when we meet any new product.

I posted the youtube link because well, I like game geeks and think Kurt W does a fairly good job. And I like discussing such things.

I could easily ask: why come on a thread you know may have views contrary to your own?

But I won't, because I like reviews, and I like to hear other opinions on matters.

It's all good.
_________________
Society Member
http://www.cncsociety.org/

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat May 09, 2009 4:32 pm

I watched the 2nd half of the review today and got a kick out of one thing.

He poked at WotC several times in the first half for wanting to crank out books then in the second half of the review he recommends Pathfinder instead.

Has he not looked at Paizo's production schedule? Talk about cranking them out.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat May 09, 2009 5:36 pm

I haven't seen anything other than the Bestiary and the Core book, DD. Where have you seen more?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

papercut · Post by **papercut** » Sat May 09, 2009 5:52 pm

In truth, I have waited MONTHS for him to review 4e. That is a shoot, just like Malenko-Guerrero in the ECW arena. He is a legit reviewer.

Plus I am hammered, but that is a shoot.
_________________
Someone send me some dice!

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat May 09, 2009 6:52 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
I haven't seen anything other than the Bestiary and the Core book, DD. Where have you seen more?

I think DD is referring to the whole package Paizo offers. The Pathfinders, the modules, plus they do have numerous setting related books coming out, plus rules for their own "Manual of the Planes" style book, not to mention monster books.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat May 09, 2009 7:18 pm

Yeah, you can see all their stuff on their site. Not even counting the "OGL" stuff, the Pathfinder series or the Game Mastery modules.

Just stuff flagged by them as PFRPG they will be cranking out 10 products in the first 5 months alone so far.

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Sat May 09, 2009 7:26 pm

For what its worth the WotC business model has already got me to buy 12 or so core books a online subscription enough dungeon tiles to carpet my game table ten times and a around four hundred little plastic minis.

3e only got me for the three core books and the book of good book of evil pairing.

2e got me for a ton of books

1e I bought everything i could find.

C&C doesn't make books fast enough IMO. been waiting to buy CKG for a few years now.

I guess all this proves is I like the style of 4e a lot and like 3e least of the bunch. I would pick C&C over running a AD&D game 1st or 2nd but would use all my AD&D modules with it.

I know some of the purist may rant at the suggestion but I think C&C should consider adding martial skills to the fighter barbarian knight and bard classes. instead of powers (OMG!!!) just let the player pick a style each lvl and have all the styles be usable at will.

example

Scorpion strike: This fighter has trained to strike in a sweeping arch, striking his opponent in the back. effect ignore your opponents shield when rolling to hit.

shield smash: You smash your opponent in the face with your shield doing 1d4+str damage and pushing him 5 feet away from you. as a free action you may take a five foot move to occupy the vacated space.

Dirty tricks: you throw dirt in your opponents face causing them to be blinded until the end of your next turn. until then target receives a -2 on all attack roll they make.

ect ect.

melee needs something to spice them up and keep them interesting IMO.
_________________

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat May 09, 2009 7:29 pm

You can already do that with the melee types in C&C though Conc. My group does it all the time, just use the SIEGE engine.

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:52 pm

double post
_________________

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:54 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
You can already do that with the melee types in C&C though Conc. My group does it all the time, just use the SIEGE engine.

I understand that but I think these sorts of things should be class dependent and a part of the melee arch types skill set. the siege engine is a bit too free wheeling for me at times and can lead to undesirable ends. like the cleric being better at spotting secret doors and traps then the thief.

second it would be a tool for showing the melee progression in his art. as he levels he masters more and more styles. you could even rule that in order to learn these styles a fighter would have to find a mentor and one day when he was more skilled could even open a school of his own teaching his skills and styles to others.
_________________

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat May 09, 2009 9:19 pm

concobar wrote:
I understand that but I think these sorts of things should be class dependent and a part of the melee arch types skill set. the siege engine is a bit too free wheeling for me at times and can lead to undesirable ends. like the cleric being better at spotting secret doors and traps then the thief.

second it would be a tool for showing the melee progression in his art. as he levels he masters more and more styles. you could even rule that in order to learn these styles a fighter would have to find a mentor and one day when he was more skilled could even open a school of his own teaching his skills and styles to others.

Well, the way I do it, it is class dependent in that when such SIEGE checks are made their BtH is the modifier. So a fighter, with his specialized weapon, would successfully do such things the most often, followed by the Knight, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Bard, Barbarian classes, then come the rest, with the wizard possibly being able to do such things, but being very highly unlikely to succeed. So the fighter very clearly shows his superiority with how frequently he succeeds, with the other fighters being a close second, etc...
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Sat May 09, 2009 10:35 pm

That is not to shabby a way of handling the issue also.

Course my way would actually sell some C&C books. Could have a whole book dedicated to martial skills for each melee class including thieves and assassins.

TBH I didnt really use the siege rule much. my players didn't care for how vague it was and clamored about until i imported the skill rules from 3e. Good thing about C&C is that you can easily plug things from other games in with little problem.
_________________

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun May 10, 2009 12:28 am

concobar wrote:
That is not to shabby a way of handling the issue also.

Course my way would actually sell some C&C books. Could have a whole book dedicated to martial skills for each melee class including thieves and assassins.

Personally, I'd pass. If I want that, I'd play 4e, or go back to 3e full-time. I like that the rules of C&C are lite, and allow for some CK interpretation. It's only my opinion, but I'd rather keep the rules bloat that 3e had, and 4e now has, out of C&C. If someone wants to do something fancy in C&C, make them tell the CK what it is they want to do and them have them make a SIEGE check. Done. No need for books filled with manuevers, powers, skills, etc.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Sun May 10, 2009 12:44 am

"I taste key lime pie."
--Lord Manpower, the Temporary
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun May 10, 2009 1:23 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
Personally, I'd pass. If I want that, I'd play 4e, or go back to 3e full-time. I like that the rules of C&C are lite, and allow for some CK interpretation. It's only my opinion, but I'd rather keep the rules bloat that 3e had, and 4e now has, out of C&C. If someone wants to do something fancy in C&C, make them tell the CK what it is they want to do and them have them make a SIEGE check. Done. No need for books filled with manuevers, powers, skills, etc.

True, but I think it helps clarify things, especially if they are familiar with 3E or 4E, to say, "Oh, you want to do a Power Attack? Just make a SIEGE check, the CL is number of points you wish to transfer +2."

Or

"You like Arcane Blasts? So do I, and you can make one every round, just follow my house rules."

Here are my house rules:

SPELL CASTERS:

A new class ability for ALL spell casters, except Paladins.

Divine/Arcane blasts. These are a pure energy attack that any spell caster can use every other round as long as they do not cast any spells on the round in between. Yes, this means all day long. This is because that round is a recharge/gather the power round. This attack requires a "To hit" roll versus the targets AC, but the casters BtH for purposes of this attack is equal to their level and its modified by their DEX. Damage is 1d4 per level of the caster and requires a "item" as the component for this ability. It costs 20 GP per dice of damage. Typically a cleric uses their Holy Symbol and Arcane Casters most frequently make a wand.

As usual, I do allow a SIEGE check to cast this every round, it will be CON based, and failed checks will cost a temporary loss of one CON point to simulate the exhaustive nature of wasting the energy as well as gathering it so quickly. The CL will equal the amount of dice you want to do for damage, and the base TN will always be 12, since this is now a "Class Ability" for all spell casters.

Lost CON is regained at 1 point per hour of rest, or from a Lesser Restoration.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:22 am

That is a very well thought out ruling treebore that i would use in a C&C game every time and should be in a book so that C&C players that do not have the luxury of reading it here can have access to it.

The siege rules can be kinda undefined, I would like to see some example powers or rules in a future book.
_________________

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:07 am

I think the Trolls are nervous about making a rule book that blatantly adapts things from other systems.

Hmmmm...

I think I finally have something I want to submit!
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Sun May 10, 2009 1:01 pm

Treebore wrote:
I think the Trolls are nervous about making a rule book that blatantly adapts things from other systems.

Really?
_________________

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:14 pm

concobar wrote:
That is a very well thought out ruling treebore that i would use in a C&C game every time and should be in a book so that C&C players that do not have the luxury of reading it here can have access to it.

The siege rules can be kinda undefined, I would like to see some example powers or rules in a future book.

I dunno. I kind of think it would be a good idea, but I think that starts to take C&C down a road different from what was intended. I feel, and I could be wrong, that C&C was meant to put things like this in the hands of the CK - it meant to provide the framework of the rules and allow for us to do what we want. I feel that's why things like the CKG have been heavily marketed as optional rules - they don't want to be seen as necessary in what is a rules-lite system.

But I agree that it is a pretty neat idea, but I'm not sold on the fact that these things should be in a book. I feel that they can be done already and things like this will vary from game to game. If Tree wants Arcane blasts, then he's got them. If I don't, I don't have to worry about buying a book with stuff in it that I won't use. I know you say that those who don't read the boards don't have the luxury of seeing these houserules, but if John Doe CK wants Arcane Blasts in his campaign, he shouldn't need to read them here - he can just make them up like Tree did. I'd rather buy a product that has fresh ideas in them, not current game conversions to C&C (and no offense to those who like thise sort of things ). Books like the CKG, the Black Librum, and Arms and Armor, have (or appear to have) some good ideas that were made specifically for C&C.

concobar wrote:
Really?

Yeah, really. Like I said with the Arcane blast printing above. I'd rather see things made for C&C than those "blatantly" adapted from other games.

But I think I know what you mean, concobar. Most games are variations of other games these days.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun May 10, 2009 6:44 pm

LD, the problem I am seeing is people only see how to copy/paste rules from other sources. I am the only one I see actually adapting ideas to the SIEGE mechanic itself. Well, plus the CK's who use my ideas too. Such as LS, nwelte, and Kayolan. Plus its definitely determined by what the CK wants in their games, because there are other CK's I game with who don't use my ideas, like Slimy. Here I mean specifically my ideas for using SIEGE checks to gain the effects of feats, etc... We all use each others ideas to some extent.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun May 10, 2009 8:44 pm

Treebore wrote:
We all use each others ideas to some extent.

That's exactly my point. I think it's a great thing that we all share ideas, whether they're SIEGE based mechanics or not. I, myself, have a few things I've made linked in my signature. I love creating stuff, from fully adaptable SIEGE-compliant rules (like the witch) to things that morph the SIEGE engine a little for its integration 9like my skill rules and my o-level rules). And I love reading others created materials - we really have a good community of creating and sharing. If the stuff I make is not used by anyone, I'm okay with that - maybe I can inspire someone to improve upon my ideas!
What I was basically trying to say was that I think the sharing of ideas are better here than in a book. Personally, I'd rather see the Trolls give us what they have been giving us - spectacular modules and some crunchy bits (like Engineering Dungeons or Arms and Armor). The CKG is coming up, too. But I don't feel we've been inundated with rules and options from the Trolls. If we were we might not feel so inclined to all share our own creations.

I didn't mean any offense in what I was saying earlier, if it offended anyone.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Buttmonkey · Post by **Buttmonkey** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:30 pm

Personally, I would hate (well, maybe that's too strong a word) if the Trolls printed a book showing how to mimic feats the way Treebore suggests. I think that would just give players ideas that I don't want them to have in my game. I skipped 3E and 3.5E for a reason. I like my old-fashioned 1E combat without all the cleaving and what not. If those sorts of optional rules ever made their way into print, I have a hard time believing I wouldn't have players demanding that I use them and walking away from the table if I, as CK, refused.

That said, I'm very impressed with what Tree has put together and I think using his ideas would go a long way toward getting 3E players to give C&C a shot. He also illustrates very nicely what the SIEGE engine can do if the CK is creative enough.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue May 12, 2009 12:01 am

Buttmonkey wrote:
Personally, I would hate (well, maybe that's too strong a word) if the Trolls printed a book showing how to mimic feats the way Treebore suggests. I think that would just give players ideas that I don't want them to have in my game.

With experience in this, players who attempted "feat-like actions" in my games, merely attempted pretty much all of the feats in the v3.5 game in C&C. What a mess that turned out to be. Players would have 3.5 books and C&C books at the same game to attempt these feats. With actions like this, players started to get to crazy attempted all sorts of feats. The difference for me, was that players in my group love [need] codified rules. If they don't have it, they tend to bend the rules as much as they can. YMMV, but feats like Treebore uses in his games just don't work IMO.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue May 12, 2009 12:06 am

I think the Trolls rightfully want to avoid a laundry list of possible actions a character can attempt, which, for better or worse, a "feat-like" system is -- it falsely provides customization at the expense of preventing other actions. Besides, C&C already (or will) has "adjuncts" which pretty much mimic "feats" to some extent.

Beyond that, all it truly needs is more examples of the SIEGE Engine in use, which the CKG is supposed to cover...
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue May 12, 2009 12:13 am

serleran wrote:
I think the Trolls rightfully want to avoid a laundry list of possible actions a character can attempt, which, for better or worse, a "feat-like" system is -- it falsely provides customization at the expense of preventing other actions. Besides, C&C already (or will) has "adjuncts" which pretty much mimic "feats" to some extent.

Beyond that, all it truly needs is more examples of the SIEGE Engine in use, which the CKG is supposed to cover...

Ah, but I don't have a list of feats, or adjuncts, for that matter. Those are just examples I use to clarify and inspire my players.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue May 12, 2009 2:18 am

Omote wrote:
With experience in this, players who attempted "feat-like actions" in my games, merely attempted pretty much all of the feats in the v3.5 game in C&C. What a mess that turned out to be. Players would have 3.5 books and C&C books at the same game to attempt these feats. With actions like this, players started to get to crazy attempted all sorts of feats. The difference for me, was that players in my group love [need] codified rules. If they don't have it, they tend to bend the rules as much as they can. YMMV, but feats like Treebore uses in his games just don't work IMO.

It doesn't have to be that way, but I can see how it could easily end up like that with d20'ized players. I don't make use of an"official" list of things one can accomplish using the SIEGE engine in my game but there are a number of them that have grown "standardized" over the years due to players trying similar stuff out.

For me it all started in the early '90's while running a 2nd Edition game. The villain had a magical shield that bumped his AC enough that it was giving the Fighter problems hitting with regularity.

The frustrated player finally asked, "I've got a high Dex, couldn't I use some fancy footwork or something to get around his shield for an attack?"

I decided, what the hell and told him to make a dex check (I don't remember what the penalty was) and he made it so I allowed him to slip in an attack not counting the shield in the villain's AC.

After that my other players would occasionally make use of similar ideas for various things and we added another dimension to our games with MU's using their Spellcraft NWP occasionally to get a little extra oomph out of a spells and countless other things. When I came to C&C, the SIEGE engine seemed like a natural use for those things too and I never stopped it.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue May 12, 2009 11:34 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
It doesn't have to be that way, but I can see how it could easily end up like that with d20'ized players. I don't make use of an"official" list of things one can accomplish using the SIEGE engine in my game but there are a number of them that have grown "standardized" over the years due to players trying similar stuff out.

Indeed. I don't think there needs to be this, either but the "d20'ized" players seem to be having issues, at times, in a more free game of C&C. At least in my personal experience (and it may not be true for all). So far, I've avoided a list of actions possible but it was close and I have had at length discussions with my players about what they can and cannot do. Not a "list" but me basically telling them, "Hey, if you want to do this or that, just tell me you want to try." One thing I didn't want to happen, as Omote said, was my players having a C&C and a 3.5 PHB in front of them, trying to figure out what they can do (or get away with ) in a given situation. It seemed to be really hard for them to get out of the d20 mindset and having a massive list of all the stuff they can do. They're getting there, and fortunately, they seem to be taking the initative to do some things on their own - like the cleric in my C&C game who has been "studying" undead and I plan on giving him a +1 to damage, attacks, and saves against them (after he devotes a certain amount of time studying and pays a little XP).

Quote:
For me it all started in the early '90's while running a 2nd Edition game. The villain had a magical shield that bumped his AC enough that it was giving the Fighter problems hitting with regularity.

The frustrated player finally asked, "I've got a high Dex, couldn't I use some fancy footwork or something to get around his shield for an attack?"

I decided, what the hell and told him to make a dex check (I don't remember what the penalty was) and he made it so I allowed him to slip in an attack not counting the shield in the villain's AC.

After that my other players would occasionally make use of similar ideas for various things and we added another dimension to our games with MU's using their Spellcraft NWP occasionally to get a little extra oomph out of a spells and countless other things. When I came to C&C, the SIEGE engine seemed like a natural use for those things too and I never stopped it.

Well done, sir. It's these kind of things that I try to do, too, and try to get my players to do as well.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.