Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Reaperbryan

Kickstarter Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Dr. Bedlam is right. Without Wizards, there probably would not BE any D&D. Hasbro has done some things I don't care for, but WOTC is ok in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to Jeff's early universal hatred rule. I know a lot of people hate the newest edition of DnD here (referring to 4th) however it has a ton of solid concepts such as . . .

  1. Varied skill sets for Fighters and other classes that basically just attacked at lower levels in earlier editions (such as 2nd)
  2. A well defined and explained grid based combat system
  3. Excellent tools for creating creatures and auto calculating character sheets
  4. Great and consistent artwork

It lacks some of the more intricate and complex things from 2nd and 3rd but a good DM uses the strengths of the system he is using, the expectations of his players, and a little bit of ingenuity to make a good campaign. Having said all those things, 4th edition does not scale past level 8 well at all (HP on NPCs scale too much faster than damage, making every battle a siege rather than a skirmish) and needs a grueling change to higher level mechanics to be worth using.

 

Lastly, the variety of the Bones miniatures really is perfect for any RPG setting or Boardgame like Warhammer Quest - which is why I'm in for $300 . . . I think I'll get every non-chronoscope miniature option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it is just a common thing, not universal. I can't say I've had the problem. It helps that I played different game systems and genres within my first decade of role-playing. I get the feeling that some of you were locked into a single system.

 

Oh, gosh no. We played everything that came out, but D&D was our first love and we kept returning to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. In my personal case, it was simply a matter of the rules, the flavor, and the setting drifting too far from what I grew up thinking of D&D as being. It is a perfectly serviceable RPG; it is simply not D&D, as I remember it.

 

Luckily, we do not yet live in the age where the publisher can sneak into my electronics and repossess my PDFs. Bwahaha!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From watching Wizards' keynote at GenCon (avaiable on YouTube as well), it sounds like they'll be putting their old IP back into PDF availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. In my personal case, it was simply a matter of the rules, the flavor, and the setting drifting too far from what I grew up thinking of D&D as being. It is a perfectly serviceable RPG; it is simply not D&D, as I remember it.

 

Luckily, we do not yet live in the age where the publisher can sneak into my electronics and repossess my PDFs. Bwahaha!

 

Amen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoTC did something very smart with 3.0 and that was the SRD. SRD ensured that D&D would live forever. After watching TSR go teets up they knew very well it could happen to them too and so with the SRD they gave D&D immortality. In the last 6 years we've actually seen an AD&D renaissance and it has all been made possible by the SRD. The SRD contains everything to play every edition of D&D through 3.5. No mater what, Hasbro can never can quit production and IP lock the game away because the SRD ensured the game would always exist in some iteration. You like AD&D? Great! Enjoy! Once D&D Next drops this will all be moot. Oh by the way Mike Mearls announced that they will be releasing Digital copies of every edition starting in 2013. Here to hoping they're on Kindle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to Jeff's early universal hatred rule. I know a lot of people hate the newest edition of DnD here (referring to 4th) however it has a ton of solid concepts such as . . .

  1. Varied skill sets for Fighters and other classes that basically just attacked at lower levels in earlier editions (such as 2nd)
  2. A well defined and explained grid based combat system
  3. Excellent tools for creating creatures and auto calculating character sheets
  4. Great and consistent artwork

 

 

There are absolutely good ideas in 4th Edition, but it's also a bit of a convoluted mess in parts.

 

Call me an old fart, but honestly, I don't see your #1 as a good thing. I know a lot of people do, but fighters shouldn't be given spells in disguise. They're fighters. They're supposed to hit things with a weapon until that thing bleeds and dies. That's why the exist. It's what they're for. They get to deal and take a lot of damage right off the start in exchange for less options and a more linear ability progression. They're the option for players who favor the short-game. That's not a bad thing. There are long- and short- game players in the world (and everywhere in between) and there should be something for everybody. Absolute 100% game balance at all levels is for boardgames and wargames, not role playing games.

 

I'll give you #2. The basic mechanics in 4th edition are so much improved over the older stuff. I mean, AC going down to -10 and tons of different charts spread throughout the books… it was all kinda dumb. None of us seemed to realize it back then, but the constant referring to charts was wasteful. I like the basic mechanics introduced in 3.0 much better than what came before, and 4.0 is essentially the same system streamlined and buried under a few gallons of frosting and sprinkles.

 

#3 Yeah… no. I just can't agree with this one at all. Their character generator is kind crappy and they sic their legal dogs on anyone with the audacity to make a third party alternative. If it were free, I could forgive them some, but as a pay subscription service, it really just can't be described as good without the consumption of large quantities of illegal drugs. It's poorly programmed and only seems good because rolling up a 4ed character manually is so horribly painful and time consuming. Also, no mobile version? What the hell? It's 2012. Most people have a smartphone at the table now. The fact they don't have an iPhone and an Android version is just unforgivable at this point.

 

#4... well, this one's purely subjective, so the judges can award no points either way. Personally, I honestly liked the inconsistent, sometimes-bordering-on-amateur art of the old days. I'll take Erol Otus over a Boris Vallejo wannabe any day. The new stuff is kinda just too generic and a little too sanitized for my tastes. An artists's interpretation of a committee decision. But I suspect I may be in the minority on this one.

 

That being said, believe it or not, I don't hate 4th edition. I see it as a letdown in ways and definitely a missed opportunity, but I don't hate it and, in fact, own several of the books. Actually, my 11 year old son is DM'ing a game tomorrow that I'm going to play in, and I'm looking forward to it (he's been working on his adventure all week). Sure, 4th edition encourages min-maxing, is unnecessarily complex in places, and player death is a fairly remote possibility, but you can have fun with it if you don't get too worked up and emotional about its flaws. If you don't have fun playing, you really can't blame it on the system.

 

I am cautiously optimistic about what we've seen so far with D&D Next, too. I'm sure those who started on 4th edition will hate it, though. :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jabberwock looks a little wonky to me... is it just the picture angle or the bends in his neck/tail weirding me out...

 

The Jabberwock should weird you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering... I saw the CAV Crown Jewel rewards are sterling silver. At first I thought that was just to be cool but then I saw that these were the models used to create the production tooling. So it makes me wonder... why were these made out of silver instead of green epoxy like the fantasy models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a subset of Crusoe's post, the reason you want a CAV to be more durable for mold making is that CAVs are not organic forms. They are blocky and should appear machined. This is not an issue from the sculpting side, but rather because greens can and do deform during the molding process. Organic forms tend to hide this; straight lines and sharp angles do not.

 

~v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*refreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefreshrefresh*

 

Yay! Pirates and sea creatures!

 

~v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...