And Great Cleave. Don't forget Grrrrrrrrrrreat Cleave.
From a saleability standpoint, WoTC did a fantastic job by making 3.0, 3.5, 3.75, 3.83 and all the other editions marketable to console kiddies. One of the things we gaming fossils take issue with is the D&D tag being placed on the rules.

I am so looking forward to planning and setting up power chains and skill stacks in my roleplaying game! WOOHOO!!

I already feel tainted for reading the indepth articles on gamingreport.com :S yuck.

With all of the editions they are what you make them.  As things progress they are getting more dynamic and miniature based, especially in combat, but if a DM wants there is plenty of scope for role-play.  I think its Necromancer games motto, '3rd edition rules in a 1st edition style,' that sums it up.  All the editions have things going for them that fit different types of play.  I do like the feel/atmosphere of the 1st edition but then there is something about 3 edition combat.  Personally I will pick whatever suits me best.

deimos3428 wrote:You forgot character trees.  And kits.  And a ton of other brain-dead concepts that just didn't work out.  

Kits did not work for the very good reason that they...did not work.

In every list of kits, for every class I saw, there was a list of kits that mostly limited your character, or did nothing to the game's mathematics.

Nestled in among those kits would be one that gave handy bonuses to combat.

What would be the motivation for any player to choose any other kit aside from the one with the combat bonuses?

For instance, I can aways role-play being a "sad clown" or "strategist" or "engineer" or...um..."dancing girl" (a bard kit my wife once played, so stop snickering).  I just take the combat bonuses and then role play that I am a "strategist" while kicking butt.

OK, I just made up "sad clown," but my point stands.

Since various ways of kicking butt are what make the game world go around, why use the kits at all unless they help you do that?

Back to 4th edition...one of the things I have read is that all of the classes will have something tangible (mathematical) to do in combat.  That will be a welcome change.

FormCritic wrote:
Kits did not work for the very good reason that they...did not work.

Kits can work...if you work the kits.  

I use kits, and they balance out well enough that min/maxers can't decide which class is the "best" to play.  Each character class has between 2-3 kits (besides standard fighter, mage, etc) to choose from should they want to. None of the kits give combat bonuses.  But I had to write my own kits from the ground up.  Kits as written are silly constructs meant to stimulate roleplaying.  Like you said, roleplay whatever type of character you want; the kits are just a bonus to enhance your ability to succeed with that type of character.

In every list of kits, for every class I saw, there was a list of kits that mostly limited your character, or did nothing to the game's mathematics.

Nestled in among those kits would be one that gave handy bonuses to combat.

What would be the motivation for any player to choose any other kit aside from the one with the combat bonuses?

In my campaign kits are tied to worship of different gods; certain gods prefer certain types of followers, and they imbue their followers with certain powers.  Sure it's an artificial construct, but it works better than, like you said, roleplaying the "sad clown" (Giggle) or "dancing girl" when you can always roleplay those types of characters anyway.

There is a seed of a good idea in kits; only the DM is the one that has to grow the seed.

Mike B.

sauromatian wrote:

me wrote: there are few if any half-baked ideas that made it to print.

I can think of a couple or three: D6 damage for all weapons [OCE 1974 & Holmes 1977], Psionics rules through 1st ed., the assassination table for that PC class, hit bonuses for weapon types vs. armor types ..give me a minute & I'll remember of a dozen more.

Ding!  Minute's up.

First off, never use "1974" and "OCE" together if you want to sound knowledgeable, especially around here.  

The d6 damage was pulled straight from Chainmail, and made great sense at the time.  (Though considering that you already have randomized hit points, there's really no reason for randomized damage at all...but I digress.)  

Psionics..well, ok, you win that round.  Some great ideas though, and thrown tastefully in an appendix where they can be conveniently ignored, until you have to fight Orcus and then conveniently roll for each of the PCs to see if they had it all along.

The assassination table actually works quite well, if you can sort out all the details.  There's quite a dispute at times over how it works.  

I really can't believe you could mention that last one with a straight face...the weapon types vs. armor table is really very well done, and considered by many to be a cornerstone to playing AD&D "right".  (Others ignore it easily enough, too.)  

Compared to the blunders that are 3.5E, those issues are miniscule.  You have seen the Succubus Paladin, haven't you?  Or the Gelatinous Grizzly Bear?

sauromatian wrote:2e to clean up the mess left by said flood. D&D 3e took advantage of the 20-year retro cycle.

Time to check your history.  2E failed it's original stated purpose.  It was claimed that it would clean up the sprawling 12 hardcover rulebooks that were AD&D.  The first three books did a decent job (the binder wasn't such a good move, but they fixed that later on.), and then they went on to make things far worse than 1E ever was in that respect.  The spew of options and splatbooks and campaign settings grew wildly out of control.  

3E, it was hoped, would bring the game back to it's roots -- away from the mess that 2E (as a whole, not the "core") had become.  It also failed that initial goal.  It's nothing like it's roots.  There are how many DMG volumes now?  Two or three?  I've lost count of the Monster Manuals...not to mention the myriad WotC stuff, and sideline OGL stuff not even made by WotC.  The deepest pockets on here probably couldn't afford to pay retail on the whole of it...

People bought these editions on faith, that they'd be what they claimed.  They weren't, in fact both times they ended up being the exact opposite of the original claim.  If history is any indication, 4E will fail it's design goals as well, but people will probably buy it anyway out of sheer curiosity.

It doesn't bother me if new people want to play that game, but it's sort of sad when people are continually burned, and still don't learn from their mistakes.

sauromatian wrote:I wouldn't know, I've never met anyone in the last three decades who ever used it.

Well, drop by Dragonsfoot for that debate...I don't use it either, but many people do.  

That is just a mechanism for simulating higher level characters.

The question would be how game play would stay "sweet" at higher levels.

The sweet spot in AD&D was roughly 4th to 7th.  That is where the local campaign environment could support monsters that could logically challenge characters of that level without them taking over everything...including the local government.

After that point came a "breakdown point" where the characters did not really gain any more abilities, they just got harder to kill and 95% of the monsters were no longer a challenge without inordinate efforts to soup them up or pile them on.  

It becomes a challenge to explain how seven or eight liches decided to live in the same mountain range...or how the local ecology can support upwards of 300 giants living in the same cave.

The player characters would also become powerful enough to challenge local authorities unless illogical efforts were made to control them.  they would generally have enough treasure at that point to buy and sell kingdoms.

The breakdown point in AD&D was 9th level...and then 7th level after the publication of Unearthed Arcana.  

In second edition, the breakdown point was still about the same...7th or 9th.

In 3rd edition, the breakdown point is 12th level.  Possibly, with lower ability scores, the breakdown point might be extended to 15th level.  (All six ability scores count for a lot more in 3rd edition than in previous iterations of the rules.)

Futher, with the dubious mechanism of making their own magic items (a concept I find detrimental to the game) there was also a way for player characters to blow most of their acquired treasure...although silliness would kick in anyway, particularly when players would begin to usurp the DM's traditional control of the campaign by making themselves ideal, designer magic items.

Adding a few high level monsters is NOT NOT SO NOT a solution, as 3rd edition amply proves.  The elements of combat and the logic of the campaign world become stretched beyond all recognition, resulting in the loss of that overriding game goal.......fun.

That is what I want to see them solve.  Let's see it.

robertsconley wrote:
This article has a table that show the powers granted at each level.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a

At 30th level you are dealing with

4 Encounter Powers (recharged after 10 minutes of rest or so)
4 Daily Powers
7 Utility Powers

Here are some higher level monsters

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080414a

Rob Conley