Also, Emrak: You ignored completely one of my other points--the fact that you have to actually work against the system if you want to create a non-combat character, and such a character will, in turn, be almost completely worthless to the party as a whole--something that was definitely not true in 3.x. (This is the flip-side, of course, of Jimalcoatl's point about being able to create a combat-monster who excels within some other field as well--because all characters in 4e qualify as combat-monsters, by design.)

That fact, more than the battle-mat issue, speaks to me about where the focus of the game is.

Yeah on the battle grid, if you move 3 squares vertically/horizontally, it’s 15 feet, but for ease of play, they said 3 squares also moves you diagonally, which is technically slightly over 21 feet.

However, our group for some time has been doing 4E on a hex grid, which has been (for lack of a better term) AWESOME. Additionally, we’ve further modified it so that most of our “incidental” (read: non-iconic) fights occur in a narrative fashion, without really rolling dice at all. It’s been great.

I suppose under the broad definition of "Roll a d20 to Win", then yeah, 3.x/4e are close enough to the same thing that edition wars are pointless (though frankly edition wars are pointless, but not for this reason). I suppose further than under further broad definitions of "they're made by the same company," or perhaps "they use the same die types," or "they share similar concepts".

4/10, 'cause you got people to fall for it.



I'm tempted to start the "If you're changing the system significantly vis a vis ignoring stated rules, why are you using the system" argument again, but it's too easy and obvious.

Really? Because honestly, I've never seen anyone reference actual facts in these discussions. In fact, barring my page references here, I've yet to see anyone here reference anything more than unsupported opinions. You're coppin out.




I didn't start this thread, so I'm not sure what the point of this one is. My point on the other thread is just that the separation of editions is superfluous (unless the goal of the listing is to introduce opinions) and I won't repeat myself in this thread regarding that.

I didn't ignore it...I'm just waiting for some proof to back it up. You're saying that you can create a "non-combat-character" in 3.5. Prove it. Give me one. Using the core classes you can't. No matter how badly you try to mechanically disarm a 3.5 character, it's still going to be a combat powerhouse compared to your average peasant. The same is true of 4E.

Do you think the various editions have no appreciable differences that might make one more enjoyable than another for any particular style of gamer?

The gaming systems thread aims to provide information to help gamers find new games they might like to play. If there was only one entry for D&D then it would be saying "pick up any edition; if you like one you'll like them all, they're all basically the same." I don't believe this to be the case. Do you?

I don't. Take a complete, rank newcomer to RPGs. Teach them either edition.
Question: what is their gamer "style"?
Answer: however they choose to play, regardless of which edition you've taught them.

The edition/style debate is meaningless IMHO. There are only those who are happy with 3.5 and see no need to change and those who have changed.




If it's to help gamers find "new games they might like to play" then why is 3.5 up there at all? They will never "pick up any edition" unless they go to Ebay. This will only get worse as time goes by. 3.5 and earlier are out-of-print systems (3rd party rulesets notwithstanding).

How many other RPGs on that list have separate edition entries?

Oh blah. I stand by my comments but I suspect this is turning into repetitive

Starting to lose steam, buddy.

...

A lone housecat can kill the average peasant, the way the game scales. But you don't compare level 5 characters to CR1/4 Commoners. That you can't make a 5th-level character weaker than a housecat isn't exactly a burning indictment that 4e and 3.5 are the same.

Try comparing the most foppish of level 5 diplomat Rogues in 3.5 versus 4e. In 3.5, pit him against a CR3 ogre and he's toast in short order, possibly with a +1 to hit with 1d6-1 damage. Take the 4e version against some comparable level 3 foe and the Rogue's still going to put up a fight.

Sure, if you can lower the bar to the point where you're comparing Zeus and Joe the Plumber to some gum you found on the bottom of your shoe, and then declare that everything above the gum is the same and godly and that Joe and Zeus are the same, but in reality, you're just lowering the bar to absurd lows.

Oh man, VV fell for it. That might bump you up to 5/10.