Pathfinder was released two years after 4th Edition was announced, and a year after it was released, in response to 4th Edition.
You might want to do your OWN "research", Sir on accuracy. Pathfinder started right after WoTC announced 4th Edition, in 2007. It went Beta in 2008, before 4th Edition was released and players helped create the rules modifying 3.5 (which was just a slimmed down, version of the ****ty 3rd edition rules) to something more useable. Pathfinder's initial release was in 2009. It's "BETA" (people like throwing that word around, here, so....) was from 2007-2008. Paizo was the publisher of Dragon Magazine. They didn't get the license renewed. They were planning to release their own version of "D&D" ever since that.
Take 20 works the same way in Pathfinder as it does in 3.5, and only a few of the "new" rules are more efficient than 3.5.
"Take 20" was the most RIDICULOUS rule ever designed and it was only added to offset WoTC's atrocious mathematical mechanics. Oooh. I spend extra time to study, stare at, drool over that lock I need to pick that's too high a difficulty for me to actually accomplish, so I spend time, by "taking 20" to get a bonus.
Given that Pathfinder came out after 4th edition, it is impossible for this to be the case.
And once again, the rules were in "BETA" before 4E was even released. 3.5 was already an "established system." Pathfinder was just streamlining the rules and adding a few, not a complete rework of the entire system. 3.5 sales were plummeting at the time, 'cos people still didn't like WoTC's ruleset. If 3.5 and 4E are so popular and a major source of income, why is it WoTC keeps re-releasing 1st and 2nd Edition rulesets in pdf format?
Guess what? AD&D 2e had similar "problems", with a large number of sourcebooks and dozens of "kits" to pick from.
Actually, 2nd Edition had the Players Handbook, the Monstrous Compendium and the DMG. Yes it had the "complete book of" sets, considered optional, but they didn't have the audacity to print them as "Players Handbook 2 and 3", 'cos using titles such as that implies you HAVE to have them. They were options to chose and certainly not promoted as "must buys." If you want to talk about Campaign Settings, yes 2nd Edition had many of those, but once again they were optional, ie not necessary to purchase unless you wanted to play that setting.
And for the record, 2nd Edition didn't have problems with crappy things like "Feats" and "Powers", that just added fluff and "UBER HULK SMASH!!!!!!" attacks that do absolutely nothing to the game play, other than "EPIC" attacks. Lulz.... "Taunt." Fighters are fighters. They shouldn't HAVE to "taunt."
Your point is? Different people take different amounts of time to do things.
It shows that the rules they designed, which were mostly tables, *WORKED*. From a publishing perspective, if you have to make multiple "revisions" to an already published book, it's considered bad form and poor business. The changes from 1st to 2nd Edition were minimal, to be honest. The change from 2nd to 3.0 was enormous. The change from 3.0 to 3.5 wasn't as bad, but still a stepping stone. The change from 3.5 to 4 was outright ridiculous.
Point of fact, "Dungeons and Dragons" is now a "name brand." WoTC knows this and made it that way. When they first made 3.0, they made sure to keep it as close to the original to not scare away the thousands of players already devoted to the game, but enough to where it was THEIR design, unlike what TSR had published, but similar. With each "edition" since, WoTC has made it more and more alien, to where it's NOTHING like the original ruleset. Their claim that more people are playing 4e than any previous version is an outright lie. They're just basing that off of sales of their books and that does NOT represent the number of people actually playing the game.
The only thing that truly remains of the original mechanics is the attributes and those are in name only. Alignments, which were based off the 8 personality types of the human psyche were changed, 'cos Wizards felt the average RPGer was a complete idiot and couldn't understand, so they dumbed it down. Driders are NOT the chosen of the Drow race. They're failures of the Test and punished by Lloth. Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians and Paladins are meat shields that dish out the damage, on a regular interval. Thieves disarmed and set traps, climbed walls and did massive damage, from the shadows. Clerics healed the party, acted as a limited meat shield and used other magics when needed. Magic Users MEMORIZED their spells and had a limited selection, becoming pretty much useless, when they ran out of their daily allotment. It worked well, together. Everyone had their place.
Now, they don't.
Again, Pathfinder was released after and in response to 4e. If you're going to keep harping on a single point over and over, please do your research first and make sure the statement is accurate.
I was using Pathfinder and Paizo as an example, but since you feel the need to ask for a pwning:
""Because Dungeons & Dragons is the most popular role-playing game in the world,[5][6] many third party publishers of the 2000s produced products designed to be compatible with that game and its cousin, d20 Modern. Wizards of the Coast provided a separate license allowing publishers to use some of its trademarked terms and a distinctive logo to help consumers identify these products"
Taken from the wiki on the D20 system. While I loathe to use wikipedia as a source, it proves my point. THIRD PARTY PUBLISHERS were making more MONEY off WoTC's product, using the D&D trademarked "name brand" than Wizards was making by selling their "main" books, which is WHY they had to "release" the "Player's Handbook 2" and other HAMSTER like that, since their whole "we're making the D20 system open source, for EVERYONE to use" blew up in their faces. Understand how a license works. You pay a net fee for it ONCE and provided you don't violate the license (which requires a court of law, btw) you can do whatever you want with it, in the allotted time.
That's WHY they created 4th Edition and the "Game System License", 'cos now they can revoke any time they feel and if you notice, few, if ANY third party publishers pay for that license to use the D&D name brand.
Back to the OT, if you love Beholders, Dragons, Faerun, etc and you love Neverwinter, keep playing it, but seriously don't ever think it's going to be a complete adaptation of the PnP rules. It's a hybrid of D&D and an MMO and it uses the Dungeons and Dragons name brand.
If you think that the "average" player doesn't try and exploit Wizards of the HAMSTER's version of D&D, somehow you're sorely mistaken. In fact, I would go so far to say that the only people who *DON'T* exploit the rules are people that don't KNOW the rules.
I'd say that you may play in very different circles than I do.
Yes, you have the CO board at WotC, but those were very rarely actually intended to play in serious roleplaying games, being more likely to be used in joke, one-shot games. Not many mature roleplayers will go out of their way to damage a game by playing a deliberately damaging character: they understand that its not a game of one-upmanship or an excercise in mathematical optimisation or rules-lawyering.
There are games like that, and all power to the people in them if they are all having fun. But generally they will move on into more roleplaying-centric games.
Ever since 3rd Edition, D&D suffers from the same problem.
2nd Edition. Granted the same thing also happened with 3rd, 3.5, and 4th.
And yes, the developers have to try and stay close to the PnP rules, but those rules, the ones currently being used, are inherently BROKEN!
True. The conversion to the MMO and changes thereof were a chance to fix things, for example the abandonment of d20-based rolls to hit. However, there are still hangups and limitations because the devs want to change as little as possible.
For example, everyone who knows the rules knows that Roges get an extra d6 Sneak attack every 2 levels. If the devs need to tweak Rogue damage, it is harder to do than in say WoW or NWO, where they can just a miltiplyer on a few abilities.
Even if there is a definite balance issue, you will still get people demanding that Rogues should stick with getting d6 sneak attack every two levels because those are the PnP rules, regardless of whether that is best for the MMO version.
Seriously, though, do you REALLY think that in 2003, when WoTC released "3.5", they spent the next 5 years working on "4.0?" Of course they didn't, they milked that cash cow for YEARS, until they realized that Paizo and other companies were making MAD money, way more than they were, off of Pathfinder works.
Pathfinder was announced, produced and marketed after 4.0 was announced, with the intention of being a system that players who had heavily invested in 3.5 materials could continue to play after WotC ceased production of 3.5 materials.
To put it bluntly, Paizo was not making any money off Pathfinder works until after WotC was committed to 4th edition.
Sure some parts of it, they are, but it's all the same thing, "They turned everyone into wizards with all these 'powers.'"
A lot of people said that about the Tome of Battle.
With about the same level of accuracy.
I remember when playing D&D, combat with 10 orcs could be done in 10 minutes, allowing the game to proceed, instead of an hour. I remember when D&D required "pen, paper and imagination" and now it requires, "pen, paper, no imagination, a masters in mathematics, 40 rulebooks and (now) and internet connection."
The rulebooks are only needed for knowledge of the rules.
In the games that I play, its actually the 3.5 one that combat seems to take the longest rather than the 4th ed or Cyclopedia ones.
2nd Edition added non-proficiency skills, to broaden the game, mage colleges and clerical spheres. They did nothing to upset game balance, only enhanced it. 2nd edition didn't have "powers" and "feats" that weren't balanced properly and acted more like spells.
2nd Edition added non-proficiency skills, to broaden the game, mage colleges and clerical spheres. They did nothing to upset game balance, only enhanced it. 2nd edition didn't have "powers" and "feats" that weren't balanced properly and acted more like spells.
Sorry. I thought you were referring to the prevalence of splatbooks encouraging mix-and-min/max characters like the Rifts example. Thus I was mentioning the "Complete book of ", kits, and similar 2nd ed productions with haphazard balancing and thus similar results.
If you were only talking about the existence of feats and powers and how those were inherently more unbalanced than abilities granted by "kits" for example, I think I missed a paragraph. Could you clarify please?
Theres been hundreds of posts just like this. Im sorry but its not in the cards. Putting a DnD label all over the box is obvious BS. This game has one goal. To get a slice of the wildly popular warcraft gen mmo world. Its intentionally designed to accomplish that goal. Theres many gamers with your exact thoughts and conclusions. Its what it is. This game is not for the DnD community as was advertised. The only question is... will WOTC now come out with an actual DnD game? As they have there action mmo. The backbone of this game simply cannot accomplish what you expect. I feel absolutely entitled to a recent, upgraded, quality DnD video game after the thousands of dollars ive given to TSR/WOTC over the last 2 decades.
As far as 4e, its a very very dumbed down rules version of the game so as to get that critical foothold in the mmo world. Whats putrid is that cyptic has managed to dumb down even further the already dumbed down 4e to appease the mmo masses. Its a bummer man. DnD fans have not and never will be the targeted demographic for this game.
The only possible fix I could see it to take the "action" and the "mmo" out of this actionMMO. Replace action with DnD and replace MMO with RPG. when...
Action MMO is completely changed to DnD RPG. Then we have something. Of course, that's not gonna happen. I just hope WOTC comes out with an altogether different game that specifically targets DnD tradionalists.
0
senrathmenruMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 24Arc User
You might want to do your OWN "research", Sir on accuracy. Pathfinder started right after WoTC announced 4th Edition, in 2007. It went Beta in 2008, before 4th Edition was released and players helped create the rules modifying 3.5 (which was just a slimmed down, version of the ****ty 3rd edition rules) to something more useable. Pathfinder's initial release was in 2009. It's "BETA" (people like throwing that word around, here, so....) was from 2007-2008. Paizo was the publisher of Dragon Magazine. They didn't get the license renewed. They were planning to release their own version of "D&D" ever since that.
The beta for 4e was released before the beta for Pathfinder, and the beta version of Pathfinder was almost identical to 3.5e.
"Take 20" was the most RIDICULOUS rule ever designed and it was only added to offset WoTC's atrocious mathematical mechanics. Oooh. I spend extra time to study, stare at, drool over that lock I need to pick that's too high a difficulty for me to actually accomplish, so I spend time, by "taking 20" to get a bonus.
Uh, taking 20 doesn't give you a bonus of any kind. It means you roll a 20 after rolling a 1, then a 2, then a 3, then a 4, etc, etc. You can't use it if there's a penalty for failure (such as picking a lock, or bribing someone) and it doesn't let you do something your skill ranks don't allow.
And once again, the rules were in "BETA" before 4E was even released. 3.5 was already an "established system." Pathfinder was just streamlining the rules and adding a few, not a complete rework of the entire system. 3.5 sales were plummeting at the time, 'cos people still didn't like WoTC's ruleset. If 3.5 and 4E are so popular and a major source of income, why is it WoTC keeps re-releasing 1st and 2nd Edition rulesets in pdf format?
Nostalgia is the only reason that the old rules sell anything. They're **** systems that require major amounts of work on the GM's part to make work for much beyond "I walk up to him and hit him". And to ask the same thing of you, if 4e is such a failure, why are they still producing material for it as of June 14th?
Actually, 2nd Edition had the Players Handbook, the Monstrous Compendium and the DMG. Yes it had the "complete book of" sets, considered optional, but they didn't have the audacity to print them as "Players Handbook 2 and 3", 'cos using titles such as that implies you HAVE to have them. They were options to chose and certainly not promoted as "must buys." If you want to talk about Campaign Settings, yes 2nd Edition had many of those, but once again they were optional, ie not necessary to purchase unless you wanted to play that setting.
See, to me, "Complete Book of Fighters" gives more of an impression that you "need" this book to play a fighter than Players Handbook 2 gives me the impression that you need it.
And for the record, 2nd Edition didn't have problems with crappy things like "Feats" and "Powers", that just added fluff and "UBER HULK SMASH!!!!!!" attacks that do absolutely nothing to the game play, other than "EPIC" attacks. Lulz.... "Taunt." Fighters are fighters. They shouldn't HAVE to "taunt."
First, with a small few exceptions feats are neither "just added fluff" or "UBER HULK SMASH!!!!!!!". Looking back to 2e, I'd say more kits fall under that description than any of the feats in 3.5e or 4e.
Also, why shouldn't fighters have to taunt? If you want them to protect your squishier party members, why is having a mechanic to do this bad? Without it, what's to stop a DM from saying (quite rightfully) that the bad guys ignore the guy with the stick in front of them to attack the mage?
It shows that the rules they designed, which were mostly tables, *WORKED*. From a publishing perspective, if you have to make multiple "revisions" to an already published book, it's considered bad form and poor business. The changes from 1st to 2nd Edition were minimal, to be honest. The change from 2nd to 3.0 was enormous. The change from 3.0 to 3.5 wasn't as bad, but still a stepping stone. The change from 3.5 to 4 was outright ridiculous.
First off, as someone who only recently stopped playing both AD&D and AD&D 2e on a regular basis, saying those rules "worked" is a load of dung. Many rules are ambiguous in their wording while others sound like a good idea but fall apart in practice.
Oh, and I'm sure that revisions from a publishing perspective is bad form and poor business, which is why...pretty much every game company makes multiple revisions to already published books.
Point of fact, "Dungeons and Dragons" is now a "name brand." WoTC knows this and made it that way. When they first made 3.0, they made sure to keep it as close to the original to not scare away the thousands of players already devoted to the game, but enough to where it was THEIR design, unlike what TSR had published, but similar. With each "edition" since, WoTC has made it more and more alien, to where it's NOTHING like the original ruleset. Their claim that more people are playing 4e than any previous version is an outright lie. They're just basing that off of sales of their books and that does NOT represent the number of people actually playing the game.
I'd say that book sales are a pretty **** good representation of how many people are playing, given that I personally know over a dozen people who play 4e regularly without having ever bought a single book.
The only thing that truly remains of the original mechanics is the attributes and those are in name only. Alignments, which were based off the 8 personality types of the human psyche were changed, 'cos Wizards felt the average RPGer was a complete idiot and couldn't understand, so they dumbed it down. Driders are NOT the chosen of the Drow race. They're failures of the Test and punished by Lloth. Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians and Paladins are meat shields that dish out the damage, on a regular interval. Thieves disarmed and set traps, climbed walls and did massive damage, from the shadows. Clerics healed the party, acted as a limited meat shield and used other magics when needed. Magic Users MEMORIZED their spells and had a limited selection, becoming pretty much useless, when they ran out of their daily allotment. It worked well, together. Everyone had their place.
Now, they don't.
"Back in my day, we did things differently and we were better off for it!"
That is what your argument is, and it's not a strong one. Also, for Clerics, Wizards rightly recognized that for most people it was NOT fun to play the party's magic bandaid. Sure, some people liked it, but to this day every group I'm in has to beg and plead to get someone to play a healer, rather than a "more fun class."
I was using Pathfinder and Paizo as an example, but since you feel the need to ask for a pwning:
""Because Dungeons & Dragons is the most popular role-playing game in the world,[5][6] many third party publishers of the 2000s produced products designed to be compatible with that game and its cousin, d20 Modern. Wizards of the Coast provided a separate license allowing publishers to use some of its trademarked terms and a distinctive logo to help consumers identify these products"
Taken from the wiki on the D20 system. While I loathe to use wikipedia as a source, it proves my point. THIRD PARTY PUBLISHERS were making more MONEY off WoTC's product, using the D&D trademarked "name brand" than Wizards was making by selling their "main" books, which is WHY they had to "release" the "Player's Handbook 2" and other HAMSTER like that, since their whole "we're making the D20 system open source, for EVERYONE to use" blew up in their faces. Understand how a license works. You pay a net fee for it ONCE and provided you don't violate the license (which requires a court of law, btw) you can do whatever you want with it, in the allotted time.
That's WHY they created 4th Edition and the "Game System License", 'cos now they can revoke any time they feel and if you notice, few, if ANY third party publishers pay for that license to use the D&D name brand.
Oh, I'm so hurt by this "epic pwning." Except that it still doesn't prove your earlier point right. Yes, Third Party publishers cutting into WotC's sales was the reason behind 4e's new license. But you explicitly stated that Pathfinder was to blame (not Paizo, but explicitly Pathfinder), when it wasn't even announced before 4e was committed to.
Back to the OT, if you love Beholders, Dragons, Faerun, etc and you love Neverwinter, keep playing it, but seriously don't ever think it's going to be a complete adaptation of the PnP rules. It's a hybrid of D&D and an MMO and it uses the Dungeons and Dragons name brand.
Well, duh. Anyone who thinks that any MMO is going to be a complete adaptation of any of the editions of D&D is, quite frankly, not thinking straight.
2nd Edition added non-proficiency skills, to broaden the game, mage colleges and clerical spheres. They did nothing to upset game balance, only enhanced it. 2nd edition didn't have "powers" and "feats" that weren't balanced properly and acted more like spells.
That's the problem, its an action mmo. It simply cant be the very complex DnD we love. They made an action mmo. lol. That will never satisfy the DnD itch. But it will accomplish there original goal of getting into the wow gen. Even at the expense of loyal, longterm, DnD tradionalists.
0
senrathmenruMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 24Arc User
That's the problem, its an action mmo. It simply cant be the very complex DnD we love. They made an action mmo. lol. That will never satisfy the DnD itch. But it will accomplish there original goal of getting into the wow gen. Even at the expense of loyal, longterm, DnD tradionalists.
Did you get this pissed off at DDO? Because that game wasn't much more like traditional D&D than this one is.
Did you get this pissed off at DDO? Because that game wasn't much more like traditional D&D than this one is.
I played DDO briefly, it was, meh, ok. but not great. I thought NWN2 was outstanding however. No I didn't because I could just play NWN2 instead. This game, a lot of folks were counting on it being the new upgraded NWN2/DDO. And it isn't. Now those two games being old and outdated now, we (the DnD community) need a new game. Not an action based game. An actual RPG, with strict DnD rules and all the thousands of options that go with it.
0
senrathmenruMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 24Arc User
I played DDO briefly, it was, meh, ok. but not great. I thought NWN2 was outstanding however. No I didn't because I could just play NWN2 instead. This game, a lot of folks were counting on it being the new upgraded NWN2/DDO. And it isn't. Now those two games being old and outdated now, we (the DnD community) need a new game. Not an action based game. An actual RPG, with strict DnD rules and all the thousands of options that go with it.
Well, at least you're consistent :P
But yeah, I guess I just don't have any sympathy towards people who thought that any of the D&D editions would translate well into an MMO given current tech.
The first D&D game I purchased was a folder called Greyhawk Adventures by Gary Gygax. That was back around 1983 (it was already old and dog-eared by then), and since then I've been an avid fan of almost everything D&D. Neverwinter isn't a bad game, it's just that when you call something Dungeons and Dragons, you expect a certain kind of flair. Neverwinter lacks that flair. In fact, the last game (PC-wise) that had it was the original Neverwinter Nights.
That being said, I'm a fan of MMO's, and Neverwinter is a very well polished game in that respect. The end-game content is lacking atm, but I'm sure an expansion or 2 will sort that out.
Bottom line is this format will never satisfy the DnD itch. RP needs to be priority (real time DMs). Options next, players need to build whatever they want to, determining good builds instead a predetermined "fill out" the skill tree stuff. Then rules, AC isn't even hit or miss in this game. lol. All just so backwards and silly imo.
But yeah, I guess I just don't have any sympathy towards people who thought that any of the D&D editions would translate well into an MMO given current tech.
Then why make an MMO with DnD all over the box? Unless its all about accessing the wildly popular wow gen. I contest that this entire campaign from the printing of the 4e source books all the way to rolling out this mmo is the goal of WOTC. Which means DnD fans are simply not being considered. I also contest that with todays current tech much, not all, of DnD rules CAN translate, though it may not be as attractive to the masses....
Its probably best that you just regard D&D computer games as D&D-inspired, in the same way that you would regard the novels, rather than actual D&D. As you say, you can't have a true RP experience without an real live DM, and if that is your definition of D&D, no computer game is going to fit into your personal category.
In the end, you either enjoy playing this game or you don't. Whether or not you regard it as a D&D game shouldn't have any bearing on that enjoyment.
0
senrathmenruMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 24Arc User
Then why make an MMO with DnD all over the box? Unless its all about accessing the wildly popular wow gen. I contest that this entire campaign from the printing of the 4e source books all the way to rolling out this mmo is the goal of WOTC. Which means DnD fans are simply not being considered. I also contest that with todays current tech much, not all, of DnD rules CAN translate, though it may not be as attractive to the masses....
Can translate does not equate to should translate. As for why it's D&D all over the box? It uses a lot of stuff from D&D, even if it doesn't use many of the mechanics.
Also, they already had an MMO with 3.5, so making an entirely new system and supporting it for several years to release an MMO just as a new edition is being tested? Doesn't make sense.
Can translate does not equate to should translate. As for why it's D&D all over the box? It uses a lot of stuff from D&D, even if it doesn't use many of the mechanics.
Also, they already had an MMO with 3.5, so making an entirely new system and supporting it for several years to release an MMO just as a new edition is being tested? Doesn't make sense.
Im guessing the 4e rules will be used for there MMOs. And a better more traditional 5.0 will release in the future that's more designed for the DnD community. Hopefully this will include more DnD specific video games.
Did you get this pissed off at DDO? Because that game wasn't much more like traditional D&D than this one is.
You ****ting me? DDO is TONS better than NW in giving the D&D vibe/feel/whatever. While it has lately been deviating a lot more with the new enhancement system which makes it feel more like a traditional MMO but it still has a lot of D&D aspects that Cryptic shat on. Feat, traps, multi-classing, weapons, itemization, leveling, immersive quests.... all that which Cryptic completely shat on and went to an arcade typical themepark MMO bastardization of D&D. The ONLY think the NW has a one up on DDO is the Foundry which even that pales in comparison to the capabilities of the NWN series DM toolsets.
While DDO isn't all sunshine and roses when it comes to providing a D&D experience it is hella lot better the NW. NW provides as much D&D experiance as the console games like Balder's Gate: Dark Alliance or Demon Stone do.
0
senrathmenruMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 24Arc User
You ****ting me? DDO is TONS better than NW in giving the D&D vibe/feel/whatever. While it has lately been deviating a lot more with the new enhancement system which makes it feel more like a traditional MMO but it still has a lot of D&D aspects that Cryptic shat on. Feat, traps, multi-classing, weapons, itemization, leveling, immersive quests.... all that which Cryptic completely shat on and went to an arcade typical themepark MMO bastardization of D&D. The ONLY think the NW has a one up on DDO is the Foundry which even that pales in comparison to the capabilities of the NWN series DM toolsets.
While DDO isn't all sunshine and roses when it comes to providing a D&D experience it is hella lot better the NW. NW provides as much D&D experiance as the console games like Balder's Gate: Dark Alliance or Demon Stone do.
Funny thing about opinions is that they don't have to be shared. I got more of a "real" D&D vibe from NW than from DDO. Sure, DDO had more choices, but I didn't really care about any of them.
You ****ting me? DDO is TONS better than NW in giving the D&D vibe/feel/whatever. While it has lately been deviating a lot more with the new enhancement system which makes it feel more like a traditional MMO but it still has a lot of D&D aspects that Cryptic shat on. Feat, traps, multi-classing, weapons, itemization, leveling, immersive quests.... all that which Cryptic completely shat on and went to an arcade typical themepark MMO bastardization of D&D. The ONLY think the NW has a one up on DDO is the Foundry which even that pales in comparison to the capabilities of the NWN series DM toolsets.
While DDO isn't all sunshine and roses when it comes to providing a D&D experience it is hella lot better the NW. NW provides as much D&D experiance as the console games like Balder's Gate: Dark Alliance or Demon Stone do.
No question about it. The DnD feel exists in DDO, though I myself prefer NWN2,BG, ect. to DDO.
Funny thing about opinions is that they don't have to be shared. I got more of a "real" D&D vibe from NW than from DDO. Sure, DDO had more choices, but I didn't really care about any of them.
Your the very first person ive heard that from since go on this game. Kool, I cant understand that but good to here all the same.
There are a few D&D experiences here, but DDO is a far more authentic D&D experience for me. This is an action MMO, light on the RP but the foundry adds a decent feel for me. Now, the PVP ruins the D&D experience completely for... on account that it sucks and has no place in a game with the D&D name.
0
senrathmenruMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 24Arc User
edited June 2013
Okay, I do have to admit that I didn't play as much DDO as you all probably did, because I got sick and tired of being told "Hey, you need to buy this area to get into it."
0
xhritMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
There are a few D&D experiences here, but DDO is a far more authentic D&D experience for me. This is an action MMO, light on the RP but the foundry adds a decent feel for me. Now, the PVP ruins the D&D experience completely for... on account that it sucks and has no place in a game with the D&D name.
Neverwinter Nights(1991), as well as the remake(2002), and the sequel(2006), all had pvp.
D&D Miniatures was a tabletop DCI sanctioned tournament pvp game that ran from 2003 until 2011.
D&D itself was based on a tabletop PvP game, called chainmail, which was written in 1974.
PvP has been there since the start, and I seriously question your judgement if you think it has no place in a game with the D&D name.
Okay, I do have to admit that I didn't play as much DDO as you all probably did, because I got sick and tired of being told "Hey, you need to buy this area to get into it."
You are able to buy the content with currency earned in game... my issue with it was that after I went to the free to play model (I was a subscriber and purchased it on release) I had to pay for content I should have had. The game was far better than any MMO I played, but the subscription were not there for a variety of reasons. Setting, that it was D&D, it wasn't a WoW clone, and I am sure many others. I would actually be playing it now had a few things in life been a bit different.
0
senrathmenruMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 24Arc User
You are able to buy the content with currency earned in game... my issue with it was that after I went to the free to play model (I was a subscriber and purchased it on release) I had to pay for content I should have had. The game was far better than any MMO I played, but the subscription were not there for a variety of reasons. Setting, that it was D&D, it wasn't a WoW clone, and I am sure many others. I would actually be playing it now had a few things in life been a bit different.
Eh, I kept running into areas I couldn't access without purchasing them long before I'd earned up enough currency to purchase even one of them.
Funny thing about opinions is that they don't have to be shared. I got more of a "real" D&D vibe from NW than from DDO. Sure, DDO had more choices, but I didn't really care about any of them.
It also had classes that felt like they were adapted from a pen and paper sourcebook instead of someone papering over the cryptic engine with D&D 4e terms and then throwing in random bits of Faerun lore for dressing.
0
senrathmenruMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 24Arc User
It also had classes that felt like they were adapted from a pen and paper sourcebook instead of someone papering over the cryptic engine with D&D 4e terms and then throwing in random bits of Faerun lore for dressing.
I'm currently in a weekly 4e game and the GWF reminds me a lot of our Fighter, the Rogue our Thief (it's an Essentials class that's based on the Rogue), and the Cleric our Cleric. So, to me it does indeed feel like they were adapted from the 4e sourcebooks.
Comments
You might want to do your OWN "research", Sir on accuracy. Pathfinder started right after WoTC announced 4th Edition, in 2007. It went Beta in 2008, before 4th Edition was released and players helped create the rules modifying 3.5 (which was just a slimmed down, version of the ****ty 3rd edition rules) to something more useable. Pathfinder's initial release was in 2009. It's "BETA" (people like throwing that word around, here, so....) was from 2007-2008. Paizo was the publisher of Dragon Magazine. They didn't get the license renewed. They were planning to release their own version of "D&D" ever since that.
"Take 20" was the most RIDICULOUS rule ever designed and it was only added to offset WoTC's atrocious mathematical mechanics. Oooh. I spend extra time to study, stare at, drool over that lock I need to pick that's too high a difficulty for me to actually accomplish, so I spend time, by "taking 20" to get a bonus.
And once again, the rules were in "BETA" before 4E was even released. 3.5 was already an "established system." Pathfinder was just streamlining the rules and adding a few, not a complete rework of the entire system. 3.5 sales were plummeting at the time, 'cos people still didn't like WoTC's ruleset. If 3.5 and 4E are so popular and a major source of income, why is it WoTC keeps re-releasing 1st and 2nd Edition rulesets in pdf format?
Actually, 2nd Edition had the Players Handbook, the Monstrous Compendium and the DMG. Yes it had the "complete book of" sets, considered optional, but they didn't have the audacity to print them as "Players Handbook 2 and 3", 'cos using titles such as that implies you HAVE to have them. They were options to chose and certainly not promoted as "must buys." If you want to talk about Campaign Settings, yes 2nd Edition had many of those, but once again they were optional, ie not necessary to purchase unless you wanted to play that setting.
And for the record, 2nd Edition didn't have problems with crappy things like "Feats" and "Powers", that just added fluff and "UBER HULK SMASH!!!!!!" attacks that do absolutely nothing to the game play, other than "EPIC" attacks. Lulz.... "Taunt." Fighters are fighters. They shouldn't HAVE to "taunt."
It shows that the rules they designed, which were mostly tables, *WORKED*. From a publishing perspective, if you have to make multiple "revisions" to an already published book, it's considered bad form and poor business. The changes from 1st to 2nd Edition were minimal, to be honest. The change from 2nd to 3.0 was enormous. The change from 3.0 to 3.5 wasn't as bad, but still a stepping stone. The change from 3.5 to 4 was outright ridiculous.
Point of fact, "Dungeons and Dragons" is now a "name brand." WoTC knows this and made it that way. When they first made 3.0, they made sure to keep it as close to the original to not scare away the thousands of players already devoted to the game, but enough to where it was THEIR design, unlike what TSR had published, but similar. With each "edition" since, WoTC has made it more and more alien, to where it's NOTHING like the original ruleset. Their claim that more people are playing 4e than any previous version is an outright lie. They're just basing that off of sales of their books and that does NOT represent the number of people actually playing the game.
The only thing that truly remains of the original mechanics is the attributes and those are in name only. Alignments, which were based off the 8 personality types of the human psyche were changed, 'cos Wizards felt the average RPGer was a complete idiot and couldn't understand, so they dumbed it down. Driders are NOT the chosen of the Drow race. They're failures of the Test and punished by Lloth. Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians and Paladins are meat shields that dish out the damage, on a regular interval. Thieves disarmed and set traps, climbed walls and did massive damage, from the shadows. Clerics healed the party, acted as a limited meat shield and used other magics when needed. Magic Users MEMORIZED their spells and had a limited selection, becoming pretty much useless, when they ran out of their daily allotment. It worked well, together. Everyone had their place.
Now, they don't.
I was using Pathfinder and Paizo as an example, but since you feel the need to ask for a pwning:
""Because Dungeons & Dragons is the most popular role-playing game in the world,[5][6] many third party publishers of the 2000s produced products designed to be compatible with that game and its cousin, d20 Modern. Wizards of the Coast provided a separate license allowing publishers to use some of its trademarked terms and a distinctive logo to help consumers identify these products"
Taken from the wiki on the D20 system. While I loathe to use wikipedia as a source, it proves my point. THIRD PARTY PUBLISHERS were making more MONEY off WoTC's product, using the D&D trademarked "name brand" than Wizards was making by selling their "main" books, which is WHY they had to "release" the "Player's Handbook 2" and other HAMSTER like that, since their whole "we're making the D20 system open source, for EVERYONE to use" blew up in their faces. Understand how a license works. You pay a net fee for it ONCE and provided you don't violate the license (which requires a court of law, btw) you can do whatever you want with it, in the allotted time.
That's WHY they created 4th Edition and the "Game System License", 'cos now they can revoke any time they feel and if you notice, few, if ANY third party publishers pay for that license to use the D&D name brand.
Back to the OT, if you love Beholders, Dragons, Faerun, etc and you love Neverwinter, keep playing it, but seriously don't ever think it's going to be a complete adaptation of the PnP rules. It's a hybrid of D&D and an MMO and it uses the Dungeons and Dragons name brand.
Yes, you have the CO board at WotC, but those were very rarely actually intended to play in serious roleplaying games, being more likely to be used in joke, one-shot games. Not many mature roleplayers will go out of their way to damage a game by playing a deliberately damaging character: they understand that its not a game of one-upmanship or an excercise in mathematical optimisation or rules-lawyering.
There are games like that, and all power to the people in them if they are all having fun. But generally they will move on into more roleplaying-centric games.
2nd Edition. Granted the same thing also happened with 3rd, 3.5, and 4th.
True. The conversion to the MMO and changes thereof were a chance to fix things, for example the abandonment of d20-based rolls to hit. However, there are still hangups and limitations because the devs want to change as little as possible.
For example, everyone who knows the rules knows that Roges get an extra d6 Sneak attack every 2 levels. If the devs need to tweak Rogue damage, it is harder to do than in say WoW or NWO, where they can just a miltiplyer on a few abilities.
Even if there is a definite balance issue, you will still get people demanding that Rogues should stick with getting d6 sneak attack every two levels because those are the PnP rules, regardless of whether that is best for the MMO version.
Pathfinder was announced, produced and marketed after 4.0 was announced, with the intention of being a system that players who had heavily invested in 3.5 materials could continue to play after WotC ceased production of 3.5 materials.
To put it bluntly, Paizo was not making any money off Pathfinder works until after WotC was committed to 4th edition.
A lot of people said that about the Tome of Battle.
With about the same level of accuracy.
The rulebooks are only needed for knowledge of the rules.
In the games that I play, its actually the 3.5 one that combat seems to take the longest rather than the 4th ed or Cyclopedia ones.
3rd Edition.
2nd Edition added non-proficiency skills, to broaden the game, mage colleges and clerical spheres. They did nothing to upset game balance, only enhanced it. 2nd edition didn't have "powers" and "feats" that weren't balanced properly and acted more like spells.
If you were only talking about the existence of feats and powers and how those were inherently more unbalanced than abilities granted by "kits" for example, I think I missed a paragraph. Could you clarify please?
As far as 4e, its a very very dumbed down rules version of the game so as to get that critical foothold in the mmo world. Whats putrid is that cyptic has managed to dumb down even further the already dumbed down 4e to appease the mmo masses. Its a bummer man. DnD fans have not and never will be the targeted demographic for this game.
Action MMO is completely changed to DnD RPG. Then we have something. Of course, that's not gonna happen. I just hope WOTC comes out with an altogether different game that specifically targets DnD tradionalists.
Uh, taking 20 doesn't give you a bonus of any kind. It means you roll a 20 after rolling a 1, then a 2, then a 3, then a 4, etc, etc. You can't use it if there's a penalty for failure (such as picking a lock, or bribing someone) and it doesn't let you do something your skill ranks don't allow.
Nostalgia is the only reason that the old rules sell anything. They're **** systems that require major amounts of work on the GM's part to make work for much beyond "I walk up to him and hit him". And to ask the same thing of you, if 4e is such a failure, why are they still producing material for it as of June 14th?
See, to me, "Complete Book of Fighters" gives more of an impression that you "need" this book to play a fighter than Players Handbook 2 gives me the impression that you need it.
First, with a small few exceptions feats are neither "just added fluff" or "UBER HULK SMASH!!!!!!!". Looking back to 2e, I'd say more kits fall under that description than any of the feats in 3.5e or 4e.
Also, why shouldn't fighters have to taunt? If you want them to protect your squishier party members, why is having a mechanic to do this bad? Without it, what's to stop a DM from saying (quite rightfully) that the bad guys ignore the guy with the stick in front of them to attack the mage?
First off, as someone who only recently stopped playing both AD&D and AD&D 2e on a regular basis, saying those rules "worked" is a load of dung. Many rules are ambiguous in their wording while others sound like a good idea but fall apart in practice.
Oh, and I'm sure that revisions from a publishing perspective is bad form and poor business, which is why...pretty much every game company makes multiple revisions to already published books.
I'd say that book sales are a pretty **** good representation of how many people are playing, given that I personally know over a dozen people who play 4e regularly without having ever bought a single book.
"Back in my day, we did things differently and we were better off for it!"
That is what your argument is, and it's not a strong one. Also, for Clerics, Wizards rightly recognized that for most people it was NOT fun to play the party's magic bandaid. Sure, some people liked it, but to this day every group I'm in has to beg and plead to get someone to play a healer, rather than a "more fun class."
Oh, I'm so hurt by this "epic pwning." Except that it still doesn't prove your earlier point right. Yes, Third Party publishers cutting into WotC's sales was the reason behind 4e's new license. But you explicitly stated that Pathfinder was to blame (not Paizo, but explicitly Pathfinder), when it wasn't even announced before 4e was committed to.
Well, duh. Anyone who thinks that any MMO is going to be a complete adaptation of any of the editions of D&D is, quite frankly, not thinking straight.
No, they had kits instead.
Did you get this pissed off at DDO? Because that game wasn't much more like traditional D&D than this one is.
I played DDO briefly, it was, meh, ok. but not great. I thought NWN2 was outstanding however. No I didn't because I could just play NWN2 instead. This game, a lot of folks were counting on it being the new upgraded NWN2/DDO. And it isn't. Now those two games being old and outdated now, we (the DnD community) need a new game. Not an action based game. An actual RPG, with strict DnD rules and all the thousands of options that go with it.
But yeah, I guess I just don't have any sympathy towards people who thought that any of the D&D editions would translate well into an MMO given current tech.
That being said, I'm a fan of MMO's, and Neverwinter is a very well polished game in that respect. The end-game content is lacking atm, but I'm sure an expansion or 2 will sort that out.
Then why make an MMO with DnD all over the box? Unless its all about accessing the wildly popular wow gen. I contest that this entire campaign from the printing of the 4e source books all the way to rolling out this mmo is the goal of WOTC. Which means DnD fans are simply not being considered. I also contest that with todays current tech much, not all, of DnD rules CAN translate, though it may not be as attractive to the masses....
In the end, you either enjoy playing this game or you don't. Whether or not you regard it as a D&D game shouldn't have any bearing on that enjoyment.
Can translate does not equate to should translate. As for why it's D&D all over the box? It uses a lot of stuff from D&D, even if it doesn't use many of the mechanics.
Also, they already had an MMO with 3.5, so making an entirely new system and supporting it for several years to release an MMO just as a new edition is being tested? Doesn't make sense.
Im guessing the 4e rules will be used for there MMOs. And a better more traditional 5.0 will release in the future that's more designed for the DnD community. Hopefully this will include more DnD specific video games.
You ****ting me? DDO is TONS better than NW in giving the D&D vibe/feel/whatever. While it has lately been deviating a lot more with the new enhancement system which makes it feel more like a traditional MMO but it still has a lot of D&D aspects that Cryptic shat on. Feat, traps, multi-classing, weapons, itemization, leveling, immersive quests.... all that which Cryptic completely shat on and went to an arcade typical themepark MMO bastardization of D&D. The ONLY think the NW has a one up on DDO is the Foundry which even that pales in comparison to the capabilities of the NWN series DM toolsets.
While DDO isn't all sunshine and roses when it comes to providing a D&D experience it is hella lot better the NW. NW provides as much D&D experiance as the console games like Balder's Gate: Dark Alliance or Demon Stone do.
Funny thing about opinions is that they don't have to be shared. I got more of a "real" D&D vibe from NW than from DDO. Sure, DDO had more choices, but I didn't really care about any of them.
No question about it. The DnD feel exists in DDO, though I myself prefer NWN2,BG, ect. to DDO.
Your the very first person ive heard that from since go on this game. Kool, I cant understand that but good to here all the same.
Neverwinter Nights(1991), as well as the remake(2002), and the sequel(2006), all had pvp.
D&D Miniatures was a tabletop DCI sanctioned tournament pvp game that ran from 2003 until 2011.
D&D itself was based on a tabletop PvP game, called chainmail, which was written in 1974.
PvP has been there since the start, and I seriously question your judgement if you think it has no place in a game with the D&D name.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
It also had classes that felt like they were adapted from a pen and paper sourcebook instead of someone papering over the cryptic engine with D&D 4e terms and then throwing in random bits of Faerun lore for dressing.
I'm currently in a weekly 4e game and the GWF reminds me a lot of our Fighter, the Rogue our Thief (it's an Essentials class that's based on the Rogue), and the Cleric our Cleric. So, to me it does indeed feel like they were adapted from the 4e sourcebooks.