Obsidian Entertainment - D&D Has Lost Its Way

I loved 3:rd edition of D&D and the 3.5 edition. 4:th edition on the other hand was crap. One thing I did not like was how they dumbed down the aligments in the 4:th edition. I wasn't even going to try 4:th edition just because of that. Those were an iconic feature of D&D.

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
I agree with him there. I thought D&D reached its peak in 2nd edition, then they started dumbing it down in subsequent editions, and did things like taking away the rigid class structure. And they also made other silly changes earlier, like changing the "Thief" class to the politically more correct "Rogue", and taking out the "Assassin" class altogether, just to please some moms and dads when D&D started getting attention in the news back then. Can't have junior playing a fantasy game where they can be a "thief" or an "assassin"! Think of the children! (sarcasm)

A man after my own heart! We'll always have Knights of the Chalice.

3rd ed was better than 2nd ed for sure, the problem with 3rd ed came later, basically with the prestige class system. Every expansion came with more and more prestige classes that pretty much could break the game when combined. Munchkins took 1 level from Awesome Fighter PC from book A, 2 levels of Magna Skirmisher from book C, 2 levels of Mega Swashbuckler from book D, etc. etc. and then he would leave other members in the group feeling like 3rd wheels when he could attack 7 times, doing criticals on 10 out of 20 rolls, regenerating health and poisoning, while the normal warrior with no prestige classes would do 2 attacks for 1-10 damage (I'm exagerating a bit for color). To me that was the main issue with 3rd ed, it was too 'munchkin friendly', so it relied on the DM too much on putting the necessary restrictions, and most didn't bother.

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
I don't know the first thing about Pathfinder, but if someone made a D&D CRPG again, I'd strongly recommend:

- leave out crafting (incl. brewing, wands etc.)

- dial down on the number of spells (very much so) and classes or class abilities

- make it turn based

- allow for a lot of tactical options (including stance, readying, cover etc.)

basically, don't make it NWN3.

I think crafting probably works well in a PnP or MMORPG setting where you are using the same character over and over and ultimately have exposure to a lot of different people. You can sort of make yourself unique.

In a stand alone game though? I don't mind it where its something like how to get a specific weapon in the game (like the Flail of Ages or the awesome sword in Ultima VII), I also enjoyed the way reagents were used in the Ultimas, because it was part of the strategy. However, having it there just so you can customize your character's weapons/armor or figure out how to make a more powerful potion seems like a huge waste of developer resources to me.

Unpopular opinion to follow:

Like 1st. Loved 2nd. HATED all 3. Liked 4th (except the carry-over from 3rd.) Like what I've seen of 5th, haven't played it.

Meh on Pathfinder. Played quite a bit of it for a year, and it took most of the crap of 3.5, tossed in a few 4 fixes, and then just made it more dense.

As I said, unpopular opinion. Flame away.

2E (and even 1E) also had builds that when planned out where MUCH better than anything else. Ranger/mage combos especially stand out IIRC. Druids were way overpowered too from when we played.

Any game that adds supplements will eventually break under the weight of them. You have to put something in the supplement that makes people want to buy it and for RPGs like D&D that is alternate classes, new spells, and new feats. The new stuff often gets no playtesting before release and little oversight from the original game designers and seems to alternate between utter uselessness and OH MY GOD AWESOME POWER.

We still play D&D 3.5 but we basically have eliminated nearly all non-core stuff.

my mind never advanced past 2nd edition, and my entire life will never get more complicated. THAC0 rules.

The seventies and early eighties were when I played AD&D, and it was glorious. When something is right and perfect, you don't mess with the formula. The rules were robust and everyone appreciated the structure without being locked into undesired options, or play a game written for children. This was an unabashed adult game, and I loved that.

I loved THAC0! I assume newer versions removed it for some reason. Streamlining, perhaps. But I always loves little wrinkles in the systems that makes things more interesting. Playing with THAC0 in the Baldur's Gate games was great fun for me.

I don't like THAC0, because you can't distinguish between a miss and a hit that was deflected by the armor.

Originally Posted by wolfing
Munchkins took 1 level from Awesome Fighter PC from book A, 2 levels of Magna Skirmisher from book C, 2 levels of Mega Swashbuckler from book D, etc. etc. and then he would leave other members in the group feeling like 3rd wheels when he could attack 7 times, doing criticals on 10 out of 20 rolls, regenerating health and poisoning.

Well…AWESOME!

From what I've read, the Pathfinder game that they are working on is actually a card game for the tablets, based on the existing Pathfinder card game. While I'm personally very interested in it, I suspect that a lot of the people on these forums will not be interested in it.

Regarding D&D, I think 3e and 4e both have strength and weaknesses. I have serious issues as well as things I really like about both. 5e tries really hard to be a compromise between the two editions. It's too early for me to judge it, but I can say that it's reception in the gaming community has been pretty good, especially compared to 3e and 4e which both generated a ton of hate when they first came out.

They also have a planned CRPG based on the Pathfinder IP. Read the other link I posted in the news-bit for that information. It's basically in the early planning stages.

"We've had a ton of ideas," Urquhart said. "Obviously we could do something like Pillars of Eternity. Obviously we could do something like Neverwinter Nights 2. We're going through all of those things to figure out what would be the best thing to do.

"I would say we're just starting to really figure it out, it's going to be awhile."

Originally Posted by cptbarkey
my mind never advanced past 2nd edition, and my entire life will never get more complicated. THAC0 rules.

After playing other game systems (GURPS, HERO, Rolemaster), I was all too familiar with the gaming deficiencies of AD&D. That's why 3.5 felt like a breath of fresh air to me. It still wasn't perfect (no point-based builds), but the skills system, improved rogue class, and cleaned up saving throws felt like a vast improvement. I was pretty happy to leave AD&D in the dust. Except when I had to put up with it playing BG, of course.

But ask the man behind so many adaptations of D&D video games to ignore his emotions and he'll tell you that the '70s fantasy tabletop role-playing game may have lost its way.

I feel like I watched D&D lose its way in real time right before my very eyes, back in the early 1980s. D&D became somewhat mainstream then (a lot more than it is now) and I think the success went to their heads. They started catering to a lot of people who wanted to play D&D but didn't particularly like tabletop wargames (which is where D&D sprang from). Dunno. I'm sure a lot of people disagree with me. Especially people who never played D&D before it went commercial, but in my view they've been on the wrong track for decades.

Originally Posted by fadedc
From what I've read, the Pathfinder game that they are working on is actually a card game for the tablets, based on the existing Pathfinder card game. While I'm personally very interested in it, I suspect that a lot of the people on these forums will not be interested in it.

That's what I was just talking about. If it's not a tabletop wargaming system on steroids, it isn't D&D. And it won't work for games that are trying to replicate classic D&D play.