PDA

View Full Version : The "I hope X gets fixed." thread



jjpickar
2008-02-07, 05:28 PM
4th Edition is just around the corner and I'm getting pretty excited so I'm starting my own wish list for stuff that I hope gets done in the new game.

1. I want good fighting classes in the core rules that are just as versatile and effective in the party as any other member. No more fighter/monk/full BaB class name here sucks threads necessitated by this addition.

2. I want to use multiple monsters in encounters without being confused as to how challenging they are or how much exp should be awarded. The latter of the two has already been provided for with exp awards already included in the individual monster entries but the former is still needed.

3. I would like less mechanical benefits from magic items and more unique and cool abilities that are not required for success but fun and desirable to have nonetheless.

4. I hope that fighting classes will be the best at fighting in this edition. No more CoDzilla and such like.

Feel free to add to, discuss, or confirm the wish list as you see fit.:smallsmile:

Douglas
2008-02-07, 05:46 PM
I hope the stacking of numerical bonuses at high levels is fixed. There are so many sources of so many bonuses of different types (or untyped) to so many different things that any given numerical statistic, like attack rolls, saves, and AC, can vary a great deal depending entirely on how good a player is at optimizing and how many of these bonuses he can manage to cram into a build. When a character's attack bonus and AC can vary by 30 or more points depending entirely on how good a powergamer he is, it is impossible to assign attack bonuses and ACs to monsters to be neither unbeatable nor a walk-over at any given level without knowing the builds it will be going up against.

For good game balance, for every statistic that will be used in a manner similar to AC or attack rolls there must be a table of numbers by level that it is literally not possible to vary from by more than about 10 in either direction. With the range restricted in this fashion, it will then be possible to confidently assign opposed numbers for the monsters so that the d20 roll will actually matter against level appropriate opponents.

Note: This complaint applies primarily to high level play. The higher level, the more applicable it is. At low levels this kind of variability just isn't there, both because many of the bonus sources simply aren't available yet and because there's so little room to fit bunches of them into the same build.

Zincorium
2008-02-07, 05:47 PM
5. No spells that let you violate the rules. Class abilities, maybe, but a spell should never let you automatically win initiative, change your BAB, etc.

6. Fewer just plain useless PrCs. There are several out there which do nothing either mechanically or fluffy that is worth doing (I hear they're doing away with prestige classes as we know them anyway).

7. A complete revamp or expunging of turn undead. It's clunky, and in the current edition contributes to much brokenness without being a good ability in it's own right.

ZeroNumerous
2008-02-07, 05:53 PM
I hope D&D gets fixed.

What? Someone had to say it! :smallannoyed:

Zincorium
2008-02-07, 05:58 PM
I hope D&D gets fixed.

What? Someone had to say it! :smallannoyed:

Oh, there's no question in my mind that D&D could be fixed.

But in all roleplaying games, no fix works for every person. It's all well and good to insist on an almost freeform intellectual excercise as the epitome of a roleplaying game...But that would outright ruin it for a good percentage of people playing. And there are already games out which do that better.

Remember that D&D rules started out as a wargame, and 1st edition was just barely beyond that. But nobody complained about the excessive quantity of rules or the hidebound nature of things until new games or the newer edition came out.

D&D is, at heart, the great compromise. Since the vast majority of roleplayers play or once played it, to survive it has to have at least something for every type of playstyle.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-07, 06:01 PM
If it ain't broke, don't... oh wait, it is.

I hope 1st level wizards no longer quail in fear at the sight of a housecat.

I hope that, no matter how many splatbooks they publish, there will be no equivalent to that dern kobold.

I hope they clarify just what HP means (is it sheer damage resistance, luck, fatigue? I've heard all three)

I hope they drop the whole WBL thing- I want to be able to set the number of magic items my PCs get, not have it dictated to me.

I hope the whole 'let's nuke Faerun' thing was an extended joke.

I hope that it is no longer possible to make everyone like you with an easy skill roll.

I hope that half-orcs are finally worth using- I want racial equality!

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-07, 06:07 PM
I hope that, no matter how many splatbooks they publish, there will be no equivalent to that dern kobold.


I disagree. Pun pun is the most iconic character in the game, or should be.

<thread hijack>Did anyone see that 'Inside the mind of Pun Pun' thread? He now has a properly developed character, motivations, and psychology :smallsmile: . If only I still had the link ... </thread hijack>

Serpent
2008-02-07, 06:10 PM
I hope the whole 'let's nuke Faerun' thing was an extended joke.

Why? This is the best thing to come out of 4e.

Leewei
2008-02-07, 06:20 PM
I hope Earth Elementals gain immunity to petrification.

LotharBot
2008-02-07, 06:37 PM
* I hope they do away with non-absolute absolutes. For example, "fire immunity" that can be superseded by magical super-hot fire, or "immunity to sneak attacks" that can be superseded with the right equipment. I much prefer things to take the form of "half damage" or "30 points resistance" rather than "immune, unless you do something special in which case it works completely."

* I hope they give rogues (or their replacement) combat abilities that AREN'T the easiest-nullified ability in the game. Sneak attack doesn't work on constructs, undead, stuff that's not flatfooted or flanked, stuff with uncanny dodge, stuff with fortification, anything immune to criticals, and probably more. Except if you have the right crystals from MIC, in which case, sneak attack works just fine (see "non-absolute absolutes"). Instead, rogues need a bigger bag of tricks, and fewer monsters that are 100% immune to them.

* I hope they make certain skill checks scale better. Diplomacy is an obviously broken one -- a low-level diplomancer can convince epic enemies to become allies. Tumble, too -- I can understand a DC 15 check letting you avoid AoO's from level 3 warriors, but shouldn't it be harder against an epic fighter? At the very least, these skills should scale based on the opponent's abilities.

* I hope they give ALL classes meaningful choices and useful abilities, both in and out of combat, at all levels. No more "my epic barbarian hits it with his axe... again... just like the last 300 times my epic barbarian has done anything." No more "non-combat encounter? Rogue rolls a bunch of skill checks and nobody else does anything."

* I hope they're willing to cut stuff that doesn't make sense any more but has been retained as "historical" D&D. If I want to play 2.0, I'll play 2.0. If I'm playing 4.0, I don't expect everything from previous editions to still exist, and if I'm really attached to some particular ability, I'll houserule it anyway.

* I hope they make it so melee clerics/druids have to actually sacrifice some of their cleric/druid ability to be good in melee (say, taking a couple levels of a martial class) rather than allowing them to just bust out spell X or wildshape form Y and outshine the fighter while still being a full caster.


I hope they drop the whole WBL thing- I want to be able to set the number of magic items my PCs get, not have it dictated to me.

I like WBL as a guideline. It helps me plan as a DM, even if I only give out some fraction of the treasure, simply because it gives me a good idea of scale from level to level. But I do hope they make it clearer that WBL is just a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, and that your game may run with significantly more or less treasure than stated in the WBL tables.

mostlyharmful
2008-02-07, 06:48 PM
I hope they cut the paperwork. No character sheet should be two A4 pages long of tiny text with dozens of different systems in use giving interconnected synergistic bonuses or negatives with a short paragraph of items that can change it if they're active, anouther if the stats change because you use/activate a non-continuous item... on and on. And that's for a meatshield that the players paying attention to, it gets worse with a UMDer or really any skillmonkey and a well built caster with several spell lists for alternate activities can be a thick binder:smallannoyed:

one maybe two pages, with a simple enough interaction between elements that you're not constantly forgetting/changing bonuses

Oh, and make the economy and price listings make sense, either it's a low magic medeval world or it isn't, just pick one and run with it for each setting and don't assume that the different levels of spellslingers have no impact on the larger society. Just a fluff grype but it does spill over into just about every noncombat bit.

EvilElitest
2008-02-07, 06:57 PM
Why? This is the best thing to come out of 4e.

Yeah, and the Dreani recone were the best thing to to come from Warcraft
from
EE

Miles Invictus
2008-02-07, 08:40 PM
All classes should be equally useful when they are of the same experience level and general wealth level.

All classes should be able to contribute in all encounter types.

All classes should have a variety of strong feats and alternate features, especially in the book that introduces them.

All attributes should be useful to all classes.

No half-progression for base classes. Look, the Paladin should have had a caster level equal to his level - 3. The Ranger should've gotten the same deal for his animal companion and spells.

Jayngfet
2008-02-08, 12:11 AM
I hope we get half orcs back in black(with decent racials that don't need to be bolstered by more constitution and low light vision, which makes sense)

and tieflings that are like 3.X tieflings, each with individual traits instead of the dranai ripoffs that anyone could spot and avoid.

if they're going to keep tieflings boost the aasimar

and figure out what they're going to do to krusk, gimble, and hennet you can not remove 3 Iconic characters, especially the awesome ones

also make it more adaptable with 3.5, some of us spent a lot of money on 3.5 books and would like to be compensated for loosing everything

and fire whoever came up with the idea of half orcs coming from rape, if you're going to remove the halves make it thanks to genetic and take out the half elf, theres like what, a bakers dozen normal elves, and two(three if you count the tolkinean and blizzardean orcs)including these halves, but then no tieflings, or half dragons, centaurs, satyrs, driders, merfolk, lizardfolk, slaadi, and maybe kobolds disappear too

and keep making miniatures and a tabletop version instead of a computerized only, there are stores and employees who's only source of employment is miniature selling and expertise

so yeah, with 4.0 wizard screwed over half its consumer base and put hundreds, possibly thousands, out of a job

and if they release any of this as non core it's just gonna be an example of Hasbro's blatant greed

but other than waiting to finish campaigns, removing and switching a bunch of races(especially the half orcs) , having to download memory eating programs, putting thousands of nerds in the unemployment line and ripping the dnd tree from its tabletop roots 4.0 looks kinda...meh nothing special:smallsigh:

VanBuren
2008-02-08, 12:30 AM
Yeah, and the Dreani recone were the best thing to to come from Warcraft
from
EE

Let's be real here. 3/3.4 FR was just a bunch of cliches smashed together and sustained by Elminster knocking boots with Mystra.

Well, Thay was kinda cool, I'll grant you that.

skywalker
2008-02-08, 12:52 AM
4th Edition is just around the corner and I'm getting pretty excited so I'm starting my own wish list for stuff that I hope gets done in the new game.

1. I want good fighting classes in the core rules that are just as versatile and effective in the party as any other member. No more fighter/monk/full BaB class name here sucks threads necessitated by this addition.

2. I want to use multiple monsters in encounters without being confused as to how challenging they are or how much exp should be awarded. The latter of the two has already been provided for with exp awards already included in the individual monster entries but the former is still needed.

3. I would like less mechanical benefits from magic items and more unique and cool abilities that are not required for success but fun and desirable to have nonetheless.

4. I hope that fighting classes will be the best at fighting in this edition. No more CoDzilla and such like.

Feel free to add to, discuss, or confirm the wish list as you see fit.:smallsmile:

All of these are already supposed to be features of fourth edition...


and figure out what they're going to do to krusk, gimble, and hennet you can not remove 3 Iconic characters, especially the awesome ones Jayngfet, you are my new best friend. Sigged!

Jack Zander
2008-02-08, 02:32 AM
I hope they fix everything in this thread here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20127&highlight=hugging)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-08, 09:51 AM
Make it so I'm not Heracles at level 6. Please. I don't want to be able to kill an entire army as soon as I hit level 10.
Create a polymorph spell that isn't broken and makes sense.
Eliminate "traps". (Weapon Focus, Monk, TWF)

Darkantra
2008-02-08, 09:53 AM
I really, really wish that they would fix Bull Rush to tell you what in the hells happens when you Bull Rush someone into an occupied space.

Darkantra
2008-02-08, 09:53 AM
I really, really wish that they would fix Bull Rush to tell you what in the hells happens when you Bull Rush someone into an occupied space.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-08, 10:06 AM
I wish for Copy Editing and Content Editing in the core books. I'm sick of odd/badly balanced/poorly worded sections of essential books that could have been fixed with a little simple editing.

warmachine
2008-02-08, 10:29 AM
I hope that editors learn maths so they can look at Radiant Servant of Pelor and see it's broken compared to Cleric straight away.

Morty
2008-02-08, 10:35 AM
Let's be real here. 3/3.4 FR was just a bunch of cliches smashed together and sustained by Elminster knocking boots with Mystra.


You must've played some other setting that was named FR then, because I tell you, I didn't notice any of that in my games.

Telonius
2008-02-08, 10:37 AM
I hope the disheartening lack of Gnomes in the 4th edition PHB gets fixed. Though that hope is most likely going to be dashed on the cruel, jagged rocks of the finance department before being drowned in the murky depths of 4E's Monster Manual.

Indon
2008-02-08, 10:54 AM
I hope magic items are no longer readily purchasable at any village of over 100 people.

I hope that fluff-significant mechanics actually have crunch-significant consequences, preferably consequences which a DM would not hesitate to enact if applicable.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-08, 11:00 AM
I hope magic items are no longer readily purchasable at any village of over 100 people.

I hope that fluff-significant mechanics actually have crunch-significant consequences, preferably consequences which a DM would not hesitate to enact if applicable.

I can't agree with those two more.

I hope cursed items still exist and have interesting curses rather than just penalties (-1 swords) or character destroying effects (help of opposite alignment).

Draz74
2008-02-08, 12:56 PM
1. I want good fighting classes in the core rules that are just as versatile and effective in the party as any other member. No more fighter/monk/full BaB class name here sucks threads necessitated by this addition.

2. I want to use multiple monsters in encounters without being confused as to how challenging they are or how much exp should be awarded. The latter of the two has already been provided for with exp awards already included in the individual monster entries but the former is still needed.

3. I would like less mechanical benefits from magic items and more unique and cool abilities that are not required for success but fun and desirable to have nonetheless.

4. I hope that fighting classes will be the best at fighting in this edition. No more CoDzilla and such like.

#4 is the only one here I'm really worried about ...


and figure out what they're going to do to krusk, gimble, and hennet you can not remove 3 Iconic characters, especially the awesome ones

This thread isn't for complaining about things that we already know about 4e. Besides, they are (IIRC) getting rid of all of the Iconic characters! (Those are iconic to 3e! We need iconics that are iconic to 4e.)

... besides ... Hennet? Awesome? Ick. I like sorcerers, but he was always one of my least-liked iconics.


Make it so I'm not Heracles at level 6. Please. I don't want to be able to kill an entire army as soon as I hit level 10.

Hmmm, I'm trying to decide if you'd love or hate E6. You should at least give it a look. In E6, you can kill off armies at level 6 ... but that actually makes sense, since you're one of the world's top-tier heroes by then.


I hope magic items are no longer readily purchasable at any village of over 100 people.

Other than potions of cure light/minor wounds, I hope? Because other than that, I pretty much agree. (Those are cheap enough and useful enough that I can actually see priests mass-producing them, even in villages.)

DrizztFan24
2008-02-08, 12:59 PM
I hope that drow get fixed, or any other underdark critter. If you move in the Underdark, then you are heard, then you die. Yet, drow do not get bonuses to move silently to hide...maybe they should get an enviromental/racial set of skills instead of merely "class" skills

Leicontis
2008-02-08, 01:06 PM
I hope that Monks gain the ability to reasonably imitate actual styles of martial arts. A Jiu-Jutsu monk is far too easy to create in 3.5 (it's called a Barbarian w/ Improved Grapple). Actually making the game replicate martial styles like Ninjutsu or Aikido is near impossible, while Drunken Boxing requires a PrC. There are techniques that I personally know that are difficult or impossible to imitate in D&D currently, especially reactive techniques.

Building on the above, I hope that grappling is fixed in 4E. Note, I said fixed, not removed. Removed would force house-ruling, because grappling is part of actual melee fighting. As it currently stands, if a grapple build (or even a regular fighter) gets hold of your average character (especially an arcane caster), the fight is over. In most cases, grappling is either overpowered and broken or utterly useless, and it would be nice to see something in between the two.

souldoubt
2008-02-08, 01:26 PM
Wow.

It seems like a LOT of the "hopeful" fixes people are posting here are already confirmed to be fixed in 4E. You should all go HERE (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e) and read up on what's slated to go into the new edition. :smallsmile:


I hope the disheartening lack of Gnomes in the 4th edition PHB gets fixed. Though that hope is most likely going to be dashed on the cruel, jagged rocks of the finance department before being drowned in the murky depths of 4E's Monster Manual.

I still can't quite fathom why people complain about this. Gnome's will not be appearing in the PHB (that's a fact which won't change), which I suppose is a shame for you gnome-lovers out there, showing gnomes may not be the favored children you wished they were, but it's not an obstactle. I don't see how it stops you from opening up the MM and playing one anyway.

My understanding is that the gnome was left out of the PHB for the following two reasons:

1) Gnomes are probably the least popular of the iconic D&D races, and

2) The devs were having a really tough time coming up with unique, interesting, and useful racial characteristics for the gnome, and so it got put on the backburner to be released with the MM.

Actually, #1 is just inferred, an educated guess you might say; the second one I actually read about in some release/statement from Wizards. It seems like the decision to leave gnomes out of the PHB was perfectly reasonable to me (but I don't really care about gnomes one way or t'other, so I'm unbiased), but I don't see how that decision stops anyone from playing a gnome if they want to.

Telonius
2008-02-08, 01:42 PM
Yeah, I know. The decision was financial (not enough popularity) and mechanical. But darnit, I love the little psychos. Not so much that I'll rant or not buy the books or leave the internet or something, but I wish they'd reconsider.

mostlyharmful
2008-02-08, 01:46 PM
Wow.

It seems like a LOT of the "hopeful" fixes people are posting here are already confirmed to be fixed in 4E. You should all go HERE (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e) and read up on what's slated to go into the new edition. :smallsmile:


We've all read it, or most of us have anyway. We just don't trust the promo/hype guys to accuratley describe the product, we also don't trust the designers/testers to always create mechanics that follow what the hype/sales team have claimed will be. Even if the mechanics are what has been talked up WotC is terrible at games testing and how they intend the game to be played and how the game actually runs when used are often nothing to do with each other.

All of this is based not on conjecture but on having palyed 3.5 and listened to what WotC claims it is. I'm not having a go at them, it's just that this thread exists BECAUSE what they say adn what they write are often completely seperate things.

mostlyharmful
2008-02-08, 01:49 PM
Oops. doubly slow connection.

Indon
2008-02-08, 01:50 PM
and how they intend the game to be played and how the game actually runs when used are often nothing to do with each other.

I don't think this is so much true, as the analysis on how the game should be played by people on the internet is different than how the game is intended to be played.

Not downplaying the importance of the internet, of course, but in practice, Wizards made a solid product with 3.5.

souldoubt
2008-02-08, 03:11 PM
We've all read it, or most of us have anyway. We just don't trust the promo/hype guys to accuratley describe the product, we also don't trust the designers/testers to always create mechanics that follow what the hype/sales team have claimed will be. Even if the mechanics are what has been talked up WotC is terrible at games testing and how they intend the game to be played and how the game actually runs when used are often nothing to do with each other.

I also have to take exception to some of your claims:

1) I linked enworld to be helpful because a lot of what people were hoping for have already been confirmed by members of the development team as being in 4E, and I thought that people who wanted those things would be excited to find that out. So I assumed not everyone or not even most of everyone had read the news as thoroughly as they could have.

2) I have no idea what you mean by "promo/hype guys" because most of what I read and take seriously comes from people like Mike Mearls -- people who are on the dev team. Not too many mouthpieces or marketing goons in my information chain, thankfully. And that's the way the development teams seem to be working, using the internet as a tool that allows developers to talk back and forth with gamers and determine what sort of changes are in high demand, and then work on changing those things.

3) Which brings me to my next point. I think that over the past 10 years or so, developing 3E and numerous other games, WotC has learned a little something about game design. They've been consistently moving in a direction that illustrates this, and I think their ability to effectively gametest their mechanics has doubtless improved immensely since the days of trying to design 3.0 -- which, let's keep in mind, was a huge step from 2E. I'm not saying that 4E is going to be flawless (the jury is still out until the game is out, as far as I'm concerned), but I think that claiming Wizards has no idea what they are fixing or putting into their own game is a little short sighted.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-08, 03:19 PM
I'm not saying that 4E is going to be flawless (the jury is still out until the game is out, as far as I'm concerned), but I think that claiming Wizards has no idea what they are fixing or putting into their own game is a little short sighted.These are the guys that gave us Diplomacy, remember. The claims are not without reason.

horseboy
2008-02-08, 03:41 PM
I don't think this is so much true, as the analysis on how the game should be played by people on the internet is different than how the game is intended to be played.

Not downplaying the importance of the internet, of course, but in practice, Wizards made a solid product with 3.5.

I lol'd!!!!!!

souldoubt
2008-02-08, 04:59 PM
These are the guys that gave us Diplomacy, remember. The claims are not without reason.

Good point. But, as I said, I think the people behind D&D have learned some valuable lessons over the years -- such as: diffuculty must scale, doofus! Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I think Diplomacy is a perfect example of the sort of mistake the devs aren't likely to make again. They'll come up with brand-new never-before-seen mistakes. :smalltongue:

But there's a good "I hope they fix" candidate: I hope they fix Diplomacy -- and don't botch the skills in general. They've been pretty tight-lipped about exactly how skills work so far, but I'm hoping their revamping of the skill system does'nt suck.

Jayngfet
2008-02-08, 05:32 PM
... besides ... Hennet? Awesome? Ick. I like sorcerers, but he was always one of my least-liked iconics.

To be honest I included hennet because he was a sorcerer, but Krusk and Gimble are my favorites.

the only thing I dislike about hennet is his usual manner of dress was...odd, even compared to other rpg characters, though in other books most characters get a new outfit

like lidda in phb4, she looked scary as a savage.

on to more rant...

moving dnd from the tabletop to the laptop will limit actions and put more emphasis on the rolls if not done well, having an npc wizard battle two lesser elder evils(I made about a hundred of them), won't work if the program says he ran out of spells, while you can fudge and give him more if he needs to hold them off long enough for the dwarf to reach the other side of town and kill whatever evil clerics set them loose, this is even worse if these guys are champions and can revert to normal form(and have cleric levels).

you also have to work harder to change stats, I realized I had to make new races and boost orcs and half orcs enough for them to survive the clashes they have with the empire (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEmpire) my world needs them too, especially if that empire has magic lasers when they use bows and spears, not to mention the battle oriented casters, I had to ally them with goblins, hobgoblins, and a bunch of hybrids between the three, plus hiring kobold and bugbear mercenaries, and they were supposed to win just because the enemy had to travel through mountains and desert to fight.

and again, some of us bought miniatures, now we have pretty plastic doorstops and an unemployment line at stores dedicated to selling the damn things.

Farmer42
2008-02-08, 06:23 PM
But they aren't moving it from the tabletop. There is nothing that says you have to stop playing PnP. They're simply providing us with tools so that there are more options.

Jayngfet
2008-02-08, 06:28 PM
But they aren't moving it from the tabletop. There is nothing that says you have to stop playing PnP. They're simply providing us with tools so that there are more options.

really, I kinda took a look at what was changed, another look at the video previews on youtube, and put 2 and 2 together, though you're probably right...2+2=7 not 5 :smallbiggrin:

Serenity
2008-02-08, 06:31 PM
...Am I the only one who has never paid any attention whatsoever to the 'iconics'? They're pictures in a book. I look at them, say 'Ooo, nice art', and move on. Mialee has absolutely no influence on how I play a wizard. How could she, when I know nothing about her except what she looks like?

Farmer42
2008-02-08, 06:32 PM
...Am I the only one who has never paid any attention whatsoever to the 'iconics'? They're pictures in a book. I look at them, say 'Ooo, nice art', and move on. Mialee has absolutely no influence on how I play a wizard. How could she, when I know nothing about her except what she looks like?

Nice art and Mialee should never, ever be uttered in the same context. That aside, I do agree with you though.

horseboy
2008-02-08, 06:40 PM
...Am I the only one who has never paid any attention whatsoever to the 'iconics'? They're pictures in a book. I look at them, say 'Ooo, nice art', and move on. Mialee has absolutely no influence on how I play a wizard. How could she, when I know nothing about her except what she looks like?
Those pics in the rule books had names? :smallconfused:

Zincorium
2008-02-08, 06:45 PM
Those pics in the rule books had names? :smallconfused:

Yes, they even have a word for this: Captions. As in, the text in italics near the pictures that says things like: Jozan smites a succubus. Krusk gets a boot in his face. Etc.

osyluth
2008-02-08, 08:12 PM
I hope cat ladies can no longer rule as tyrants over villages of 1st level commoners.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-08, 08:25 PM
...Am I the only one who has never paid any attention whatsoever to the 'iconics'?
No, you're not the only one.


Not downplaying the importance of the internet, of course, but in practice, Wizards made a solid product with 3.5.
Yes, but only because a "solid product" for WOTC is defined in terms of sales figures, not in terms of whether the rules are solid (even after several years of fixes and FAQs, and an entire intermediary edition).

Heck, the Munchkin cardgame is a solid product, and it has rules that intentionally aren't solid.

Jayngfet
2008-02-08, 10:02 PM
Yes, they even have a word for this: Captions. As in, the text in italics near the pictures that says things like: Jozan smites a succubus. Krusk gets a boot in his face. Etc.

not only did they have names, but a whole quarter paragraph of backstory (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Iconic_Characters_%28Crivis_Supplement%29)


and yes, i agree with the above post, from any book with her in it, no matter what outfit or change in personality they give her, mialee looks like an oddly proportioned, and almost as often oddly dressed, whatever(i think its supposed to be an elf), she is the iconic I'll be missing the least,

now if you'll excuse me I'll me mourning the incompatible, the ones thet wont get a cameo in some guys campain, the ones who...aaaw screw it, with that wierd costume krusk has in php4 and that scary look lidda has in the same book, im just gonna go play video games and finish making my world.:smallannoyed:

tbarrie
2008-02-09, 12:37 AM
5. No spells that let you violate the rules. Class abilities, maybe, but a spell should never let you automatically win initiative, change your BAB, etc.

I don't think there's going to be a clear distinction between "spells" and "class abilities" in 4E.

puppyavenger
2008-02-09, 09:21 AM
To be honest I included hennet because he was a sorcerer

yes sorcerers are awesome :smallsmile:

souldoubt
2008-02-09, 12:09 PM
moving dnd from the tabletop to the laptop will limit actions and put more emphasis on the rolls if not done well, having an npc wizard battle two lesser elder evils(I made about a hundred of them), won't work if the program says he ran out of spells, <snip>

Um, no. First off, wizards in 4E will have plenty powers and capabilities left over after they use up their memorized spells, so that they will not completely cease to be useful after they've cast all of their spells. This has been specifically stated by the devs.

But more importantly, the virtual game table is just a dice roller and a game board, and therefore "the program" will never tell you a character can't do something. It will not limit your actions in any way, shape, or form. If you are the DM, you are in charge, just like always. You can fudge whatever you want. And, as Farmer42 pointed out, you don't need to use the virtual game table or any of the other online/computer resources if you don't want to.

WotC is NOT turning D&D into a video game. Why do people still not undersand this?

huttj509
2008-02-09, 12:40 PM
Um, no. First off, wizards in 4E will have plenty powers and capabilities left over after they use up their memorized spells, so that they will not completely cease to be useful after they've cast all of their spells. This has been specifically stated by the devs.

But more importantly, the virtual game table is just a dice roller and a game board, and therefore "the program" will never tell you a character can't do something. It will not limit your actions in any way, shape, or form. If you are the DM, you are in charge, just like always. You can fudge whatever you want. And, as Farmer42 pointed out, you don't need to use the virtual game table or any of the other online/computer resources if you don't want to.

WotC is NOT turning D&D into a video game. Why do people still not undersand this?

Agreed, that was actually one of the specific questions they answered, I think in the podcast a few months ago (during the mailbag episodes), if not the podcast then another place on the insider site.

The online tabletop does not adjucate any rules of play. The DM can even fudge the die rolls from his side (there might be an option to disallow dm fudging capability, don't remember). Now, whether the character generator will adjucate the number of feats you can choose, and which ones, I don't know. It would make sense, however would limit an online game if for example the dm wanted to allow all races any racial feats (not just those of their race). It will be neat to see the flexibility of the character viewer etc, though.

It doesn't even adjucate how far you can move, or the stats of the monsters, it just serves as a visual battlemap to avoid confusion, and the dice roller is due to the uncertainty of someone rolling where you can't see.