PDA

View Full Version : 4e crunch vs. 4e fluff



Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-18, 05:55 PM
I've been noticing that a lot of the complaints about 4e aren't complaints about the rules changes that are being made (although there are some of those), but about the fluff of the "default" setting.

I don't understand this. Since D&D is intended to be used with many different settings, the influence of the "default" setting on the basic rules will be minimal and easily ignored.

I'm excited for 4e. I think that the ruleset will bring us another step closer to "getting it right". Do I like all of the fluff elements of the "default" setting? *shrug* Not particularly; but I'm just going to adapt my homebrew campaign setting anyway, so I'm free to cherrypick what I do like and leave the rest.

In other words, why are people getting so hung up on the fluff elements, which will change every time you switch from one campaign setting anyway?

Trog
2008-02-18, 05:57 PM
Because geeks like to complain.

Artanis
2008-02-18, 06:01 PM
Because geeks like to complain.
Pretty much, yeah.

Pronounceable
2008-02-18, 06:24 PM
Because people are stupid and prone to consider the default fluff of DnD their sacred book. Which means there'll be an increase in Aragorns (from DMotR) with the PCophile attitude WotC is displaying.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-18, 06:32 PM
In other words, why are people getting so hung up on the fluff elements, which will change every time you switch from one campaign setting anyway?

Mainly because WOTC is mixing in fluff with their crunch, making it harder to separate the two.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 06:33 PM
God forbid we focus our game on the stars of the narrative.

Jayngfet
2008-02-18, 06:49 PM
only things I complain about is

A. The removal of half orcs

and

B. The removal of sorcerers

Some of us have high magic worlds with sorcerers and huge orc populations.

Artanis
2008-02-18, 06:52 PM
only things I complain about is

A. The removal of half orcs

and

B. The removal of sorcerers

Some of us have high magic worlds with sorcerers and huge orc populations.
Half-Orcs will be in the MM, and they've mentioned Sorcerers (though I don't know when/if/where they'll be implemented)

Nerd-o-rama
2008-02-18, 06:55 PM
Well, many of their fluff changes are deeply stupid and unnecessary (I'll defend this opinion if you force me to, but remember this is an opinion and you're free to just think I'm a dumbass without calling me out on it). But supposedly my favorite published campaign setting is remaining largely static, so I have less to complain about.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 07:02 PM
Really, how much does fluff matter? I say it matters a great deal, even though it is easy to change.

In the abstract, I have nothing against fluff changes. There are two things that bother me, however:

1) *Unnecessary* fluff changes. Really, what was wrong with the Great Wheel, the Blood War, or Faerun? If it ain't broke, don't fix it and all that!

That is a minor gripe, I'll admit. If it wasn't broke, and they break it, I can revert to the old version. So far as I know, 1e-3e fluff isn't rigged to explode when 4e comes out.

A few *specific* fluff changes that bother me: evil-on-evil conflict becoming less important. Dude, Evil turning on itself is a classic. World working only for the benefit of the PCs. I realize it does, in fact, exist for them, but, as a player, I want a sensible, cohesive world, not some theme park! I don't ask for statistics on how much grain is produced in Cormyr , but I do ask for Cormyr to have some reason, even if I never know it. As a DM, this goes double.

2) Changes in fluff dictating changes in crunch. This, I mind a great deal. Suppose, in my setting, Gnomes are an important race? Suppose, in my setting, there are sorcerers? Suppose my setting has vancian magic? Taking all these away from me, or forcing me to come up with inferior homebrew, strikes me as a bit mean.

RIP: Great Wheel.
RIP: Blood War.
RIP: Faerun as We Know it.

We'll miss your officialdom, old chaps. You hung on for several editions, but, in the end, you went the way of all flesh (or paper). Still, you aren't dead for me, for I can, by Thor, run my gaming group as I wish! And in that statement, there is hope.

Hzurr
2008-02-18, 07:02 PM
Well, many of their fluff changes are deeply stupid and unnecessary (I'll defend this opinion if you force me to, but remember this is an opinion and you're free to just think I'm a dumbass without calling me out on it). But supposedly my favorite published campaign setting is remaining largely static, so I have less to complain about.


*thinks hard*

Heh, nah, I'm just joshin'.


*thinks hard again*:smalltongue:


While I don't agree with all of the fluff changes they've made, I understand why they made a lot of the changes, and I think they've been doing a decent job of justifying why they decided to make fluff changes, which I appriciate. Again, I don't always agree with it, but I appriciate it.

Sleet
2008-02-18, 07:05 PM
Mainly because WOTC is mixing in fluff with their crunch, making it harder to separate the two.

I like a lot of what I see in 4e, but this is what concerns me. The Golden Wyvern Adept is emblematic of this fear.

Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-18, 08:07 PM
Mainly because WOTC is mixing in fluff with their crunch, making it harder to separate the two.
I like a lot of what I see in 4e, but this is what concerns me. The Golden Wyvern Adept is emblematic of this fear.
Oh, for the love of - ! :smallmad:

The Red Wizard and Thayan Knight prestige classes appear in the 3.5 DMG and Complete Warrior, respectively. Using the same kind of logic you people are applying, WotC is assuming that Thay exists in everybody's game world. Oh noes! Wizards of the Coast has ruined D&D!

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 08:14 PM
Oh, for the love of - ! :smallmad:

The Red Wizard and Thayan Knight prestige classes appear in the 3.5 DMG and Complete Warrior, respectively. Using the same kind of logic you people are applying, WotC is assuming that Thay exists in everybody's game world. Oh noes! Wizards of the Coast has ruined D&D!

Good sir: there is a difference, to my mind, between Prestige Classes and base classes. I can drop a prestige class with no problem (hey, if I wanted to, I could play without Prestige Classes), but reinventing the wizard would be much more difficult.

Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-18, 08:17 PM
Who said anything about base classes? Golden Wyvern Adept is a feat.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 08:27 PM
Who said anything about base classes? Golden Wyvern Adept is a feat.

Myself, I'm not worried about that feat, or even the (probably baseless) rumors that the feat is a part of making wizards more 'dragon based'. All that I can work around- change a few names is all.

What I cannot work around easily is the removal of vancian magic, and the replacement of it with (pardon my hyperbole) WoW magic- i.e., per encounter rather than per time period.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 08:30 PM
You recognize that "Per Encounter" is much closer to fantasy standard then Vancian Magic, I trust.

Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-18, 08:37 PM
What I cannot work around easily is the removal of vancian magic, and the replacement of it with (pardon my hyperbole) WoW magic- i.e., per encounter rather than per time period.
That is primarily a crunch change.

Crow
2008-02-18, 08:39 PM
The problem I have with "per encounter" is what the hell that actually means. Does it mean that the wizard needs to stop and take a breather afterwards or something? If so, suppose a wizard gets into a fight and blasts off some spells, and then afterwards proceeds to crawl through the dungeon for an hour. At that point, he gets into another fight. Does he get his spells back even though he hasn't paused to rest? What if he gets into a fight, and there is only a one-minute interval before they come up on another group of baddies? Does he get his spells back then? It is afterall a separate encounter.

If you can bust out magic all day long (how many encounters can you cram into a day!?), I don't see any reason not to just make everything "at will" and be done with it.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 08:40 PM
You recognize that "Per Encounter" is much closer to fantasy standard then Vancian Magic, I trust.

Ah, my friend, that is where you and I differ. While I have no strong love for Vancian magic, most fantasy wizards tire enough that a few minutes of non-combat will not have them back in full shape. Gandalf, for instance, after contesting the balrog at the door to Balin's tomb, is still not in full 'fighting trim' after a fair rest and a fairly long period of walking- and thus sorta dies. Rest will help him to an extent, but all the 'non-encountering' in the world won't do him a lick of good.


If they were to tie it into Subdual damage, or fatigue, or some similar mechanic, you might have a point, but 'per encounter' has no precedent in the literature. After all, at least the good Mr. Vance was a pre-DnD fantasy author!

Rutee
2008-02-18, 08:57 PM
"Per encounter/Per Day/At Will/Ritual" has no basis in literature? I suggest you broaden your scope just a smidgen to account for the fact that the system encompasses everyone. If you must look to specifically magic effects, I would point out Full Metal Alchemist, wherein the Alchemists in the setting generally had some limit to how much they could act within a given span of time. Taoist Sages, in multiple depictions in (Wuxia) fiction generally do not seem to operate on anything resembling Vancian Magic or fatigue. Main problem with your argument is that most mystics that have to worry about fatigue or "Spells per X" in (classic) fiction? Are also capable melee combatants. And on the note of Gandalf, did he exhaust himself with every single spell? 'cause I'm pretty sure he only faced that with the Balrog. Notwithstanding, you know, tales of all sorts that have people besides mages.

If you want a mechanic to turn it into Subdual damage, such a thing is in Slayers d20, to boot, which is free to download. Whether or not you care for the fluff, the system is pretty spiffy.


The problem I have with "per encounter" is what the hell that actually means. Does it mean that the wizard needs to stop and take a breather afterwards or something? If so, suppose a wizard gets into a fight and blasts off some spells, and then afterwards proceeds to crawl through the dungeon for an hour. At that point, he gets into another fight. Does he get his spells back even though he hasn't paused to rest? What if he gets into a fight, and there is only a one-minute interval before they come up on another group of baddies? Does he get his spells back then? It is afterall a separate encounter.
Bear in mind a moment that I will be applying White Wolf's definition of "Scene" for this, and that the GM is perfectly in grounds to overturn this, but I imagine that an "Encounter" is, generally, one specific fight. As to a fight that is waves, I would just say "It's all one fight", if the waves were fast (Measured in minutes) as opposed to hours. If you're still dungeon crawling, you can be assumed to not be resting per se, but depending on the circumstances, you may not actually be working that hard too. You might be searching and walking along, but it can be assumed (I should think) that you're not exactly exhausting yourself or your mystical potential. If you are, that might be different..

Sleet
2008-02-18, 09:07 PM
Who said anything about base classes? Golden Wyvern Adept is a feat.

My point exactly. Prestige class names are easily changed. With feat names like this, there's nothing left after you file off the serial numbers. There's nothing in that feat name that suggests what it does, thus guaranteeing that I'll have to constantly refer to the rules to remind myself what it does. "Wait. Does Golden Wyvern Adept enlarge the spell, or maximize it?" "It extends it. You're thinking of Silver Wyrm Mastery." "Oh, silly me. How could I forget."

It's atrocious design, for a variety of reasons.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 09:07 PM
"Per encounter/Per Day/At Will/Ritual" has no basis in literature? I suggest you broaden your scope just a smidgen to account for the fact that the system encompasses everyone. If you must look to specifically magic effects, I would point out Full Metal Alchemist, wherein the Alchemists in the setting generally had some limit to how much they could act within a given span of time. Taoist Sages, in multiple depictions in (Wuxia) fiction generally do not seem to operate on anything resembling Vancian Magic or fatigue. Main problem with your argument is that most mystics that have to worry about fatigue or "Spells per X" in (classic) fiction? Are also capable melee combatants. And on the note of Gandalf, did he exhaust himself with every single spell? 'cause I'm pretty sure he only faced that with the Balrog. Notwithstanding, you know, tales of all sorts that have people besides mages.


You misunderstand my point. I do not claim that Vancian magic has a broad basis in literature (although it works in Vance's books tolerably well, it does not at all apply to Gandalf). I do not even claim that 'per time-period' or 'until exausted' magic lacks support in the literature (they appear to me to be the most common).

However, there is a difference between 'per time-period' and 'per encounter'- encounters can, as you said, last as long as you wish.

There is also a difference between 'until exhausted' and 'per encounter'. In all the works I have read (which are not comprehensive, but include most of the greater western ones- I can't answer for what China says magic is), any mage who tires from magic is also physically tired and vice versa.

I would appreciate more information on how Taosist mages operate, by the way.

Crow
2008-02-18, 09:07 PM
My first choice would be a fatigue or subdual damage system, or if not that, something akin to recharge magic. to me, "I need a few minutes before I can shoot that fireball off again." just sounds better to me than "Hurry up and kill that orc, Ranger. So I can get my spells back for the next battle."

I just hope the fluff that they come up with to explain the per encounter abilities is internally consistent and makes sense.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 09:11 PM
My first choice would be a fatigue or subdual damage system

Aye, I would have no problem with that (that's how GURPS works, BTW, and several other RPGs besides). If they can work it so that it will differentiate between the mage and the party for encounters (so that, in a big battle, the mage can go sit in a corner and regains pells), I wouldn't have very much problem with it. But a pure 'per encounter' is just silly, and (again, pardon the term) MMORPGesque.

averagejoe
2008-02-18, 09:14 PM
Because geeks fans like to complain.

Fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

Edit:


Aye, I would have no problem with that (that's how GURPS works, BTW, and several other RPGs besides). If they can work it so that it will differentiate between the mage and the party for encounters (so that, in a big battle, the mage can go sit in a corner and regains pells), I wouldn't have very much problem with it. But a pure 'per encounter' is just silly, and (again, pardon the term) MMORPGesque.

I thought that most MMORPG's used a recharging mana system. :smallconfused: What you're saying you would have no problem with doesn't seem so different from that.

Who cares if it's MMORPGesque anyways? There's only one question I ask when I evaluate mechanics: is it a good or a bad mechanic? Where it comes from doesn't matter at all.

Serenity
2008-02-18, 09:17 PM
We already have a working definition of per-encounter abilities from the Tome of Battle, and it isn't 'Finish off that orc so I can get my spell back.' It's pretty explicit that if another horde of orcs descends on you just after you finish off the first wave, your per-encounter abilities don't recharge. You need time to realign yourself, briefly meditate, etc. Also note that Wizards will have per-day spells as well as per-encounter ones, presumably their particularly powerful guns that they will have to learn to conserve.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2008-02-18, 09:20 PM
In my setting, one of the main points were gnome sorcerers! And how am I going to errata my custom sorcerer class if I don't have a base? It's so much harder. Well, on second thought, the my custom sorcerer class has nothing at all in common with the WotC sorcerer.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-18, 09:25 PM
Ah, my friend, that is where you and I differ. While I have no strong love for Vancian magic, most fantasy wizards tire enough that a few minutes of non-combat will not have them back in full shape. Gandalf, for instance, after contesting the balrog at the door to Balin's tomb, is still not in full 'fighting trim' after a fair rest and a fairly long period of walking- and thus sorta dies. Rest will help him to an extent, but all the 'non-encountering' in the world won't do him a lick of good.


Gandald was bleeding to death. All the magic in the world will not save you if you can't heal when you are bleeding.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 09:26 PM
Who cares if it's MMORPGesque anyways? There's only one question I ask when I evaluate mechanics: is it a good or a bad mechanic? Where it comes from doesn't matter at all.

I think that there you are right. I stand by my comment that it is weird and has few precedents, though.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 09:29 PM
You misunderstand my point. I do not claim that Vancian magic has a broad basis in literature (although it works in Vance's books tolerably well, it does not at all apply to Gandalf). I do not even claim that 'per time-period' or 'until exausted' magic lacks support in the literature (they appear to me to be the most common).

However, there is a difference between 'per time-period' and 'per encounter'- encounters can, as you said, last as long as you wish.
Well I feel stupid, I finally found the best way to define Encounter; "Dramatic unit of time", since that's usually the one most modern fiction operates on, as they won't slavishly track in character time.

For a clarification, this system will probably not be made to make sense in a 'realistic' fashion, or one that preserves verisimilitude. Or at least not work well. It appeared to me to be based fully within drama. I might be wrong though.


There is also a difference between 'until exhausted' and 'per encounter'. In all the works I have read (which are not comprehensive, but include most of the greater western ones- I can't answer for what China says magic is), any mage who tires from magic is also physically tired and vice versa.
A lot of modern ones don't; The main problem with judging mystics in fiction is that a lot of older or ancient works just didn't have them as primary characters though, so you can't really watch them exhaust their powers; They were the smart ones, really >.>


I would appreciate more information on how Taosist mages operate, by the way.

In real life, Taoist mysticism expressed itself through alchemy; Specifically, attempts to lengthen one's life (Preferably to immortality). There's a lot more to it then that, but that's the only blatantly supernatural attempt that actually produced something (Mostly, death, but also some hallucinogenic drugs and a few remedies)

In classic literature that's easy to find, the only blatantly supernatural one that comes to mind is Zuo Ci, who appeared to operate without limits within his power, which was very ill-defined. He screwed with Cao Cao with illusions big and small, turned some mooks into fruit, IIRC, and it's implicitly stated that the only reason he died was because he allowed Cao Cao to capture and execute him. And then proceeded to haunt him. Also from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms we had Zhuge Liang, who's great tactical skill and legendary foresight were credited towards his understanding of the Tao; In this case, the magic was much less overt (In keeping to Taoist philosophy in a more accurate fashion), with units in formations based on the I Ching possessing greater harmony with each other, coming to victory easier. However, neither is useful in determining a 'standard' as Zhuge Liang never enterred battle and Zuo Ci was only really, really cranking up the supernatural for one scene.

In modern fiction, Zuo Ci and Zhang Jiao are often depicted as mystics with as much potential as suits the depiction (Within Dynasty Warriors, Zhang Jiao, for instance, but within a more subdued retelling of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms might just battle with minor mystic flare), but one other relatively easy to obtain source for modern day is the Weapons of the Gods comic. Haven't read it specifically, but in the roleplaying game based on it, Taoist sorcery drains Chi (Just as kung fu does), which /will/ make you 'tired' for a few moments, until you catch your Breath (Literally, and just as Kung Fu will do to you). There's no "One way", just as there isn't a "One way" in the west, but I've never seen a depiction of them that really had them incapable of drawing on their powers in an explicit fashion.



I thought that most MMORPG's used a recharging mana system. What you're saying you would have no problem with doesn't seem so different from that.
X MP recharges within a given tick, where X is usually a function of Stat Y. That's the norm, at least.

horseboy
2008-02-18, 09:31 PM
I just hope the fluff that they come up with to explain the per encounter abilities is internally consistent and makes sense.
A D&D that's internally consistent and makes sense. I loled!

High-Chancellor
2008-02-18, 09:32 PM
Eh, Vancian magic sucks. 'nuff said.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 09:34 PM
A lot of modern ones don't

Really? I can't think of many mages, even in modern literature, that have, if you will, a second fatigue track. Then again, I don't read too much of the most recent fantasy.

And thank you on the taoists.

Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-18, 09:56 PM
My point exactly. Prestige class names are easily changed. With feat names like this, there's nothing left after you file off the serial numbers. There's nothing in that feat name that suggests what it does, thus guaranteeing that I'll have to constantly refer to the rules to remind myself what it does. "Wait. Does Golden Wyvern Adept enlarge the spell, or maximize it?" "It extends it. You're thinking of Silver Wyrm Mastery." "Oh, silly me. How could I forget."

It's atrocious design, for a variety of reasons.

But simply filing the serial numbers off of the Red Wizard and the Thayan Knight results in simply "Wizard" and "Knight", which while suggestive, are also base classes, and so no less confusing.

As for the "look it up in the rules" point, I can already tell you that Golden Wyvern Adept allows you to create empty pockets in the middle of area of effect spells, and I've just been reading arguments about it in internet forums.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-02-18, 09:58 PM
I just hope the fluff that they come up with to explain the per encounter abilities is internally consistent and makes sense.
The Tome of Battle suggests that characters need around a minute of not attacking or being attacked in order to refresh any /encounter abilities. So there's at least precedent of them clarifying a /encounter system.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 10:01 PM
Really? I can't think of many mages, even in modern literature, that have, if you will, a second fatigue track. Then again, I don't read too much of the most recent fantasy.
Well, here's the deal; We're talking specifically mages, so I'm not sure whether you mean "More tired then the non-mystical doods" or "At all". I mean the former, frankly, so that might be the cause of some confusion.

Poison_Fish
2008-02-18, 10:01 PM
Aye, I would have no problem with that (that's how GURPS works, BTW, and several other RPGs besides). If they can work it so that it will differentiate between the mage and the party for encounters (so that, in a big battle, the mage can go sit in a corner and regains pells), I wouldn't have very much problem with it. But a pure 'per encounter' is just silly, and (again, pardon the term) MMORPGesque.

Except, per encounter isn't MMORPGesque. It's storyesque. Go back to the scene analogy that Rutee used. What it means is there is some length of time that is enough of a lull for the magic user to rest and recharge his reserves. If it were like an MMO, you'd be getting ticks of energy back every round to cast your next dragon slave/other spells of doom.

I'll make a side note that some systems handle this with everyone having magical energy, even if your a rough and tumble fighter, you have untapped reserves.

edit: Slowpoke.jpg

JadedDM
2008-02-18, 10:05 PM
I've been noticing that a lot of the complaints about 4e aren't complaints about the rules changes that are being made (although there are some of those), but about the fluff of the "default" setting.

I don't understand this. Since D&D is intended to be used with many different settings, the influence of the "default" setting on the basic rules will be minimal and easily ignored.

I'm excited for 4e. I think that the ruleset will bring us another step closer to "getting it right". Do I like all of the fluff elements of the "default" setting? *shrug* Not particularly; but I'm just going to adapt my homebrew campaign setting anyway, so I'm free to cherrypick what I do like and leave the rest.

In other words, why are people getting so hung up on the fluff elements, which will change every time you switch from one campaign setting anyway?

You guys are OVERTHINKING this. The answer is simple: Because about 80% of the information WotC has released so far has been about "fluff." People are arguing about the "fluff" because that's really ALL there is to argue about. When WotC does talk about mechanics, they tend to be extremely vague about it.

Which is why when you say 'I think that the ruleset will bring us another step closer to "getting it right"', I find myself wondering what you are basing that belief on...

DeathQuaker
2008-02-18, 10:54 PM
I've been noticing that a lot of the complaints about 4e aren't complaints about the rules changes that are being made (although there are some of those), but about the fluff of the "default" setting.

As JadedDM said, this is in part because largely what we have been handed (i.e., what is contained in the "preview" books, etc.) is fluff. So that's what people have to work with.



I don't understand this. Since D&D is intended to be used with many different settings, the influence of the "default" setting on the basic rules will be minimal and easily ignored.

Think about what you said.

4E is designed to have new fluff. Fairly deeply developed fluff, as far as I've seen.

But, you suggest, D&D is intended for use with multiple settings.

That's the thing: in previous editions, core D&D had relatively little fluff. You read through a 3.x or even old AD&D "Player's Handbook" and while you might get some basic traits and background info on certain races and maybe, maybe some gods or some history of artifacts, it was all largely crunch. If you wanted "fluff," you either made up your own, or you bought a campaign setting sourcebook, like Forgotten Realms, etc.

4E, as shown by a great deal of what's provided in the setting books (e.g., "once upon a time, in the great city of Bael-Tur, humans made pacts with fiends......") provides its own fluff. When you introduce fluff into the core rules, it makes it harder to readapt what is in core to the other fluff that you may want to use the D&D rules with. Frex, in order to make 4E work with Forgotten Realms, they've decided that the world suffers a massive cataclysm and history advances a hundred years. That's a fairly huge shift, actually; there's a major change in both fluff and crunch that some folks may have trouble adapting or want to adapt to.

And, frex, looking at my homebrew world I run my 3.x games in, I know I'd have to make major changes to both my own fluff, the core fluff, and some crunch to keep my world working the way I want it to. That's something that requires time I would, instead, prefer to put into developing my world as it is.

Is that a horrible, oh my god, end-of-the-world thing? No. Of course it isn't.

But I'm sure the people who've put a lot of time and energy into devising fluff for their D&D games may wonder how they might be able to convert to 4E, because, simply, it's NOT going to be easy to adapt to any setting as you suggest.

And I'll note that it is actually good, in a way, that 4E core, from what we've been shown in the previews, has a far more specific feel to it. It will make it a lot friendlier to new players especially. But not necessarily for those who are looking for a rules upgrade only--that's not what 4E is, by a long shot. The devs have made this clear.

I think excitement towards the new edition is split, somewhat between people who do want something completely new--who are excited--and those who want to work with materials they already have, and fearing the conversion process is going to be more difficult than it's worth. I think it's a fairly legitimate concern, one worth considering even if you don't personally agree with it. It's always okay to disagree, so long as we don't belittle. :smallsmile:

I know for me, if I like 4E's core fluff as well as its mechanics, I may run a 4E game. But if I want to run in my homebrew setting, I'm going to stick with 3.5 because it saves me a lot of work I'd otherwise have to do to convert.

tbarrie
2008-02-18, 11:11 PM
You recognize that "Per Encounter" is much closer to fantasy standard then Vancian Magic, I trust.

Arguably, "per encounter" is more Vancian than the traditional D&D system.

Fhaolan
2008-02-19, 03:27 AM
The only real thing that bothers me so far with all the 4e 'reveals' is the implication that the game is going further into the 'everything's magic' school of thought. Basically becoming yet another Earthdawn 2nd edition. (There are already two different Earthdawn 2nd edition rulesets, do we really need a third?)

This implication is likely wrong, but every bit of fluff revealed seems to point further and further down this road. Reducing the reliance on magic items is a good thing. Simply transfering the magic abilities from the items to the characters themselves as class features doesn't thrill me in the slightest.

But then, I don't like or play much in high magic campaigns. High fantasy, yes, high magic, no. In previous editions of D&D I was able to achieve this, and hopefully I will be able to do so in 4th, but indications are point to this being unlikely.

Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-19, 03:33 AM
Where are you getting this "everything's magic" thing from? :smallconfused:

Kioran
2008-02-19, 05:37 AM
Where are you getting this "everything's magic" thing from? :smallconfused:

The talk about "Powers" and "Power sources" does at least imply this, and as far as I recall, there are excerpts from "races and classes" that state that all characters have access to supernatural powers or prowess of some sort. I do not possess that book, so Iīd be grateful Iīve someone could provide the necessesary qoutes, but yes, Fhaolan has a point.

Which is really somewhat depressing actually. As far as I am concerned, the Dragon Disciple or the Acolyte of the skin show another viabl option for less Item dependency. Nobody ever complained they were broekn, because they arenīt - they just bind some stat-boni and abilities to their cahracter via class features, as do the Paragon-classes from UA. None of those are broken, and would have provided a direction for a class based system with other directions.
I find the /encounter mechanic somewhat troubling, since it is actually unarguable geared towards a Event-based style (look it up in the DMG). Deviate much from this, and awkwardness may arise. A day is a defined term, an encounter has no in-game definition. Besides, daily ressources are a-okay, as long as you can still do something without them and do not overshadow people as long as you have them.


One of the major problems is the difference between Game-design and rules tinkering. The former is a process that works from the beginning on and is based on the way your rules work mathematically and expectations towards their capability to represent your basis/background (and no, thatīs not fluff - itīs what youīre playing and the basis of crunch. Calling is "fluff" sounds silly and is a derogative). Game design is a strange hybrid of science and art.
Rules tinkering is fiddling around with the rules and looking for combinations that work through empirical study. The assorted works of Fax Celestis are a good example for rules tinkering of a fairly good quality. The Problem with rules tinkering is that tinkerers do not consider mathematics behind it, and thus sometiems not truly grasp their own creations, which leads to unexpected problems. The second problem is that rules tinkering always works based on an existing ruleset. Itīs not creative, itīs adaptive.Which isnīt bad, but has no bearing on really new rules or mechanics.

And letīs be clear - rules do, retroactively, influence the background. I would even go as far as saying the Batman Wizard is mainly considered cooler than the Evoker because he is more effective. Iīm not as radical as Emperor Tippy about this, meaning basing your entire world upon what is possible and prorbable within the ruleset, but if your players unearth stuff from the rulebooks and start exploiting it (Teleportation circles for their trade empire, walls of Iron, Martial adepts cutting through those selfsame walls with a hairpin + Stone Dragon maneuver/strike of perfect clarity), you better have something more than blank stares for them, becuase they can change your world with it.

4th Ed. Mechanics are based on their 4th Ed. setting, and will influence all games played with them. That means that via

4 ed. background --> 4th Ed mechanics --> Character application of mechanics --> your campaign world

this chain of influence, 4th ed. "fluff" (*swears violently*) will have a measurable impact on your own. Itīs not a thing to discard.

KIDS
2008-02-19, 05:51 AM
I like both sides of the changes so far; but even if I didn't like the fluff side, I wouldn't be worried about it at all since that is the part I can ignore, unlike the crunch which I can't and which is far more crippling. Good job :smallsmile:

Rutee
2008-02-19, 06:10 AM
4E is designed to have new fluff. Fairly deeply developed fluff, as far as I've seen.

But, you suggest, D&D is intended for use with multiple settings.

That's the thing: in previous editions, core D&D had relatively little fluff. You read through a 3.x or even old AD&D "Player's Handbook" and while you might get some basic traits and background info on certain races and maybe, maybe some gods or some history of artifacts, it was all largely crunch. If you wanted "fluff," you either made up your own, or you bought a campaign setting sourcebook, like Forgotten Realms, etc.

4E, as shown by a great deal of what's provided in the setting books (e.g., "once upon a time, in the great city of Bael-Tur, humans made pacts with fiends......") provides its own fluff. When you introduce fluff into the core rules, it makes it harder to readapt what is in core to the other fluff that you may want to use the D&D rules with. Frex, in order to make 4E work with Forgotten Realms, they've decided that the world suffers a massive cataclysm and history advances a hundred years. That's a fairly huge shift, actually; there's a major change in both fluff and crunch that some folks may have trouble adapting or want to adapt to.
Is that really that much more developped then all the Greyhawk talk?


Arguably, "per encounter" is more Vancian than the traditional D&D system.
You think so? I thought in the original Vancian system, people had like, 4 uber spells that they could cast one a day, and that's it.



4 ed. background --> 4th Ed mechanics --> Character application of mechanics --> your campaign world
Because 3rd ed's being roughly based on Greyhawk so completely ruined the application, amirite?

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-19, 06:28 AM
Where can I find a current list of the crunch changes?

Oh and my major gripe was that they never put out a 3.5 epic handbook and claimed they weren't even thinking of 4e! So if I want new epic stuff without home ruling a bunch of stuff (at which point I might as well remake the system from the ground up) then I have to throw away all the 3.5 stuff and buy a whole new crap load of books and relearn a system I was only just getting comfortable with!

Minor gripe was the creep of fluff into the system.

Side story
I did laugh that epic is now standard dnd, no more arguing with guy that quit a character at lvl20 (lvl6 in extreme cases) and insists we all should, though now I imagine that guy will be a lvl 30 adherent.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 06:34 AM
I'll send you a PM of everything that occurs to me. It's late and I don't think there's a consolidated list of changes because that'd be really hard.

Muyten
2008-02-19, 07:07 AM
Well ENworlds list of changes is pretty comprehensive:
http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e#rules

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 08:59 AM
On "Per day" to "per encounter".

When I was redesigning our local LARP system back in '03 when I should have been revising for finals, the first thing I ditched was Uses Per Day.

Use limitations are a purely arbitrary game-balance mechanic. They're designed to stop wizards blatting everything with fireballs all the damned time.

The problem with "uses per day" is that it came with the default assumption that you would be having four encounters every day. If - like me - you preferred a less hack and slash game (or, dare I say it, a game that was less like an MMO) in which the players got into combat infrequently, and spent most of their time having conversations, building alliances, and generally not acting like walking bazookas, then any combat encounter that actually *happened* would be totally dominated by the spellcasters, who could let off all of their high level spells without fear of needing them again.

"Per day" means you're making some serious game balance decisions based on what you expect your characters to do in a particular "day".

Sleet
2008-02-19, 09:08 AM
But simply filing the serial numbers off of the Red Wizard and the Thayan Knight results in simply "Wizard" and "Knight", which while suggestive, are also base classes, and so no less confusing.

Yeah, it really is a lot less confusing. "Wizard" and "Knight" is still suggestive of what it is, and it's pretty easy even for a casual player to say "Wait, this is a prestige class." I can tell you from personal experience that even a casual player can keep track of the name of one PrC, especially when there's still "wizard" or "knight" in its altered name.

A list of feats whose names have no bearing on what they do? Not so much.


I can already tell you that Golden Wyvern Adept allows you to create empty pockets in the middle of area of effect spells, and I've just been reading arguments about it in internet forums.

Good for you. Most players don't tend to follow the internet arguments about it, and the more casual players who don't bother following the game on the Internet at all and look at the rules once a week (if that much) sure as heck won't have an easy time of it. It's going to tick them off.

This is Game Design 101. Commonly used rules mechanics should be named to jog a player's memory to remember what they do, even if they end up having to refer to the book for details. Like I said, I like a lot of what I'm seeing in 4e (such as the per encounter thing - a very good move), but this "flavorful" feat naming thing is a terrible decision, pure and simple.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-19, 09:13 AM
Nice, it took 16 whole posts to turn this into "ZOMG 4e = WoW!!!111"


I will explain this slowly and carefully, since apparently no-one who says this has ever *actually* played WoW.

Similarities between WoW and 4e:


Orcs
Trolls
Goblins
Magic
Swords
See where this is going?
Also, class balance


When you die in 4e, you *might* get rez'd or whatever or more likely, you are dead, or if Scottish, you are DEEED!

In WoW however, you just click respawn and keep playing.

Also, Vancian Magic going bye-bye has no real similarities to WoW either, since WoW uses Mana/Magic Points, not per encounter abilities.

In 4e, you get a couple of big bad spells that you can use once a day (kinda like, hrrm, Vancian...) and the rest are mostly per encounter. So essentially for 4e, they have reduced the number of spells a Wizard gets, but given him Reserve feats that you don't actually need a Reserve for.

So, once again, the 4e = WoW is wrong, flawed and said only by people who have never actually played an MMO and who seem to think it is a pejorative.

To those who want gnome sorcerers....

Gnomes are in the MM....

For the time being you can use Warlocks to replace Sorcerers, since the Warlock does what a Sorcerer was supposed to do to begin with.

I feel so sorry so some people who hate 4e, the way they are utterly powerless to do anything in the face of 4e's unstoppable fluff.. if only, as a DM, they could rewrite the fluff, but sadly, they cannot... of course the only reason they can't change the fluff is because they think it enhances their arguement that 4e is the work of the Devil.

As for Forgotten Realms...

Personally I am happy with the fast-forward and the Spellplague.

It gets the Realms back into a more managable world. It doesn't decrease its diversity and awesomeness any, it just eliminates pesky things like an NPC around every corner with a dozen books written about him.

I think they also needed a way out - they kind of painted themselves into a corner with Mystra/the Symbol/Elminster and that stuff just had to go. Look into your heart, you know it to be true.

I mean, seriously, with the Realms as is, it is impossible to do cool adventuring without serious stretching of suspension of disbelief. Why? Because my character has a little skill called Knowledge and Gather Info. So let me see DoomyDoom the Evil is about to destroy the world and heroes are needed to stop him? Hey Drizzt? Elminster? World - about to be destroyed? Can ya help?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 09:18 AM
I feel so sorry so some people who hate 4e, the way they are utterly powerless to do anything in the face of 4e's unstoppable fluff.. if only, as a DM, they could rewrite the fluff, but sadly, they cannot... of course the only reason they can't change the fluff is because they think it enhances their arguement that 4e is the work of the Devil.


Not to mention the way the release of 4e will make all of their 3.X books explode in a puff of smoke. Presumably utilizing the same technology which is going to allow 4E to make it impossible to create a character without paying an online subscription.

hewhosaysfish
2008-02-19, 09:19 AM
The talk about "Powers" and "Power sources" does at least imply this, and as far as I recall, there are excerpts from "races and classes" that state that all characters have access to supernatural powers or prowess of some sort. I do not possess that book, so Iīd be grateful Iīve someone could provide the necessesary qoutes, but yes, Fhaolan has a point.

As I understood it, the three power sources are going to be Arcane, Divine and Mundane (that last one may actually have a different name...). The bard (Arcane Leader) will buff the party with the power of magic, the cleric (Divine Leader) will buff the party with the power of the gods and the warlord (Mundane Leader) will buff the party with the power of his own awesomeness and badassery.
So one of the three divisions will be fundamentally non-magical. Of course, supposedly Mundane classes may have variants/feats/trees available that add in some supernatural ability but the compulsory, universal traits of barbarians, rogues, etc will still be non-magical.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 09:31 AM
As I understood it, the three power sources are going to be Arcane, Divine and Mundane (that last one may actually have a different name...). The bard (Arcane Leader) will buff the party with the power of magic, the cleric (Divine Leader) will buff the party with the power of the gods and the warlord (Mundane Leader) will buff the party with the power of his own awesomeness and badassery.
So one of the three divisions will be fundamentally non-magical. Of course, supposedly Mundane classes may have variants/feats/trees available that add in some supernatural ability but the compulsory, universal traits of barbarians, rogues, etc will still be non-magical.

I think it's going to be "Martial" rather than mundane. Apparently they'll also be adding "Shadow" at some point.

Sleet
2008-02-19, 09:36 AM
As I understood it, the three power sources are going to be Arcane, Divine and Mundane (that last one may actually have a different name...). The bard (Arcane Leader) will buff the party with the power of magic, the cleric (Divine Leader) will buff the party with the power of the gods and the warlord (Mundane Leader) will buff the party with the power of his own awesomeness and badassery.

This is the sort of awesome that makes me want to overlook that feat naming silliness - they're thinking about this from a systemic point of view, really analyzing roles and who does what and how they do it. This is the basis of Good Game Design (tm), and I really like where it's going thusfar. It'll be worth marking up my 4e PHB with feat renamings. :smallwink:

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-19, 09:42 AM
I think it's going to be "Martial" rather than mundane. Apparently they'll also be adding "Shadow" at some point.

Yes and also a "Wild" which is what Barbarians, Druids and (theoretically) Sorcerers will draw on. Also, Psionics is planned as well.

Honestly the whole Power Sources/Roles thing has always been there in D&D, it simply gives it a name and (hopefully) will give a good baseline idea of what we can expect from future products as well as a useful notion of homebrewing classes.

ASIDE: Yes, people homebrew classes just fine now, I am referring to newer players and DMs who haven't done it before. Otherwise you can end up with severely over/under-powered classes that look good on paper but...

Granted, yes that can/will still happen, I am just hoping this gives a better baseline for balance purposes.

Unlike 3es baseline of: "The Fighter is the baseline class and no class should be more powerful" except Wizards. And Clerics. And Druids. And every published class. But no class should ever be more powerful than the fighter, not even PrCs. Yeah right.

Indon
2008-02-19, 09:53 AM
So, once again, the 4e = WoW is wrong, flawed and said only by people who have never actually played an MMO and who seem to think it is a pejorative.

Yeah, certainly. So instead, let's look at how the systems are different:


WoW classes have more mechanical variety.
WoW abilities use some form of power points in addition to having varying cooldowns.
WoW's universe is part of a nigh-limitless multiverse.
WoW's universe has elemental planes (though the player never goes to any of them).


Man, from my woefully incomplete list, saying that 4e = WoW is looking pretty complimentary! (Note, this is tongue in cheek... with the exception of the 'mechanical variety' comment. As far as I'm concerned, variety is a better game feature than balance is)

But more seriously, I think the "D&D is turning into a video game" mentality originates with 3.x, and is a result of player culture, not the game system. It is the ultimate result of establishing a system in which the rules-as-stated trump all, and creating a living world (aka "houseruling") is quietly stigmatized.

4'th edition gives almost no indication of changing this, especially with its' greater emphasis on computer-based play. The article on traps gives me hope, though.

TempusCCK
2008-02-19, 09:54 AM
In my experience, the big tie in from 4e to WoW was the "class role system."

"If you choose to play a Bard, here's what you need/get to do."

I personally feel that predetermined "roles" for all the characters are very MMO, and while I may be a little oldschool in the thought that my character should be what I make it, perhaps some people do like to have their party dynamics/character concepts handed to them prepacked by WotC. (Compounded nicely with all the extra stuff you get because you paid them a monthly subscription.) I mean, it works for Blizzard, right? I mean, crap, 4e and WoW are nothing alike! It's a myth! They're not using online subscriptions and easy to pick up and play, prepackaged characters to make tons of money! -flees in the face of his farce being revealed.-

shylocxs
2008-02-19, 10:03 AM
I've been reading about the changes with interest as well, and I'm pretty sure that this is one more instance when the fact that I play 1st edition comes across as the semi-right decision. Yes, 3.5 has a lot more going for it, but all too often the "fluff" seems to get in the way. There should not be any central and standard campaign world at all. Instead, there should be the means of allowing as many or as few half-orcs as you wish. This is what has really bothered me about WOTC since they bought TSR... suddenly, I'm not expected to play in my world but in theirs.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 10:07 AM
In my experience, the big tie in from 4e to WoW was the "class role system."

"If you choose to play a Bard, here's what you need/get to do."

How is this different from the way classes have *always* worked?


I personally feel that predetermined "roles" for all the characters are very MMO,

What, you mean the way that in MMOs you have fighters, who are good at fighting, and Clerics, who are good at healing, and spellcasters, who are good at casting spells?

Yeah, it'd be a real shame if D&D wound up being like that.


and while I may be a little oldschool in the thought that my character should be what I make it, perhaps some people do like to have their party dynamics/character concepts handed to them prepacked by WotC.

Because the current system is so flexible! There's absolutely *nothing* about the Bard class as written which suggests its primary role is to stand at the back, sing songs and buff people! Certainly Clerics are in no way geared towards healing or turning undead. And they most certainly weren't originally introduced for precisely that purpose.

I mean, just look at the core PhB classes. "Wizard" "Rogue" "Barbarian", aren't they just *redolent* with dramatic possibilities? Doesn't the "Barbarian" class just scream "eloquent and passionate advocate for the rights of his people". Doesn't the Fighter cry out to be played as a war poet or jaded ex soldier trying to make a new life for himself?


(Compounded nicely with all the extra stuff you get because you paid them a monthly subscription.) I mean, it works for Blizzard, right? I mean, crap, 4e and WoW are nothing alike! It's a myth! They're not using online subscriptions and easy to pick up and play, prepackaged characters to make tons of money! -flees in the face of his farce being revealed.-

So now "online subscription" means "MMO"? Everything has online content nowadays. Newspapers have online content. There was online content with my advent calender this year.

If there was one thing, one single thing, which I'd say was *remotely* like an MMO in D&D (apart from all the things MMOs stole *from* D&D) it's Living Greyhawk.

Which for those of you who aren't familiar, is a completely new thing they are introducing with 4th edition to make money and certainly hasn't been around for years.

Skyserpent
2008-02-19, 10:07 AM
One of the only issues I have with expanded fluff change is the fact that 4e is apparently trying to blur the line between fluff and mechanics. Which is all okay until they hardwire unnecessary fluff into creatures that would conflict with a DMs choice of universe... I don't know if they WILL do that, but if that ends up happening I'll be a smidgen miffed.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 10:12 AM
One of the only issues I have with expanded fluff change is the fact that 4e is apparently trying to blur the line between fluff and mechanics. Which is all okay until they hardwire unnecessary fluff into creatures that would conflict with a DMs choice of universe... I don't know if they WILL do that, but if that ends up happening I'll be a smidgen miffed.

What do you see as blurring the line between "fluff" and "mechanics"? A lot of what I've seen actually *breaks* the connection rather than reinforcing it. For example, the shift from spells-per-day to spells-per-encounter means that Wizards no longer have to literally sit down and "memorize" spells every morning, Clerics no longer have to order their spells from God at midnight.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-19, 10:14 AM
Mainly because WOTC is mixing in fluff with their crunch, making it harder to separate the two.

That's one of the reasons yeah. It's hard to tell at this point if it will be any more entwined than it already is in 3.x but there seems to be some linkage. However, if you don't like the fluff, it being entwined at all is at best annoying.


Well I feel stupid, I finally found the best way to define Encounter; "Dramatic unit of time", since that's usually the one most modern fiction operates on, as they won't slavishly track in character time.

This is part of the reason I'm not a fan of the round/encounter/day power schema. It's more in the hands of DM fiat, which being a primarily lawful individual I dislike. The other reason is what about the out of what is normally understood as an encounter use of abilities? Does casting 'fireball' at a rock count as an encounter? If not, how is it adjudicated?


For a clarification, this system will probably not be made to make sense in a 'realistic' fashion, or one that preserves verisimilitude. Or at least not work well. It appeared to me to be based fully within drama. I might be wrong though.

I think it is trying. I'm not sure it will not fail.


God forbid we focus our game on the stars of the narrative.

Indeed. Astronomy is fun and educational but really the PC's should be the focus of play. :smallwink:


The Red Wizard and Thayan Knight prestige classes appear in the 3.5 DMG and Complete Warrior, respectively. Using the same kind of logic you people are applying, WotC is assuming that Thay exists in everybody's game world.

No, it's saying players will think so reading the books. There is a practical play difference bettween something being in a specific section of the DMG or a Splatbook and as part of the core progression. It's hard enough in 3.5 to get it through the heads of some players that no, not every feat and PrC is in this particular universe and no, it's not unfair or a houserule the availability of these things are up to the DM in every case. Imagine that but worse because it's not a PrC, it's just a standard feat.


But simply filing the serial numbers off of the Red Wizard and the Thayan Knight results in simply "Wizard" and "Knight", which while suggestive, are also base classes, and so no less confusing.

For the record, I would not have a class that is setting specific in the DMG at all, for the reasons others have mentioned and that I've outlined above. Just because 3.5 screwed up in that regard doesn't me it's cool if 4e does. This isn't a is 3.x better than 4e thread. It's a 'why are people annoyed with fluff changes' thread.


As for the "look it up in the rules" point, I can already tell you that Golden Wyvern Adept allows you to create empty pockets in the middle of area of effect spells, and I've just been reading arguments about it in internet forums.

I'm glad that you have committed that to memory. Would it really have been a problem for 4e to call it Shape Spell in that case?


Oh noes! Wizards of the Coast has ruined D&D!

Now, now, it can be fixed. No one is saying the game is ruined (except maybe EE). It's just that it's annoying to know you are going to spend $90 on a product you will immediatley have to houserule.



The Tome of Battle suggests that characters need around a minute of not attacking or being attacked in order to refresh any /encounter abilities. So there's at least precedent of them clarifying a /encounter system.

I hope they both keep that and make sure that there aren't any per encounter abilities that outshine ritiuals if used over and over.


You guys are OVERTHINKING this. The answer is simple: Because about 80% of the information WotC has released so far has been about "fluff." People are arguing about the "fluff" because that's really ALL there is to argue about.

Yeah that too.


"Per day" means you're making some serious game balance decisions based on what you expect your characters to do in a particular "day".

Not really any more problematic than the total number of spells given to casters problem 3.x has though.


Not to mention the way the release of 4e will make all of their 3.X books explode in a puff of smoke. Presumably utilizing the same technology which is going to allow 4E to make it impossible to create a character without paying an online subscription.

Incorrect! 3.x will not dissapear in a puff of smoke, it will dissapear in a puff of marketing and 'it's new' frenzy.

Indon
2008-02-19, 10:21 AM
How is this different from the way classes have *always* worked?
Well, before it was, "Man, we should all pick different classes so we avoid redundancy."

Now it's, "Campaign have tank/healer LF controller/DPR".

Though, a lot of that has to do with mechanics which Wizards simply hasn't released yet - like will encounters be built around having one of each role, or not? We don't know, but it's implied.



What, you mean the way that in MMOs you have fighters, who are good at fighting, and Clerics, who are good at healing, and spellcasters, who are good at casting spells?

Yeah, it'd be a real shame if D&D wound up being like that.

Indeed. I much prefer a D&D in which the fighter can choose to be good at ranged combat, the cleric can choose to be good at fighting, and the Wizard can learn and use healing spells. 3.5 offers these (okay, so maybe it's the Sorceror who learns to heal more easily. So sue me), MMOs do not.



Because the current system is so flexible! There's absolutely *nothing* about the Bard class as written which suggests its primary role is to stand at the back, sing songs and buff people! Certainly Clerics are in no way geared towards healing or turning undead. And they most certainly weren't originally introduced for precisely that purpose.
And yet, one can readily create a spellcasting or melee-oriented Bard, and the Cleric class features you mention are pretty negligable compared to what they can do.



I mean, just look at the core PhB classes. "Wizard" "Rogue" "Barbarian", aren't they just *redolent* with dramatic possibilities? Doesn't the "Barbarian" class just scream "eloquent and passionate advocate for the rights of his people". Doesn't the Fighter cry out to be played as a war poet or jaded ex soldier trying to make a new life for himself?
I know there's a prestige class designed for at least one of those.



So now "online subscription" means "MMO"? Everything has online content nowadays. Newspapers have online content. There was online content with my advent calender this year.

I don't subscribe to newspapers online. I just read the stories for free. Kinda like all of the online 3.x content Wizards had been releasing.


If there was one thing, one single thing, which I'd say was *remotely* like an MMO in D&D (apart from all the things MMOs stole *from* D&D) it's Living Greyhawk.

Which for those of you who aren't familiar, is a completely new thing they are introducing with 4th edition to make money and certainly hasn't been around for years.

I'd say it's Dungeons and Dragons Online: Stormreach. :smallbiggrin:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 10:21 AM
Incorrect! 3.x will not dissapear in a puff of smoke, it will dissapear in a puff of marketing and 'it's new' frenzy.

That *will* be interesting. I'll have to dig out my D&D books and watch as they evaporate.

hewhosaysfish
2008-02-19, 10:24 AM
In my experience, the big tie in from 4e to WoW was the "class role system."

"If you choose to play a Bard, here's what you need/get to do."

I personally feel that predetermined "roles" for all the characters are very MMO, and while I may be a little oldschool in the thought that my character should be what I make it, perhaps some people do like to have their party dynamics/character concepts handed to them prepacked by WotC.

Huh?

"If you choose to play a Bard, you get magic songs that help your allies fight better. You can also fight (but not as well as the fighter), use skills (but not as well as the rogue) and use magic (but not as well as the wizard)."

Are you objecting to the class system?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 10:37 AM
Well, before it was, "Man, we should all pick different classes so we avoid redundancy."

Now it's, "Campaign have tank/healer LF controller/DPR".

But that's exactly the same thing. It's just that it's phrased slightly differently.


Though, a lot of that has to do with mechanics which Wizards simply hasn't released yet - like will encounters be built around having one of each role, or not? We don't know, but it's implied.

It's implied *now*. It's assumed that you've got to have a Rogue for the traps, a Cleric for healing, a Fighter for getting totally outclassed by everybody...


Indeed. I much prefer a D&D in which the fighter can choose to be good at ranged combat, the cleric can choose to be good at fighting, and the Wizard can learn and use healing spells. 3.5 offers these (okay, so maybe it's the Sorceror who learns to heal more easily. So sue me), MMOs do not.

What about a fighter choosing to be good at social interaction, or a cleric choosing not to cast spells of any kind? And since when can wizards cast healing spells?

And how do MMOs *not* allow you to do all of that? I'll admit that I don't play World of Warcraft, but I've played a good deal of Diablo and there's *absolutely* nothing stopping a Barbarian fighting with a bow, or a Necromancer wading into the enemy in heavy armour and swinging a great big two handed sword.

Now, your characters usually suck if you play them sub-optimally. This is true in 3.5 as well.

You want flexibility, play a classless system.


And yet, one can readily create a spellcasting or melee-oriented Bard, and the Cleric class features you mention are pretty negligable compared to what they can do.

That's because Clerics are *vastly overpowered*. And you *can* create a melee-oriented bard, but you will be less effective than pretty much any other melee character.

And there is absolutely no evidence that you *won't* be able to do exactly the same in 4E. You just won't be able to create CoDzilla.


I know there's a prestige class designed for at least one of those.

So you can do one of those, because there's a class designed specifically to fulfill that role? How is that an argument *for* the flexibility of 3.5?


I don't subscribe to newspapers online. I just read the stories for free. Kinda like all of the online 3.x content Wizards had been releasing.

And you know what, you're allowed to do that. Just like you can in 3.5, just like you will still be able to in 4.0. Or do you think they're going to systematically take down every D&D site on the internet?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 10:41 AM
Huh?

"If you choose to play a Bard, you get magic songs that help your allies fight better. You can also fight (but not as well as the fighter), use skills (but not as well as the rogue) and use magic (but not as well as the wizard)."

Are you objecting to the class system?

In 4th Editon Bards won't be able to fight at all because they're a Leader class. If a player controlling a Bard enters melee combat, the D&D Online software (without which the game will not function) will immediately detect it, and the player's subscription will be canceled, rendering him unable to play D&D ever again.

This was all announced on the official forums last week, didn't you hear?

fendrin
2008-02-19, 10:42 AM
I thin it's because people, as a general rule, are afraid of change. However, especially in our macho-tough-guy-gamer culture, it's so much better to make flawed arguments than to admit you are scared of anything.

To be honest, yes there are/will be flaws in 4e. Any human creation is going to be inherently flawed, as we are not perfect beings.

Will it 'ruin' D&D? No. I mean, WoTC doesn't strike me as much of a risk taker, or at least not since Hasbro bought them. Regardless, the idea here is to sell MORE books, not to make the system unplayable.

Oh, and one last thing: Take a close look at the new wizard's mechanics(or at least what little we know about it). Take a good look. How much does it resemble a 3.5 wizard, and how much does it resemble a 3.5 sorcerer? Come on people, the wizard is dead and the sorcerer got renamed. Please stop complaining about sorcerers not being in the 4e DMG. As for Wizards? well, that gets lumped into the "Vancian magic is dead" category, which generally makes me want to cheer. Cheer AND play a wizard, which I haven't done in YEARS.

TempusCCK
2008-02-19, 10:44 AM
I object to having to choose a class and being told exactly what I must do with it.

Wizards are no longer just spellcasters, they are now "Controllers." Nevermind that I liked being able to play a wizard who mixed up illusionary spells, utility and some blasty fun, my job is now strictly to "controll the battlefield."

Or what if I wanted to make a leader Bard one game, who focused on buffs and the like, and then the next game play a melee-oriented Bard, who came in and tried to tear stuff up.

Yes, there are certain roles that certain classes fill, and fill well, but in 4e, you're forced into them by class choice.

The prime example is the fighter, everything you read about the 4e Fighter screams "TANK! TANK! TANK!" Except, they call it Defender.

Huh, what about the quick, guerilla type fighter build who mixed up mobility and ranged attacks? ****, better play a Ranger for that in 4e, because he's a DPS, I mean "Striker."

Character ingenuity just went out the window, thanks Dan and WotC for your very narrow minded view on character roles.

Telonius
2008-02-19, 10:48 AM
The problem I have with "per encounter" is what the hell that actually means. Does it mean that the wizard needs to stop and take a breather afterwards or something? If so, suppose a wizard gets into a fight and blasts off some spells, and then afterwards proceeds to crawl through the dungeon for an hour. At that point, he gets into another fight. Does he get his spells back even though he hasn't paused to rest? What if he gets into a fight, and there is only a one-minute interval before they come up on another group of baddies? Does he get his spells back then? It is afterall a separate encounter.

If you can bust out magic all day long (how many encounters can you cram into a day!?), I don't see any reason not to just make everything "at will" and be done with it.

"Encounter" will probably mean the same thing in 4e as it does in 3e. Experience is already given out based on Encounters, isn't it?

hewhosaysfish
2008-02-19, 10:50 AM
Well, before it was, "Man, we should all pick different classes so we avoid redundancy."

Now it's, "Campaign have tank/healer LF controller/DPR".


People have been playing the tank/skillmonkey/blaster/healbitchhealbot(/optional fifth wheel) model since long before WoW. The four-man part is a classic icon of DnD. Before that it was fighter/thief/mage.
All Wizards have done is put less jokey names to them.



Though, a lot of that has to do with mechanics which Wizards simply hasn't released yet - like will encounters be built around having one of each role, or not? We don't know, but it's implied.


... I honestly don't understand what you mean about building encounters. The DM designs the enounters, not WotC. Except in published modules.
Do you mean that there will be some monsters that will totally screw the party unless the have a heavy-hitter (sorry, "Striker")?
By the same token there are some monsters in 3e that will own any group lacking the right sort of caster. And a group without a rogue will get pantsed by traps.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 11:02 AM
I object to having to choose a class and being told exactly what I must do with it.

Wizards are no longer just spellcasters, they are now "Controllers." Nevermind that I liked being able to play a wizard who mixed up illusionary spells, utility and some blasty fun, my job is now strictly to "controll the battlefield."

Since as "just spellcasters" Wizards were grossly overpowered, I don't think cutting them back a bit is a bad thing.


Or what if I wanted to make a leader Bard one game, who focused on buffs and the like, and then the next game play a melee-oriented Bard, who came in and tried to tear stuff up.

Then you could totally do that. Just like you can do that in 3.5. How the *hell* do you think the new system is going to work? You think bards won't *get* a Base Attack Bonus?

In 3.5 Bards are less good in melee than fighters. This is all fine and dandy. In 4.0 Bards are less good in melee than fighters and this is KILLING CHARACTER DIVERSITY.


Yes, there are certain roles that certain classes fill, and fill well, but in 4e, you're forced into them by class choice.

Whereas in 3E if I wanted to play a fighter who could also heal people, I could.

Oh wait.


The prime example is the fighter, everything you read about the 4e Fighter screams "TANK! TANK! TANK!" Except, they call it Defender.

Heaven forfend that they should actually give the Fighter something to *do*.


Huh, what about the quick, guerilla type fighter build who mixed up mobility and ranged attacks? ****, better play a Ranger for that in 4e, because he's a DPS, I mean "Striker."

So let me get this right. The crux of your argument is not that you can't play the type of character you want - you freely admit that the quick guerilla type is still totally doable - just that the name of the class that gives you an appropriate set of mechanics is different.

Why is that a problem?


Character ingenuity just went out the window, thanks Dan and WotC for your very narrow minded view on character roles.

That's me. I'm just the kind of narrow minded guy who thinks that when your Cleric is a better melee fighter than your dedicated melee fighters then *maybe* you have a problem.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-19, 11:15 AM
Wow Tempus; it must be nice to not read anything that WotC has released about 4e, to have never played an MMO and yet somehow invent your own personal worldview about both.

You are apparently a Psion and a powerful one at that, since you are manifesting Alter Reality at will.

You are totally right of course. All 4e Characters must conform strictly to all codified laws of 4e. All roles must be strictly observed at all times or WotC will burn your house down and kick your puppy. Thats rule number 1, right after Rule 0: Chuck Norris always wins.

Give me a break; your histrionics could have been replaced with a simpler post of "I am afraid of change".

Instead you have to resort to the "4e is WoW" card, which is of course demonstrably untrue.

Indon
2008-02-19, 01:02 PM
People have been playing the tank/skillmonkey/blaster/healbitchhealbot(/optional fifth wheel) model since long before WoW. The four-man part is a classic icon of DnD. Before that it was fighter/thief/mage.
All Wizards have done is put less jokey names to them.

Yes, I am aware that people have played that way. However, there's a world of difference between a game that people play a certain way, and a game designed for people to play in a certain way. 4'th edition is looking to be the latter.


... I honestly don't understand what you mean about building encounters. The DM designs the enounters, not WotC. Except in published modules.
Do you mean that there will be some monsters that will totally screw the party unless the have a heavy-hitter (sorry, "Striker")?
By the same token there are some monsters in 3e that will own any group lacking the right sort of caster. And a group without a rogue will get pantsed by traps.

No. Take the 3.x monster CR - this CR does not (among other things) assume party roles - undead are the CR you need to beat them to death, not turn them, for instance. Really, the only thing the CR system takes into account is that all of your guys can deal damage.

As such, if you have, say, a Rogue/Ranger/Scout/Warlock team, which is not at all iconic, they can still do well against most CR-appropriate challenges, because CR-appropriate challenges are not designed explicitly for the balanced-role party.

It doesn't matter if the game has roles to their classes neccessarily. It matters if the game is being designed with these roles in mind.


But that's exactly the same thing. It's just that it's phrased slightly differently.
No, it's not. Not having class redundancy means you can have a group consisting of, say, a Rogue/Monk/Warlock/Factotum. But that group can't cut it in a game built around roles... in that specific case, the team has too much DPS and not enough healing or CC.



It's implied *now*. It's assumed that you've got to have a Rogue for the traps, a Cleric for healing, a Fighter for getting totally outclassed by everybody...

Yes, the game has limits as to what people can do with classes. Those limits just happen to be very wide, compared to what 4'th edition so far has promised.

"But classes are limited now!" is not a rebuttal to the argument, "Classes will be even more limited than they are now."


And how do MMOs *not* allow you to do all of that? I'll admit that I don't play World of Warcraft, but I've played a good deal of Diablo and there's *absolutely* nothing stopping a Barbarian fighting with a bow, or a Necromancer wading into the enemy in heavy armour and swinging a great big two handed sword.

Now, your characters usually suck if you play them sub-optimally. This is true in 3.5 as well.


D2 is a very well-designed game, and somewhat of an exception. My favorite character type, in fact, is a bow-using Holy Freeze Paladin (Yes, it works, and very well).


You want flexibility, play a classless system.


I want system flexibility (as D&D is the jack-of-all-trades game system) - which calls for a system which doesn't dedicate itself too greatly to any particular mechanic.


And there is absolutely no evidence that you *won't* be able to do exactly the same in 4E.

But there is evidence - the naming of the roles themselves and the assignment of each class to a role. It's circumstancial evidence, of course, but without the books we wouldn't have the evidence to convict in any case.


And you know what, you're allowed to do that. Just like you can in 3.5, just like you will still be able to in 4.0. Or do you think they're going to systematically take down every D&D site on the internet?

Well, sure, I'll still be able to access Wizards' online content for 3.x. I just won't be able to access it for 4.x, because it won't be free. Which was my point.

fendrin
2008-02-19, 02:21 PM
Yes, I am aware that people have played that way. However, there's a world of difference between a game that people play a certain way, and a game designed for people to play in a certain way. 4'th edition is looking to be the latter.
Do you have any evidence of this beyond the fact that they named the roles that have been in place since at least 2e? I for one see evidence to the contrary: Clerics, for instance, have their combat role reaffirmed by being able to give small bits of healing WHILE being an active combatant. However, it has been stated that if a cleric WANTED to be a healbot, they could. How is that any less flexible than how the 3.X cleric was (apparently) intended?

Similarly: TempusCCK, where says wizards are forced to be controllers? Maybe they are best at that, but surely you don't think that is ALL they will be able to do? We have already seen that they still have burning hands and other typical blasty spells. They probably still have a wide range of controlling the field, such as illusions, area effect spells, etc. just like they do in 3.X. You really think they are going to eliminate ALL utility spells? I haven;t heard of there being a 'utility' class role, so I'm guessing that those utility spells are going to be staying with wizards, too.

The only thing I know of that has been specifically removed/toned down is their mind effecting abilities, which was done to allow for psionics to have more of a niche. I would presume that their direct combat buffs have been seriously toned down so that they no longer overshadow the classes intended to be direct combat classes.


No. Take the 3.x monster CR - this CR does not (among other things) assume party roles - undead are the CR you need to beat them to death, not turn them, for instance. Really, the only thing the CR system takes into account is that all of your guys can deal damage.

As such, if you have, say, a Rogue/Ranger/Scout/Warlock team, which is not at all iconic, they can still do well against most CR-appropriate challenges, because CR-appropriate challenges are not designed explicitly for the balanced-role party.

It doesn't matter if the game has roles to their classes neccessarily. It matters if the game is being designed with these roles in mind.
From what I have seen, the 'roles' are merely how the classes function best in combat. I fail to see how they could design an encounter that was only able to be overcome with the use of a specific role. In fact, I have seen a lot of evidence that points to them moving AWAY from that sort of thinking, like the fact that trapfinding is, if I remember correctly, now a feat instead of a class ability.


No, it's not. Not having class redundancy means you can have a group consisting of, say, a Rogue/Monk/Warlock/Factotum. But that group can't cut it in a game built around roles... in that specific case, the team has too much DPS and not enough healing or CC.
Why do you assume that having a balance of named roles is any more 'required' than a balance of de facto roles? Sure, encounters might be harder if you don;t have a balance of roles, but is that any different than 3.X? Worst case scenario is that the DM can adjust the CR of encounters based on the party. Oh wait, that's a key part of good DMing in 3.X, too.



Yes, the game has limits as to what people can do with classes. Those limits just happen to be very wide, compared to what 4'th edition so far has promised.

"But classes are limited now!" is not a rebuttal to the argument, "Classes will be even more limited than they are now."
see, as far as I know, we now so little about 4e classes that we can;t even get a vague idea of what it will really be like. Do you have any specific evidence of this?


But there is evidence - the naming of the roles themselves and the assignment of each class to a role. It's circumstancial evidence, of course, but without the books we wouldn't have the evidence to convict in any case.
So the fact that they have publicly named the roles they were thinking about as they designed 3.0 is an indicator that 4e classes are are more restricted? The only thing that is new about the roles is their names, and I think they are striving harder to make sure all classes fit into a role, and can do it well. I'd say that's an improvement because it helps make sure you don't end up with classes that dominate multiple roles (i.e. 3.X wizard, cleric, druid, etc.) or classes that don't fit any role particularly adequately (3.X monk). Additionally,
this will help new homebrewers to make sure their creations can function in a party without overpowering one or more other roles.


Well, sure, I'll still be able to access Wizards' online content for 3.x. I just won't be able to access it for 4.x, because it won't be free. Which was my point.
I have a feeling there will still be some free content, for the same reason there was free content previously: it helps them sell more books. The payed-for content would fill the niche that was previously filled by the Dragon and Dungeon magazines. I could be wrong about this, but I am fairly certain.

Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-19, 02:21 PM
Good for you. Most players don't tend to follow the internet arguments about it, and the more casual players who don't bother following the game on the Internet at all and look at the rules once a week (if that much) sure as heck won't have an easy time of it. It's going to tick them off.

This is Game Design 101. Commonly used rules mechanics should be named to jog a player's memory to remember what they do, even if they end up having to refer to the book for details. Like I said, I like a lot of what I'm seeing in 4e (such as the per encounter thing - a very good move), but this "flavorful" feat naming thing is a terrible decision, pure and simple.

That wasn't my point, although I suppose I may have been too subtle. My point is that once people are exposed to it enough, they will form a connection between "Gold Wyvern Adept" and "Make a hole in AoE spells". That's the way human brains work. I can understand your frustration that it isn't immediately clear, but neither is Robilar's Gambit, for ex.

Artanis
2008-02-19, 02:39 PM
I'm glad that you have committed that to memory. Would it really have been a problem for 4e to call it Shape Spell in that case?
Actually, yes. Yes it could.

In one of the 4e articles, they mentioned that Wizards could (or maybe "would", I couldn't really tell, but I digress) belong to certain traditions. Traditions with names like Iron Sigil, Hidden Flame...and Golden Wyvern.



So now we see the feat "Golden Wyvern Adept". NONE of the other feats listed in that article mention their prereqs (other than level tier), but it seems likely to me that they do, in fact, have prereqs. Namely Golden Wyvern Adept having the prereq of being a Wizard in the Golden Wyvern tradition.

The upshot being that naming it "Golden Wyvern Adept" would be analogous to a 3e feat called "Evoker Adept" that requires being an Evoker. Simply naming it "Shape Spell" would imply that it's available to ANY Wizard...or any spellcaster, for that matter. I can very easily see how THAT implementation would cause more confusion and bitching than simply calling it "(Insert Tradition Name with actual Mechanical Implications here) Adept".

Fhaolan
2008-02-19, 04:24 PM
Where are you getting this "everything's magic" thing from? :smallconfused:

Well, since all I have to go by is the released fluff previews, I can't say for sure that that's what's going on. All I have is my impressions based off of what I've read. And I fully admit that my impressions are based on pieces of fluff from different sources that are combining in ways that may not be intended.

The first, and main piece, is the bit mentioned by other posters about the Martial Powers concept, as opposed to other Power sources. I actually like this concept in general. It gives a systematic approach to class balance, with interchangable Powers providing the Powers are correctly categorized and 'leveled'.

But then there was another piece on the Forgotten Realms changes. Normally, that doesn't bother me much at all either, as I tend to play in homebrew campaigns, either mine or my friends. However, there was an article about Magic in Forgotten Realms for 4th edition, and near the beginning was this:


Wizards, warlocks, clerics, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means.

So, my interpretation of this quote is that in the Forgotten Realms at least, the fluff for the more outre Martial Powers will be that they are in fact magical powers that the fighter/rogue/whatever is accessing because they are just that cool.

Because I don't actually know what the Martial Powers will actually be, and whether the FR fluff is simply a carryover from the non-campaign-specific PHB version or not, this silly bit of fluff is *all* I've got to go on. And, unfortunately, I don't like that fluff. It annoys me. I can, and will, change it when the time comes. However, that doesn't mean that I have to like it. I am allowed to dislike fluff. :smalltongue:

fendrin
2008-02-19, 04:48 PM
So, my interpretation of this quote is that in the Forgotten Realms at least, the fluff for the more outre Martial Powers will be that they are in fact magical powers that the fighter/rogue/whatever is accessing because they are just that cool.

I'm not trying to argue against you, because I generally agree, but I just had the thought that in a world where with just the right thought/word/gesture you can cause powerful things to happen, it would make sense for anyone who wanted to keep competitive to learn at least a few magical tricks... Not to the point of casting a spell, but you know, just a little something.

Or another way of thinking about it is that the world is completely suffused with magical energy, and anyone with sufficient desire can tap into it, even to the point of doing so unintentionally. So warriors of great prowess might, through sheer force of will in their desire to hurt their opponent, channel a little of the world's magic into their attack.

Sleet
2008-02-19, 05:00 PM
Actually, yes. Yes it could.

In one of the 4e articles, they mentioned that Wizards could (or maybe "would", I couldn't really tell, but I digress) belong to certain traditions. Traditions with names like Iron Sigil, Hidden Flame...and Golden Wyvern.

And if the Golden Wyvers don't exist in your chosen setting...

Hence the concern some people have with the hardwiring certain crunch to certain fluff in 4e.

Artanis
2008-02-19, 05:16 PM
And if the Golden Wyvers don't exist in your chosen setting...
And if Evokers don't exist in your chosen 3e setting...

Rutee
2008-02-19, 05:19 PM
And if the Golden Wyvers don't exist in your chosen setting...

Hence the concern some people have with the hardwiring certain crunch to certain fluff in 4e.

...Name it Evoker Adept, as was suggested by Artanis? If we assume for a moment that he's roughly correct anyway.

fendrin
2008-02-19, 06:17 PM
And if the Golden Wyvers don't exist in your chosen setting...

Hence the concern some people have with the hardwiring certain crunch to certain fluff in 4e.
Rename the Golden Wyverns to something else, write your own fluff behind them and WHAM you're done. Is that so hard?

I think it's better than having every spell ever cast pidgeon-holed into the same basic schools. Now if you want a culturally different approach to magic, you can come up with completely new types of Wizards. You couldn't do that in 3.X.

Deepblue706
2008-02-19, 11:24 PM
Rename the Golden Wyverns to something else, write your own fluff behind them and WHAM you're done. Is that so hard?


It certainly isn't.

However, rewriting the crap they come out with is annoying. And, I find myself being tempted to do it constantly, but nobody would know what the hell I'm talking about if I did.

If we scroll back a bit, who really thought Magic-User was a cool name for a class? I, uh, didn't. I'm all for generic names (which is partly why I dislike Golden Wyvern Adept), so I don't feel as if I'm obligated to follow any certain archetype or idea that comes to mind...

...but sometimes people just want better-written material. Honestly, I don't care too much if it's overly specific or generic. It'd just be nicer if I didn't have to do extra work. No, it's not very hard to think of synonyms - it's just the principle of the matter.

I mean, what if you were flipping through the pages, and saw there was no longer a Rogue class, but it was replaced by "The Sneakyman"? Okay, I can just ignore the stupidity, but that doesn't change the fact I have to read it everytime I want to look up my abilities (unless I taped a piece of paper over it, or something). "The Sneakyman" is not what I'm looking for. To me, it's dumb. I think to a lot of other people, "Golden Wyvern Adept" is also dumb. I think people would care less about this kind of thing if the creators weren't total dorks when it came to names - because even if they change things, they still have to reminded of what they hate whenever they reference their books. Of course, there's no real solution to this, because there'll always be someone to call an idea dumb, as we all have our opinions, etc.

Still, there is a scale of suckitude that developers should consider. If a large portion of people are complaining, then maybe, this level of suckitude should have been deemed unacceptable, and the party responsible for its inception should be liquidated.

Artanis
2008-02-19, 11:34 PM
Still, there is a scale of suckitude that developers should consider. If a large portion of people are complaining, then maybe, this level of suckitude should have been deemed unacceptable, and the party responsible for its inception should be liquidated.
You only have to take one look at the various Blizzard boards to know that a lot of complaints doesn't necessarily equate to something being bad :smallwink:

Deepblue706
2008-02-19, 11:42 PM
You only have to take one look at the various Blizzard boards to know that a lot of complaints doesn't necessarily equate to something being bad :smallwink:

I try to stay away from those boards. I hear it's bad for your mental health.

Artanis
2008-02-19, 11:47 PM
I try to stay away from those boards. I hear it's bad for your mental health.
It's even worse for your faith in humanity.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 11:52 PM
Still, there is a scale of suckitude that developers should consider. If a large portion of people are complaining, then maybe, this level of suckitude should have been deemed unacceptable, and the party responsible for its inception should be liquidated.

Uh, Developers already watch. ESPECIALLY Corporate ones. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but companies are out to make money, not piss people off (Unless those people wouldn't buy from them anyway). The simple truth is, Most people are quiet. The minority is usually significantly louder then the majority. It's extremely hard to gauge.

And really, all most 4e fights come down to are /preference/, not /suck/. Jeez..

huttj509
2008-02-19, 11:55 PM
I would just like to point out in the "wizard blaster -> controller" issue that AoE effects are a form of battlefield control.

If the enemy is bunched up, and you fireball them, they will not want to be bunched up. But what about the fact that they're penned in by a couple of walls of force, and that cloudkill to their left they're trying to avoid? Throw in a few other standard wizard tricks and you trap them between a rock, a hard place, and that striker that's headed straight for them.

Wizards aren't optimal if played as a striker, doing single target damage. This is true now. What 4E says with the controller title is "This is the role this class is designed around filling, you may play it differently, but your milage may vary in that case." This is how things are now, but the intended role is not stated.

Deepblue706
2008-02-20, 12:01 AM
Uh, Developers already watch. ESPECIALLY Corporate ones. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but companies are out to make money, not piss people off (Unless those people wouldn't buy from them anyway). The simple truth is, Most people are quiet. The minority is usually significantly louder then the majority. It's extremely hard to gauge.

And really, all most 4e fights come down to are /preference/, not /suck/. Jeez..

Wait, what?

The part you quoted from me was essentially a joke. However, I do think they could use better writers. That's my opinion, and I'm not going to look down on someone who has a different one. So, chill.

Rutee
2008-02-20, 12:04 AM
That's the worst diction I've seen for a joke in a very long time, and it echoes too many spoken opinions I've already heard.

horseboy
2008-02-20, 01:06 AM
Well, since all I have to go by is the released fluff previews, I can't say for sure that that's what's going on. All I have is my impressions based off of what I've read. And I fully admit that my impressions are based on pieces of fluff from different sources that are combining in ways that may not be intended.
If I can expand some? A lot of the ED influence is stemming from Eberron in 3.5 that are being talked about being more "core". Stuff like Action dice=Karma dice, Warforged=Obsidiman.
Couple that with things like the static defenses, dragonborn=t'skrang, 4th editions discussion of there being a "recovery mechanic" for getting back hit points.
Oh yeah, and magic items that grow in power instead of magic marting everything. That got introduced in Book of 9 swords in 3.5, but was a proof of concept book.

I'm I'm not saying "They're turning it into", but I will say "It's clearly influenced by".

Da Beast
2008-02-20, 03:49 AM
I object to having to choose a class and being told exactly what I must do with it.

Wizards are no longer just spellcasters, they are now "Controllers." Nevermind that I liked being able to play a wizard who mixed up illusionary spells, utility and some blasty fun, my job is now strictly to "controll the battlefield."

Or what if I wanted to make a leader Bard one game, who focused on buffs and the like, and then the next game play a melee-oriented Bard, who came in and tried to tear stuff up.

Yes, there are certain roles that certain classes fill, and fill well, but in 4e, you're forced into them by class choice.

The prime example is the fighter, everything you read about the 4e Fighter screams "TANK! TANK! TANK!" Except, they call it Defender.

Huh, what about the quick, guerilla type fighter build who mixed up mobility and ranged attacks? ****, better play a Ranger for that in 4e, because he's a DPS, I mean "Striker."

Character ingenuity just went out the window, thanks Dan and WotC for your very narrow minded view on character roles.

Have you actually been paying attention to the 4th ed previews? It's been stated that the class roles are base lines the classes are built around but with room left to become proficient in another role if you want. All fighters will be at least decent at the defender role with customization options that you can use to cement yourself in that role and do a very good job at, or branch out into striker making yourself decent, but not as good as a true specialist, at both. And you know something? 3.X is the exact same way. If you want to make a guerrilla type fighter who's mobile and good with a bow you can spend your feats to do that (though in 3.X it would be a pretty bad idea considering the fighters terrible class skill list and pathetic skill points per level. As you said, "****, better play a ranger for that." We'll have to wait and see how competent a fighter can be at this role in 4th edition) but you still have a d10 hit dice, full BAB progression, and heavy armor proficiency. You've put most of your resources into becoming a guerrilla warrior but you can still do the whole stand in front of other guys thing if you need to. Your just not as good at either of them as some one who put all their resources into one role. The same could be said for your melee bard who gets access to some decent buffs and support spells (maybe through magic items) by default allowing him to fight most of the time and still pull out some leader abilities when he needs to. The only difference between 3rd and 4th edition in this regard is that 4th ed is being designed to work with these ideas.

Edit:

Oh yeah, and magic items that grow in power instead of magic marting everything. That got introduced in Book of 9 swords in 3.5, but was a proof of concept book.

Minor nitpick, Legacy Items were introduced in the book Weapons of Legacy which came out a while before Bo9S. I'm pretty sure that the entry for The desert wind sword makes reference to the fact that the sword is reprinted (with a few modifications) from Weapons of Legacy. It was a good book in concept, but the end result was somewhat lacking.

fendrin
2008-02-20, 10:17 AM
It certainly isn't.

However, rewriting the crap they come out with is annoying. And, I find myself being tempted to do it constantly, but nobody would know what the hell I'm talking about if I did.

If we scroll back a bit, who really thought Magic-User was a cool name for a class? I, uh, didn't. I'm all for generic names (which is partly why I dislike Golden Wyvern Adept), so I don't feel as if I'm obligated to follow any certain archetype or idea that comes to mind...

...but sometimes people just want better-written material. Honestly, I don't care too much if it's overly specific or generic. It'd just be nicer if I didn't have to do extra work. No, it's not very hard to think of synonyms - it's just the principle of the matter.

I mean, what if you were flipping through the pages, and saw there was no longer a Rogue class, but it was replaced by "The Sneakyman"? Okay, I can just ignore the stupidity, but that doesn't change the fact I have to read it everytime I want to look up my abilities (unless I taped a piece of paper over it, or something). "The Sneakyman" is not what I'm looking for. To me, it's dumb. I think to a lot of other people, "Golden Wyvern Adept" is also dumb. I think people would care less about this kind of thing if the creators weren't total dorks when it came to names - because even if they change things, they still have to reminded of what they hate whenever they reference their books. Of course, there's no real solution to this, because there'll always be someone to call an idea dumb, as we all have our opinions, etc.

Still, there is a scale of suckitude that developers should consider. If a large portion of people are complaining, then maybe, this level of suckitude should have been deemed unacceptable, and the party responsible for its inception should be liquidated.

I agree, the naming is not very generic... but neither are the default included schools. Yes, it makes it annoying if you can't stand the name, and decide to rename it. On the other hand, it makes it a lot easier to homebrew your own schools. I call that an overall positive change.

As for wether or not the name sucks... well, that's purely a matter of opinion and they would never make everyone happy. I remember people complaining that the Thief was being renamed Rogue and Priest was being renamed Cleric. The former I liked because it was more generic (though still implied certain characteristics that may not be true for the character), the latter I thought was more or less irrelevant, though 'Cleric' implies being a part of a clergy, which implies a certain amount of organization to the religion. Priest does not hold that connotation.

EDIT:
Minor nitpick, Legacy Items were introduced in the book Weapons of Legacy which came out a while before Bo9S. I'm pretty sure that the entry for The desert wind sword makes reference to the fact that the sword is reprinted (with a few modifications) from Weapons of Legacy. It was a good book in concept, but the end result was somewhat lacking.

Actually, the concept of items evolving has been in 3.X even longer than Weapons of legacy. Unearthed Arcana introduced the idea with Legendary Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/legendaryWeapons.htm) and Item Familiars (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-20, 10:33 AM
Incidentally, this poster would like to show support to Legendary weapons. Bloody amazing concept, along with weapons Of Legend, which are different.

Deepblue706
2008-02-20, 10:59 AM
That's the worst diction I've seen for a joke in a very long time, and it echoes too many spoken opinions I've already heard.

Wow, really? Because, I have a lot more faith in people than to presume that when they're talking about extremes like that, that they're serious.

Didn't I just acknowledge people have different opinions, prior to that segment, too?

I think you may be a bit jaded.

Morty
2008-02-20, 11:38 AM
And really, all most 4e fights come down to are /preference/, not /suck/. Jeez..

True. Sadly, there are way too much people who will do anything to prove that your preference is wrong and their preference is cooler, better and unbiased.