PDA

View Full Version : Positive 4th Edition



Lupy
2008-02-21, 09:11 PM
I am really tired of people being so negative about something they know nothing about. I was wondering if anyone else is looking forward to 4th ed and has good news about it.

I am glad to hear it is very non-setting specific.

You?

Rutee
2008-02-21, 09:11 PM
I thought it had about as much of an established setting as 3rd ed?

anyway, I'm liking the more dramatics-based system, with the Encounter/Day/At Will system, especially since it means everyone's going to have neat tricks they can do, and people's Nova abilities are easier to track.

Lupy
2008-02-21, 09:13 PM
3rd ed has some fluff that says *cough*Grayhawk*cough*. 4th ed wont have that.

Catch
2008-02-21, 09:14 PM
Basically everything that I've read has been very positive, or at the worst, I've been outrageously ambivalent. I'm considerably newer to D&D than the heads-in-the-sand Luddites, but having played plenty of AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5, I just can't seem to see what everyone's so worked up about.

TempusCCK
2008-02-21, 09:16 PM
I think the concept of trying to bring/bringing everyone to the same power level is a good idea.

-holds back cynicism because it's a positive things thread-

Rutee
2008-02-21, 09:23 PM
3rd ed has some fluff that says *cough*Grayhawk*cough*. 4th ed wont have that.

Points of Light setting has some specifics, especially with the Tieflings and Dragonborn empires.

Jayngfet
2008-02-21, 09:35 PM
well, it seems that they're trying to balance it a bit

and I heard somewhere they're fixing grapple

and I think sorcerers are back in( they shouldn't have even left)

rumer has it we may see half orcs


thats it, I loathe tieflings, hate dragonborn, want fighter back in its proper and well earned place, and want tieflings to be unique and less emo if they're going to not be a series of random demonic mutations with "an aura of badness about them" if they're good aligned.

also more aasimar, less emo wangsty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Wangst) antiheroes, more straight up beacons of justice and half-breeds shunned by both parent races that have a reason to run off and fight spiky lizard things for a living.

Rutee
2008-02-21, 09:39 PM
Tieflings aren't angsty. Try again.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 09:45 PM
Can i do satyr?

Anyways, i like that the monsters have specific tactics, i like elementals (i shouldn't however) and i like the detail of demons and devils, a also like 4E's idea of more group fights. I like female dwarves, I like the giants mostly, i like warlocks, I like the world concept not as a generic setting but as a setting on its own, i like the Fey world and the fey under dark and i hope to like more fluff.
I don't have an option on the changes on dragons



Tieflings aren't angsty. Try again
When Rutee says it, you don't need a reason, that is all you need

from
EE

Alyosha
2008-02-21, 09:54 PM
I'm looking forward to not having to confirm critical hits. I also look forward to simpler grappling rules.

I'm excited about the new abilities, especially per encounter and at will abilities.

I also like what I'm seeing about how magic is being handled in 4e. Foci and no spell schools makes it much easier for me to take in.

Luckily, I'll be seeing a better monk class in 4e. I love the concept of the monk. I don't like how it turned out in 3.5.

The Warlord class looks like it'll be fun to try.

I also like that Cleric healing abilities boost other party members' abilities to heal themselves, rather than it being a set amount of heals per day.

Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-21, 09:59 PM
I'm looking forward to the new edition a lot.

Draz74
2008-02-21, 10:22 PM
I like that monsters' difficulty is measured by "Level" instead of CR.

I like the encounter building system with monster roles, such as Elite/Solo/Minion monsters.

I like the new cosmology. And the devil/demon differentiation.

I really like the promise of decent social encounter and trap encounter systems.

The multiclass system, based on "X Training" feats, is slowly growing on me. If it's implemented very well.

I like alignment playing a much smaller role, though I think I'll still be houseruling it a lot.

I liked the promise of no racial gods, although it seems it was misleading.

I like having differences in game for damage that represents stamina, morale, etc., vs. actual wounds. Although I'd prefer a VP/WP system. The Death & Dying rules still need some houseruling, probably, but they're an improvement over 3e. The Healing Surge rules look quite promising indeed, to go with the "not always wounds" interpretation of HP.

In some cases I like classes becoming more generic: rogues having major combat tricks besides just sneak attacks; warlocks having multiple sources for their Pacts. Warlocks, the way they're being made, make a much better "Core Wizard-Alternative Arcane Caster Class" than Sorcerers did.

I like the new Halflings. With a Cajun flavor interpretation. They would make me actually consider putting halflings in a homebrew world. Maybe.

I like having a well-supported dragon race. Not sure Dragonborn are better than Kobolds would have been, but at least there's a core reptilian race. (Just please don't make them too Oriental in flavor, like some of the art has suggested!)

As far as elves being separated into "woodsy" and "academic" races: IT'S ABOUT FREAKING TIME.

I like how weapon choices (for fighters) and racial choices will keep being important throughout the game, as you pick racial feats or weapon-specific powers.

I really love that they're making characters less dependent on magical equipment, even if I'm not thrilled with the exact way they're doing it.

I like many magical effects being turned into "rituals" instead of spells.

I like the removal of iterative attacks.

I like the changes to Reach, the Stunned/Dazed conditions, the "shift" and "move" system (instead of Withdraw and Charge full-round actions and stuff), as gleaned from the DDM rulebook.

By implication, I'm iffy or negative about most things that I didn't list here. If I were writing that list, it would be just as long as this one. Oh well.

Zincorium
2008-02-21, 10:52 PM
I honestly have nothing that's bugging me about 4th edition, so I have to say that pretty much everything seems like a positive. To elaborate on some of the things I really like:

-Actual meaningful differences in the weapons for fighters. A swordsman and an axemen really should play differently, not only by realism but because of the flavor difference between the two.

-Spellcasters not carrying around a parchment arsenal of scrolls.

-No vancian casting. It's never made sense to me for an RPG.

-Points of light. Granted, that's how I've been trying to DM 3rd ed, but it was a bit of a hassle.

-Classes functioning 1-30. This is at least their stated intention, and I'm looking forward to at least a good effort.

Edit:

Can i do satyr?

I really don't think the Satyr would like that.

Xefas
2008-02-21, 11:15 PM
At first I didn't think I would like the separation of "Boss" and "Mook" monsters, but I think its grown on me so far. It looks like Boss Monsters will get more actions per round, or at least their abilities will require less actions to perform, which sounds good to me. Nothing like your badass monster pulling off one super awesome feat of awesomeness before he's shredded into ground beef because the players get 4x the actions...

Most of all, streamlined skills, and non-suck traps are my favorites so far. 'specially those traps. Man, I can't wait for those trap mechanics...

Jayngfet
2008-02-22, 12:45 AM
oh, I also like 1-30 too, just remembered...

Eldmor
2008-02-22, 12:47 AM
I personally can't wait for 4th Edition and the new mechanics it will introduce. I'm convinced it will be an easy character transition with talent trees and such in the base classes. I've been getting more people in the RP club I'm in excited about it, even the old fogies that started off in AD&D. :smalltongue:
Biggest things I like so far: core warlock, class balance, and the adventuring "tiers".

Farmer42
2008-02-22, 01:02 AM
I'd be happy about any new system hitting the mainstream. I just enjoy rule sets. Among the specific things, the new system for negative HP has me excited, as do the higher starting HP. Magic items being PHB not DMG is nice as well, and if they can finally make the fighter a viable option, I'm done with 3.5.

Corlis
2008-02-22, 01:33 AM
Hmph, I thought this was a thread about new rules for positive energy channeling...

I'm liking the removal of Vancian casting, if just because it means that a wizard is never reduced to plinking away with his crossbow. Also, if I can finally join a group, I won't be the only one who's a bit inexperienced with the rules :smallcool:

Innis Cabal
2008-02-22, 02:04 AM
Im leary still......but the worst it can be is White wolf revised world...and i still play that..so no biggie

nepphi
2008-02-22, 03:01 AM
I too am pleased with the improved death and dying rules, and with class roles as a balancing factor. Contrary to a lot of the MMO worries, I'm confident that the new class balance will actually HELP dms design balanced and interesting encounters that don't take up the whole game, allowing them to spend more time focusing on what I come to an RPG for, the story.

Jimbob
2008-02-22, 03:02 AM
Im still not 100% sure yet, but one thing I do really like is the sounds of when a character goes below 0 hp's. The way it depends on your level depends on how low you can go, so that fatial hit when you only have 20 hp left might not kill you straight off because you can go down to -50hp before you die.

seedjar
2008-02-22, 03:18 AM
I've like most of what I've heard so far, or at least the ideas presented behind it. My chief objection is that I can't afford to replace all my books, and I don't especially have problems with 3.5 and working around it's rougher edges. I've been stealing a lot of the new mechanical stuff for my own game and have recently hacked together a dragon that works a lot like what the wizards.com release described (haven't had a chance to turn it loose yet.) It will be different and transitioning may be uncomfortable, but I think 4th will be good for the brand. I'm sure someone in my group will pick up the new core books eventually - I'm up to try it - but I think we'll be fine in the meantime.
~Joe

Kurald Galain
2008-02-22, 03:50 AM
I am really tired of people being so negative about something they know nothing about.

I'm glad to hear people can be so positive about something they know nothing about.

And I'm glad about how fans of 4E wouldn't dream of being continuously insulting to people who don't share their opinion of things they know nothing about.

Zincorium
2008-02-22, 04:11 AM
I'm glad to hear people can be so positive about something they know nothing about.

What you describe is known as 'hope'. It's reasonably popular.


And I'm glad about how fans of 4E wouldn't dream of being continuously insulting to people who don't share their opinion of things they know nothing about.

...And then the sarcasm.

Frankly, I think you're way off base here, the only way to really get insulted for not wanting to switch is to first insult everyone who is switching. Being hostile to other people about this is unwarranted either way.

You don't like how 4th edition might be? Don't talk about it, talk about whatever edition you are playing. Peace among the factions really is that simple.

Rutee
2008-02-22, 04:11 AM
I'm glad to hear people can be so positive about something they know nothing about.

And I'm glad about how fans of 4E wouldn't dream of being continuously insulting to people who don't share their opinion of things they know nothing about.

To be perfectly frank, utter pessimism is much closer to trolling then utter optimism. I'll take neither for myself, but I'd rather have blind optimists around then blind pessimists.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-22, 04:31 AM
You don't like how 4th edition might be? Don't talk about it, talk about whatever edition you are playing. Peace among the factions really is that simple.

You're way off base here. The problem lies in people who, if you don't fully agree with them, will assume you hold the diametrically opposed opinion. There are just a handful of vocal 4E fans who continually make this assumption.

That is, people like me who appreciate the general idea of 4E but have concerns about some of the details, are quickly pigeonholed into "OMG!!1! thees idoits haet 4E!!!@!", and then asked to quit talking about it.

Peace is really as simple as understanding the other side.

Zincorium
2008-02-22, 04:43 AM
You're way off base here. The problem lies in people who, if you don't fully agree with them, will assume you hold the diametrically opposed opinion. There are just a handful of vocal 4E fans who continually make this assumption.

That is, people like me who appreciate the general idea of 4E but have concerns about some of the details, are quickly pigeonholed into "OMG!!1! thees idoits haet 4E!!!@!", and then asked to quit talking about it.

Peace is really as simple as understanding the other side.

If you're getting flamed for, as you say, liking 4E in general but having issues with the details, then I'd like to see where someone who could have been aware of that flamed you. I haven't seen anything similar to that happen myself, but then I don't read most 4E threads anymore.

And I think you're being overly snarky with me when I'm not on the offensive. I didn't say "Unless you're a die-hard 4th ed fan, shut up". I understand that you might have reservations, although I might disagree with whether or not they make a difference to the upcoming edition's playability. If you actually want to read what people post about fourth edition, you have every reason to go and do so.

And from personal experience, understanding the other side (opposite rather than just at a right angle to me) usually just pisses me off more.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-22, 05:14 AM
And I think you're being overly snarky with me when I'm not on the offensive.
I didn't mean to imply that I was talking about you personally, because I wasn't.

The sentiment isn't restricted to 4E either, of course. 2E and 3E fans tend to exhibit the exact same behavior. Heck, I was once flamed twice on the same day, once for being "so obviously a 3E fan that I couldn't possibly understand 2E", and once for being "so blatantly involved in 2E that I couldn't dream of understanding 3E" :smallbiggrin:

KIDS
2008-02-22, 05:46 AM
Based on the directions seen from WotC during the last few years, including latest 3.5 books and 4E previews, I am immensely looking forward to it and think it will be something great. Cheers!

in particular the things I like:
- rebalancing classes
- less bookkeeping
- killing the Great Wheel
- easier multiclassing
- easier to use monsters
- rebalancing XP system
- relaxing of skills
- relaxing of alignment
- less important magic items
- differentiating weapons
- dragonborn
- lack of bards
- lack of gnomes
- revised dying rules
- revised trap and exploration rules
- removing narcolepsy
- removing ultimate caster

With all respect to Kurald Galain, Lupy nailed it very well in this topic. D&D is one of the rare areas of discussion where when you post something enthusiastic and optimistic you will still be flamed instead of everyone nodding empathically. If it seems like a far-fetched claim, note that I've been reading World of Warcraft's forums and forums discussing global politics including Iraq, for quite some time, and the amount of hostility towards positive opinions was tiny comapred to this. Just my 2cc...

Rutee
2008-02-22, 06:15 AM
"- removing narcolepsy"

Narcolepsy?

Farmer42
2008-02-22, 06:19 AM
I think he's referring to the old "Well, guys, that was my last fireball today. I'm tapped out. Let's take a nap." "But we just got up fifteen minutes ago!" "Well, we can't all be dumb meatshields, can we?"

JBento
2008-02-22, 06:21 AM
I like the up-and-coming, revamped dragonborn;
The core Warlock;
Less magic item dependancy;
And the balancing of classes (weee, my 19th lvl Ftr no longer sucks :smallbiggrin: )

Also, first post :smallsmile:

Edit: for spelling and to add the necessary line: "All the above are subjected to reality once I DO get my hands on the books"

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-22, 06:23 AM
"Oh, I exhausted my Time stops! Time to Rope trick and rest!"

More or less, 'Nuff said.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-22, 06:28 AM
I am really tired of people being so negative about something they know nothing about. I was wondering if anyone else is looking forward to 4th ed and has good news about it.

I am glad to hear it is very non-setting specific.

You?
Isen't people's main complaint that D&D IS being setting specific? Lots of chances in the crunch are based on Forgotten Realms fluff change.

Anyway, I'm really looking forward the new rules for non-casters to make them less sucky. And hopefully avoid the dozens of "base classes" that come out every month.

Rutee
2008-02-22, 06:32 AM
Isen't people's main complaint that D&D IS being setting specific? Lots of chances in the crunch are based on Forgotten Realms fluff change.
Now, I'll grant that I've got some concern on things being too specific, but the FR Fluff Changes succeeded the Crunch, not preceded.

Kioran
2008-02-22, 06:37 AM
Now, I'll grant that I've got some concern on things being too specific, but the FR Fluff Changes succeeded the Crunch, not preceded.

NOT FLUFF (*insert the rattle of chains barely restraining a raging, foaming berserker*).....Anyway, the mechanics of 4th Ed are, as any work of game design necessesarily is, based on the assupmtions made about how the game is to appear in actual play, and thus their new 4th Ed background, which seems somewaht more specific than anything in 2nd or 3rd Ed.

Positive: About the only thing I think is, with little reservations, positive are the new rules for negative hit points and dying. Houserule that a 20 stabilizes you at 0 and it´s all dandy.

Rutee
2008-02-22, 06:41 AM
Uh, yeah, they alterred the fluff. They do it with every edition, apparently.

KIDS
2008-02-22, 07:54 AM
Narcolepsy: what Farmer42 said at top of this page. Otherwise also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcolepsy

Tetsubo 57
2008-02-22, 08:50 AM
Based purely on the info that has been "leaked" I haven't yet seen anything to be positive about.

It sounds like Star Wars SAGA. Which is nice but I want to play D&D. Everything I have seen seems like a game system that bears no resemblance to D&D.

There is also the thought that a new edition is superfluous. Completely and utterly unneeded. 3.5 isn't perfect but it is far from broken enough to require a new edition. It's like being told I can't buy new tires for my car, I have to buy a completely new car. One that doesn't suit my personal needs at all, but I am not being given a choice.

I would have gladly continued to buy 3.5 books for another decade. I have no use for 4E. I may pick up the core books as I am a collector. But Wizards has lost a *very* loyal customer.

Loyal customers though don't seem to concern Wizards a great deal. They appear to only be interested in new shiny customers. Ones that play online MMOs...

As soon as I see something positive about Wizards gutting my favorite hobby, I'll post it...

Me bitter? Not in the least... I've only been playing the game since 1978...

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-22, 09:10 AM
Based purely on the info that has been "leaked" I haven't yet seen anything to be positive about.

It sounds like Star Wars SAGA. Which is nice but I want to play D&D. Everything I have seen seems like a game system that bears no resemblance to D&D.

There is also the thought that a new edition is superfluous. Completely and utterly unneeded. 3.5 isn't perfect but it is far from broken enough to require a new edition. It's like being told I can't buy new tires for my car, I have to buy a completely new car. One that doesn't suit my personal needs at all, but I am not being given a choice.

I would have gladly continued to buy 3.5 books for another decade. I have no use for 4E. I may pick up the core books as I am a collector. But Wizards has lost a *very* loyal customer.

Loyal customers though don't seem to concern Wizards a great deal. They appear to only be interested in new shiny customers. Ones that play online MMOs...

As soon as I see something positive about Wizards gutting my favorite hobby, I'll post it...

Me bitter? Not in the least... I've only been playing the game since 1978...

Thanks for responding! I'm glad you decided to post in a thread about 4e that the OP wanted to try and keep positive.

And boy oh boy - an MMO comparison right off the bat!

I love anti-4e people. They cry because the rain is too wet, then compain they are too dry after they get a towel.

My positive contribution? Well I used to like th overall concepts of 4e and I thougt things sounded interesting. Now though I just live for whiny anti-4e people to post the same reply over and over and over.... oh and I live to put them on ignore. Bye.

Charity
2008-02-22, 09:20 AM
Based purely on the info that has been "leaked" I haven't yet seen anything to be positive about.

It sounds like Star Wars SAGA. Which is nice but I want to play D&D. Everything I have seen seems like a game system that bears no resemblance to D&D.

There is also the thought that a new edition is superfluous. Completely and utterly unneeded. 3.5 isn't perfect but it is far from broken enough to require a new edition. It's like being told I can't buy new tires for my car, I have to buy a completely new car. One that doesn't suit my personal needs at all, but I am not being given a choice.

I would have gladly continued to buy 3.5 books for another decade. I have no use for 4E. I may pick up the core books as I am a collector. But Wizards has lost a *very* loyal customer.

Loyal customers though don't seem to concern Wizards a great deal. They appear to only be interested in new shiny customers. Ones that play online MMOs...

As soon as I see something positive about Wizards gutting my favorite hobby, I'll post it...

Me bitter? Not in the least... I've only been playing the game since 1978...

You might have missed the positive bit in the title, if you hunt around really hard you might just spy a thread where complaining is the thing.

Though when 2nd ed came out did you chuck away your AD&D books?
How about when third ed came out... anyone come round demanding them with menaces?
It's another edition in the long and quite varied history of D&D, if it sucks for you then play third ed, or 3.5, whatever you like, that’s the best thing about new games, you have the choice whether to adopt them. If third ed is so darn great, best ever example of an RPG ever etc, then you go on playing that matey, that’s my reckoning.
Having read all the articles about 4e I can find, I have seen a lot that makes sense to me, and having gamer kids I welcome a little simplification.
I think 3rd ed is too clunky and too cumbersome compared to many of the older style RPG's heck even the fabled Powers & Perils was easier (yes I do own that dinosaur). So I welcome any easing of burdens, and I welcome a new stab at class balance, and heck I even welcome a new set of players being attracted away from WoW and such, why not?

As an aside I am willing to bet real cash money that every poster in gaming that has waxed lyrical about how 4th ed is the end of D&D as we know it, will end up owning a 4e PHB at bare minimum.

Tetsubo 57
2008-02-22, 09:25 AM
You might have missed the positive bit in the title, if you hunt around really hard you might just spy a thread where complaining is the thing.

Though when 2nd ed came out did you chuck away your AD&D books?
How about when third ed came out... anyone come round demanding them with menaces?
It's another edition in the long and quite varied history of D&D, if it sucks for you then play third ed, or 3.5, whatever you like, that’s the best thing about new games, you have the choice whether to adopt them. If third ed is so darn great, best ever example of an RPG ever etc, then you go on playing that matey, that’s my reckoning.
Having read all the articles about 4e I can find, I have seen a lot that makes sense to me, and having gamer kids I welcome a little simplification.
I think 3rd ed is too clunky and too cumbersome compared to many of the older style RPG's heck even the fabled Powers & Perils was easier (yes I do own that dinosaur). So I welcome any easing of burdens, and I welcome a new stab at class balance, and heck I even welcome a new set of players being attracted away from WoW and such, why not?

As an aside I am willing to bet real cash money that every poster in gaming that has waxed lyrical about how 4th ed is the end of D&D as we know it, will end up owning a 4e PHB at bare minimum.

Heck, I own a copy of World of Synnibarr. But you couldn't get me to play it on a bet.

You're right. I shouldn't have rained on the posters parade. I just can't see 4E as being positive. Either for D&D or the hobby at large.

I apologize.

Charity
2008-02-22, 09:56 AM
Heck, I own a copy of World of Synnibarr. But you couldn't get me to play it on a bet.

You're right. I shouldn't have rained on the posters parade. I just can't see 4E as being positive. Either for D&D or the hobby at large.

I apologize.

I did have a stab or two at P&P...
That's fine matey, not that you would nessisarily know, but there have been a few very vocal and, shall I say ... stubburn posters whom have clogged up every 4e thread with the same old mantra. Though to seperate ourselves from the baying masses we should endeavour not to be impolite, sorry if my post was a bit piquant.

Saph
2008-02-22, 10:55 AM
To be honest, the thing I'm looking forward to most is the optimisation reset.

With 3.5 D&D, the power gap between the players who like optimising characters and the players who don't is huge. The only way to have a balanced game is to have a group where everyone is equally good at building characters (almost impossible) or to have the better players constantly scale themselves back to avoid overshadowing the others (doable, but frustrating).

Now, the 4E people say that they're going to fix the game balance with the new edition. Frankly, I'm not sure I believe them. But what I am sure about is that the rules reset will wipe out the vast amount of collected optimisation experience that powergamer-types draw upon to build twinked characters. Suddenly everyone'll be on a level playing field.

Of course, within half a year or so the optimisers will have started to figure out ways to break the new system. But it'll slow things down, and there'll be fewer game-breakers around . . . at least to begin with.

- Saph

Artanis
2008-02-22, 12:53 PM
** I like that they're trying to balance the classes, because I know what it's like for inexperience to lead to choosing the "wrong class", which in turn leads to having ZERO fun. I don't know whether or not they'll succeed, but I like the fact that they're at least trying.

** I like the fact that they're deemphasizing alignment. When something that is so divisive and leads to so many arguments is an integral part of the mechanics, it can't end well, and I like that they've recognized this.

** I like that they're trying to streamline combat. In 3e, a Monk can theoretically get up to what, 9 d20 rolls in a single round? And then even more d20 rolls if they threaten a crit. That's a whole lot of time spent rolling dice instead of doing interesting things. Again, I don't know if they'll succeed, and I don't know if success would actually be more fun, but I like the fact that they're trying.

Morty
2008-02-22, 02:41 PM
Well, there's been some positive things about 4ed so far. Not many, but they're there. Let's see...
-Lessening the importance of alignment
-Putting gnomes into MM
-Noncasters getting options beyond "I hit it"
-Assuming it'll work out, more balanced game
-As above, less dependency on magic items
-Humanoid monsters being statted out as NPCs
That's all of this, I think. What's interesting, the most positive things were announced at the start, then the news were bad far more often than good.

EvilElitest
2008-02-23, 01:23 PM
I did have a stab or two at P&P...
That's fine matey, not that you would nessisarily know, but there have been a few very vocal and, shall I say ... stubburn posters whom have clogged up every 4e thread with the same old mantra. Though to seperate ourselves from the baying masses we should endeavour not to be impolite, sorry if my post was a bit piquant.

1. Same can be said for 4E supporters, don't throw stones in a glass house
2. What happened to the whole lets not be hostile and attack people thing?

Another thing that like is the elemental revision and the Fey underdark.
from
EE

Titanium Dragon
2008-02-23, 01:44 PM
Is there any difference between unwarranted positivity about 4th edition and unwarranted negativity about it?

I don't have any problem with a new edition of the game; 3.5 has enormous problems and isn't a particularly well-balanced system. That said, I'm not sure that 4th edition is going to fix the problems inherent to 3.5; unless WotC devoted R&D time to seriously balancing the classes, there will be problems again, especially if some are more open ended than others.

EvilElitest
2008-02-23, 03:30 PM
Could somebody explain the demon/devil change, i've heard so many different things about it, how is it different from the Fiendish Codex?
from
EE

Vlad
2008-02-23, 04:34 PM
To be honest, the thing I'm looking forward to most is the optimisation reset.
- Saph

Hear, hear.

In my 3.x gang, some of us are hardcore optimisers who plan out their development from levels 1-20 before they even start; some of us couldn`t care less. I`m somewhere in the middle - I can do the optimisation work if I feel like it, and I always apply reasonably good judgement as my characters level up, but mainly I build not for optimal power but for optimal fun, which for me is making the character on the paper as close to the charcater in my head as possible. My Rogue- Hexblade-Warlock-Acolyte of the Skin was in no way optimal from a crunchy standpoint, but man was he cool to play...

I think I drifted a bit there. My point was, as Saph said, that the gulf between the two extremes was too wide, and that meant the people at one end or the other were not having a lot of fun. One of the `non-optimisers`got to the point where he felt that there wasn`t much point in him playing anymore, at least when combat came along, as his characters just couldn`t cut it compared to the ubermensch characters the others came up with.

If 4th ed balances this out somewhat, I will be happy. But even if it doesn`t, it will take a little while for the optimisers to really squeeze everything out of the new system, and that will give us a period where everyone is on a more equal footing.

Mind you, that isn`t a feature of the 4thE-ness of 4thE, but rather just the learning curve on switching to any new system. So I guess it isn`t really something to be specifically excited about in 4thE.

Lupy
2008-02-23, 06:19 PM
With all respect to Kurald Galain, Lupy nailed it very well in this topic. D&D is one of the rare areas of discussion where when you post something enthusiastic and optimistic you will still be flamed instead of everyone nodding empathically. If it seems like a far-fetched claim, note that I've been reading World of Warcraft's forums and forums discussing global politics including Iraq, for quite some time, and the amount of hostility towards positive opinions was tiny comapred to this. Just my 2cc...

Yay! Thanks alot. :smallsmile:


Based purely on the info that has been "leaked" I haven't yet seen anything to be positive about.

It sounds like Star Wars SAGA. Which is nice but I want to play D&D. Everything I have seen seems like a game system that bears no resemblance to D&D.

There is also the thought that a new edition is superfluous. Completely and utterly unneeded. 3.5 isn't perfect but it is far from broken enough to require a new edition. It's like being told I can't buy new tires for my car, I have to buy a completely new car. One that doesn't suit my personal needs at all, but I am not being given a choice.

I would have gladly continued to buy 3.5 books for another decade. I have no use for 4E. I may pick up the core books as I am a collector. But Wizards has lost a *very* loyal customer.

Loyal customers though don't seem to concern Wizards a great deal. They appear to only be interested in new shiny customers. Ones that play online MMOs...

As soon as I see something positive about Wizards gutting my favorite hobby, I'll post it...

Me bitter? Not in the least... I've only been playing the game since 1978...

Wow, thanks for being positive... I see so many nagative posts I wanted to have one place for people who want a simpler game, or who just like what they here, and I get rained on. I have never played D&D, but I have read the SRD, and played SWRPG revised and SAGA.


Could somebody explain the demon/devil change, i've heard so many different things about it, how is it different from the Fiendish Codex?
from
EE

Try lookin for info on... lemme go find the site.
enworld might have it (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e)

Reel On, Love
2008-02-23, 07:41 PM
You're right. I shouldn't have rained on the posters parade. I just can't see 4E as being positive. Either for D&D or the hobby at large.


That's called "grognardism". FWIW, people were saying the exact same crap about 3E before it came out.

Great odds that in a couple of years, you'll be merrily playing 4E and enjoying yourself at least as much as you do with 3E.

osyluth
2008-02-23, 07:58 PM
What do you mean, know nothing about? Wizards has revealed so much information on www.wizards.com! What do you think the thousands of other 4e threads are about?

Artanis
2008-02-23, 10:02 PM
Could somebody explain the demon/devil change, i've heard so many different things about it, how is it different from the Fiendish Codex?
from
EE
I don't know anything about the Fiendish Codex, so I don't know what the specific differences between it and the info revealed about 4e is, but I'll give it a shot:


In 4e, Devils are the conniving evil guys. They were originally angelic beings who rose up and killed the god who created them, and as a result were thoroughly screwed over both by a curse placed on them by said god and the utter evil of the act. So they're trapped in their realm unless somebody summons them. If you want an evil outsider to help you with an intricate plot, a Devil is the one to call.

In 4e, Demons are forces of utter destruction. There's a big Pit O' Evahl in the Elemental Plane, and Elementals that get too close get twisted into evil monsters that desire nothing more than carnage and destruction. They pretty much spend all their time either killing things or looking for ways to kill even more things. They don't seem to leave the Abyss much (I have no idea if it's a matter of "can't" or a matter of "don't want to bother"). If you want an evil outsider to carve a swathe of destruction and carnage, a Demon is the one to call.

skywalker
2008-02-24, 12:27 AM
I like that half-elves will be cool again.

I like the warlord.

I like that everyone will get cool stuff, not just casters.

I like that casters will always have some magic option, even if it's weak.

ShadowSiege
2008-02-24, 01:42 AM
I'm on the positive outlook for pretty much everything I've read about 4e. I expect it to be a better designed game and one that capitalizes on WotC's experience with the D&D and d20 franchise to make the game more fun, playable, and balanced.

Svethnika
2008-02-24, 01:55 AM
I've only been playing since 3.5 and I think I'm pretty open to changes that try to make the game simpler and more fun. Things I really like (that I can recall off the top of my head):
- No more vancian casting
- A set Hp gained per level (its about time)
- Set exp for monsters
- A single attack per round so that fighters are never denied their full attack (same for monks)
- Maneuver like abilities (ala TOB)
- Each class's power level being balanced (about time- no more arguments that "oh but wizards are supposed to kick ass and be weak at the beginning (this might be alien to these forums but I hear it a lot from one friend and I disagree))

I guess better class balance is the most important thing though. I'm sure something will be more powerful. I mean, balance is really hard to achieve, here is hoping they did a decent job.

kjones
2008-02-24, 10:29 AM
I like that they seem to be making lower levels more playable. I seem to be the only DM that I know who starts campaigns at first level, but I understand why most people don't - played correctly, they're too damn deadly. I like that they've picked up on the fact that there's a "sweet spot" of play, from about Level 5 to Level 14, and they're trying to expand that to cover all levels.

Metal Head
2008-02-24, 12:10 PM
Nothing about 4ed irks me, but nothing makes it seem any better to me. It seems more like just a different game system than the improvement that it's supposed to be.

Prophaniti
2008-02-24, 12:23 PM
I am feeling fairly optimistic about 4E. I like many of the rules changes that I've seen (with the exception of hp. IMO they should be making combat more lethal for everyone, not less for low-levels. I like that touch of reality in my games.) I hate about 90% of the background/story changes (Tieflings, Dragonborn. Again with exception. I like the Cosmology changes).

I fully recognize that all of the things I like or dislike are just my opinions. There are sure to be people out there who love every single tiny thing they've done so far, as well as people who hate it all. I've seen posts by both. Most of us, I think, fall in the middle, liking many or some things, disliking or planning to ignore others.

Truly, my main concern with 4E is simply how much I will have to ignore/change/houserule to play in the world I want with 4E mechanics.

EvilElitest
2008-02-24, 02:54 PM
Why did they change the demons and devils, it seems like another don't fix it if it isn't broken case


Anyways, i like that they aren't going to make the game magic tech, very cool
from
EE

Yahzi
2008-02-24, 03:17 PM
- A set Hp gained per level (its about time)
- Set exp for monsters
Ya, I like that too.

See? I can say something nice about 4e.

Of course, I already have those two things house-ruled in, but still, I said something nice. :smallbiggrin:

Glawackus
2008-02-24, 03:32 PM
Personally, I'm excited. I like reading about how people design games, and I like what I've been reading about the folks at Wizards doing. It's gonna be great to crack open the new core books. :smallsmile:

Tren
2008-02-24, 04:21 PM
A lot of people have already mentioned the mechanical changes I'm really excited about, but one of the most exciting things for me is the mentality of getting rid of "bogus parallelism", which cuts a lot of the fat like the great wheel, the blood war, and single elemental planes.

Zincorium
2008-02-24, 04:29 PM
Why did they change the demons and devils, it seems like another don't fix it if it isn't broken case

I think that, since they're changing pretty much everything else, the benefit of having a clearer distinction between the two and more options to get the PCs involved with them outweighed any benefits that keeping it the same would have given.

'Don't fix it if it ain't broken' would mean 3.75 ed instead of 4th.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-24, 04:30 PM
Why did they change the demons and devils, it seems like another don't fix it if it isn't broken case

It's not a fix, it's an improvement. Demons and devils are now more distinct, with differing purposes. There wasn't much difference between fighting a Balor and a Pit Fiend, now; in fact, the type of the creature only mattered when it came down to its DR and immunities.

That should be different now.

Lupy
2008-02-24, 08:54 PM
Hopefully less annoying splatbooks to buy. I bet Wizards realizes how bogus 3.5 got with over 15 splatbooks.

I'm looking forward to a new phb and dmg every year alongside the mm.

Zincorium
2008-02-24, 08:57 PM
I'm looking forward to a new phb and dmg every year alongside the mm.

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. Given how cool the PHB2 was, I think that they might be really useful.

And if it's all optional, there's no reason not to just get what looks cool.

Mattarias, King.
2008-02-24, 09:36 PM
I'm totally on board for 4e. :smallbiggrin:
Too bad my DMs aren't. :smallfrown:

If there's one thing I can say that I like about it, it would be this:

CORE. GISH.

:smallcool:

Maybe I'll run my own 4e campaign.. Though I do like being a PC..

holywhippet
2008-02-24, 10:46 PM
I am feeling fairly optimistic about 4E. I like many of the rules changes that I've seen (with the exception of hp. IMO they should be making combat more lethal for everyone, not less for low-levels. I like that touch of reality in my games.) I hate about 90% of the background/story changes (Tieflings, Dragonborn. Again with exception. I like the Cosmology changes).

I can't agree with that. Consider a first level character - say a fighter who has 13 HP at first level thanks to his +3 CON modifier. The fighter runs into a goblin who not only scores a hit on him, but scores a critical. Damage is 3d6 - 3 which could potentially kill the fighter - all because a lousy goblin got a lucky attack roll.

On other matter, consider two character - a barbarian and a rogue. The barbarian starts with 15 HP because of his CON modifier of 3. The rogue has 10 HP because he has a CON modifier of 2. Unfortunately for the barbarian, the gods of dice rolling curse him when he reaches second level and he only gets 4 more HP = 19. The rogue on the other hand rolls up the maximum and gets 10 more HP = 20. The rogue now has more HP than the barbarian. This goes against how the classes are intended to work.

Prophaniti
2008-02-25, 09:16 AM
As I said, it's a preference thing. IMO, low level characters do kinda suck, they're just starting out and are generally simply more talented than your average yokel, not unstoppable. They don't really know what they're doing yet. A goblin should not be truly challenging, no, but it should be possible for a lucky one to stab you through the heart. As I said, a touch of reality, your fighting, people die when you stick sharp pieces of metal in them. As the characters gain levels, they get better at fighting and it becomes less and less likely that said goblin will get that lucky hit, until it becomes moot.

I do still like to use custom crit and fumble charts, as well as massive damage rules, where it is still a remote possibility, even for a high level character, to die from a single hit. My players like it to, and I like it when I'm playing and someone else is the DM. Increased risk makes victory more satisfying.

EDIT: forgot to clarify; I do like the fixed hp per level, though I still think it should be modified by CON, I was refering to the increased starting hp that I don't like.

DeathQuaker
2008-02-25, 10:01 AM
I like the (proposed) less emphasis on magic items, and elimination/reduction of items that boost stats.

I like per day/per encounter/type abilities.

I like that Trapfinding has become a feat (something I houseruled into 3.5 a little while ago).

Pokemaster
2008-02-25, 10:06 AM
The rules look promising, the fluff is extremely hit-or-miss and the marketing campaign started off incredibly weak, but it's improved since they started previewing the actual rules. Overall, I'm looking forward to trying it out (hopefully).

EvilElitest
2008-02-25, 12:31 PM
It's not a fix, it's an improvement. Demons and devils are now more distinct, with differing purposes. There wasn't much difference between fighting a Balor and a Pit Fiend, now; in fact, the type of the creature only mattered when it came down to its DR and immunities.

That should be different now.

Not really, they didn't change mindflayers. A balor and a Pit Fiend are very different in terms of back story, hence the Fiendix codex


Hopefully less annoying splatbooks to buy. I bet Wizards realizes how bogus 3.5 got with over 15 splatbooks.
.....it is WOTC dude, i doubt it
from
EE

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-25, 01:27 PM
Not really, they didn't change mindflayers. A balor and a Pit Fiend are very different in terms of back story, hence the Fiendix codex

.....it is WOTC dude, i doubt it
from
EE

They didn't change Mind Flayers because there was nothing wrong with them. They in fact specifically call out Mind Flayers as not being changed as evidence of their motto of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

However, as you point out there is a world of difference between Balors and Pit Fiends backstories; just no real mechanical differences. (Except of course the Balor explodes, most likely killing the already near death party - bwahahaha) So I think combining the two is a good move. Whichever side gets it, the other side will then (one would assume) get something *as good* without being *the same*.

strayth
2008-02-25, 02:00 PM
I'm looking forward to the new edition a lot.

Me too. I still wish WotC would be more like TSR in their sourcebooks but overall it sounds interesting to me.

Indon
2008-02-25, 04:50 PM
Well, I like:

-How magic items are being changed,
-How traps are being made more intricate,
-The possibility of a stunt-like system (see the traps article),
-The possibility of all monsters being given a full racial progression, increasing the variety - and viability - of exotic races for those who choose to play them.
-And I really like how combat will hopefully move away from being extremely offensively-oriented.

I won't list the things I don't like, but I will say that I consider the change a mixed bag at best.

Jakezor
2008-02-25, 06:00 PM
I like the sound of:
Every class being balanced (even though I fully expect them to fail at this)

Every class doing cool stuff (ToB style stuff becoming core? win.)

Non-magical healing/buffing/etc

No more "Heal Plz" cleric, actual fun-to-play role? heck yes.

Non-LG pallies? Finally!

Taller, more realistically sized Halflings? cool.

No 'Mo Gnomes? Gravy! Silly little guys only really belong in Krynn.

Now, there's plenty of things I'm shaky about (like their whole "Online premium content at a premium price" idea, I dont' want' DnD to become some kind of Pay2Play mmo)

Essentially, I'm withholding major complaints and praise untill I'm holding the book in my hands, then I probably won't shut up. I just dont' really know if the "Teaser" stuff we've been fed so far is really anything to base a like/dislike on.

Artanis
2008-02-25, 06:05 PM
Now, there's plenty of things I'm shaky about (like their whole "Online premium content at a premium price" idea, I dont' want' DnD to become some kind of Pay2Play mmo)
The online thing is totally optional.

Basically, you can either play the exact same way you did in 3e for free, or you can pay a few bucks a month to use a 3D OpenRPG. If you want. Totally optionally.

EvilElitest
2008-02-25, 08:53 PM
They didn't change Mind Flayers because there was nothing wrong with them. They in fact specifically call out Mind Flayers as not being changed as evidence of their motto of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I know, except that motto should apply to more stuff, it seems to be a motto that isn't very consistent



However, as you point out there is a world of difference between Balors and Pit Fiends backstories; just no real mechanical differences. (Except of course the Balor explodes, most likely killing the already near death party - bwahahaha) So I think combining the two is a good move. Whichever side gets it, the other side will then (one would assume) get something *as good* without being *the same*.

Um, from what i can tell the fluff is being changed, can't say for mechanics. The fluff change seem unneeded, they did publish the fiendish codex after all

oh and just general statement
fun fact, Gnomes were in D&D before Dragonlance caused all the sterotypes to come about


from
EE

holywhippet
2008-02-25, 09:55 PM
oh and just general statement
fun fact, Gnomes were in D&D before Dragonlance caused all the sterotypes to come about


I thought it was Warcraft that has made people think of gnomes as being mad tinkerers.

Jayngfet
2008-02-25, 10:02 PM
I thought it was Warcraft that has made people think of gnomes as being mad tinkerers.

3.5 gnomes in the PHP were tricky and curious, and had intricate pranks and devices, wow just took refuge in audicity and put cyberpunk midgits against bronze age orcs

horseboy
2008-02-25, 10:07 PM
I thought it was Warcraft that has made people think of gnomes as being mad tinkerers.Bah! BAH! I say! Like the Alliance would have the brains to create the Miniature Giant Space Hamster!

Deepblue706
2008-02-25, 11:53 PM
I thought it was Warcraft that has made people think of gnomes as being mad tinkerers.

And I thought EverQuest invented the Kobold! :smalltongue:

Artanis
2008-02-26, 01:26 AM
And I thought EverQuest invented the Kobold! :smalltongue:
YOU NO TAKE CANDLE! :smalltongue:

RukiTanuki
2008-02-26, 05:01 PM
Wow, where to start...

* The new universal progressions for attacks, defenses, saves, and skills. Character progression won't require I generate a spreadsheet for my players with multiclass characters.
* The enlarged sweet-spot, due to the progression above. Seriously, run the math. It's much easier to generate new creatures, abilities, etc. if the variance of expected results is smaller.
* Full-page flavorful descriptions in the Monster Manual.
* The new NPC levels being balanced on a one-PC-to-one-monster basis.
* Elites and Solo tags. Level 5 Elite = "This is a great single challenge for level 5 PCs."
* Labels indicating the monster's tactics in combat.
* Static XP for monsters.
* Death of Level Adjustment.
* Demoted the two dragons I can't tell apart (brass/bronze) and added unique-colored metallics (iron/adamantine).
* Dragons with fearsome abilities instead of spellcasting (which, admittedly, is the most fearsome thing to give it in 3.x short of IMMUNITY to magic).
* Dragons with unique combat styles and no alignment restrictions.
* Demons and devils defined by something better than Law/Chaos.
* Racial feats.
* No racial ability penalties. My players won't shy away from the race they want to play just because it's "worse" than an imaginary baseline.
* Two iconic types of elves instead of eleventy.
* Tieflings have an interesting racial history instead of just a genetic heritage.
* A dragon-based PHB race to fit in my dragon-based setting. :)
* Halfling booster seat... I mean, height boost.
* Grossly simplified pantheon. No racial pantheons. No pages listing gods of portfolios heroes would rarely, if ever, champion.
* Reduction in the importance of alignment (particularly its inworld ramifications).
* Less reliance on magic items, particularly stat boosters.
* Magic item creation without XP costs.
* A unified mechanic for class abilities. My players will actually decide if they want to use magic, rather than decide if they want to put up with the complexity of a magic system.
* Ritual magic for all those cool things you can't exactly do in combat.
* Death to save-or-dies.
* A consistent power level among classes.
* No PC is required to heal others as their primary function.
* No more full attacks.
* Fighters gaining useful abilities resulting in actual tactical combat choices.
* Paladins are both useful and stick-excised.
* Wizards can use spells all day long.
* Conversely, wizard "up at 9am, done at 9:05am" narcolepsy is cured.
* Complete revamp of traps.
* Better social encounter rules.
* Merged skillsets.
* Static Perception scores instead of Search/Spot checks.
* A default campaign setting centered around filling in details you need to play but leaving the rest open.

Whew... that's a good start, right? :)

Indon
2008-03-05, 08:08 PM
Another good thing about the system I just recently realized:

For some time, I've had a homebrew campaign setting that uses modern weaponry. With what I know of 4'th edition's combat system, it looks like I'll have to houserule the system way less than I had to houserule 3'rd edition, and fire-team concepts of combat (cover, mobility, etc) will likely emerge much more easily than in D20.

Lupy
2008-03-05, 08:13 PM
It's not d20?

Indon
2008-03-05, 08:15 PM
It's not d20?

3'rd edition d20, is what I'm referring to. Specifically, D20 modern.

lumberofdabeast
2008-03-05, 08:34 PM
While I loathe it and every aspect of its personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I'll credit it at least with not being FATAL.

Deepblue706
2008-03-05, 08:38 PM
I am liking that the Fighter's tactical choices appear to have been improved. I never liked my choices being limited to Charge + power attack, Full Attack + power attack, trip, or spend an entire turn doing no real damage, to instead do something else that rarely has as much an impact on the situation as damage anyway (Sunder, Disarm, Bull Rush). I'm also liking that being hit with an AoO when moving halts you.

I haven't noticed anything about obtaining things like Sunder, yet, however. I will be sad if I have to wait until level 4 or something before I can gain access to it - that is, if they're even including it (which I hope they are)...

Naihal
2008-03-05, 08:48 PM
I agree, the variety of moves the fighter can perform now really looks better. The fighter still seemed to have fewer options than most of the other classes, though, but especially the wizard seemed to have more. Hopefully the fighter won't lag behind in options again.

Oh, and I like the changes to the way the rules are being organized. I'd like to be able to grapple without taking time out of combat to look up the rules.

wodan46
2008-03-05, 09:59 PM
I like what they've done with HP:
1. Level 1 characters, including wizards, have 20-40 HP, and don't have to fear critical failures anymore.
2. The Healing Surges, which allows characters to recover good chunks of HP without having to run
3. The Bloodied property, where characters acknowledge that loss of HP will affect their abilities and behavior.

I also like the At-Will Per-Encounter Per-Day abilities, and how existing abilities are sorted into those categories, as well as being classified as an exploit/spell/prayer

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-05, 10:00 PM
While I loathe it and every aspect of its personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I'll credit it at least with not being FATAL.

How generous of you.

Vortling
2008-03-05, 10:51 PM
Based off the cards from the DDXP, it looks like the unified class progression isn't as restrictive as I thought it would be. Blasty powers of the warlock look definitively blasty to my tastes.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-05, 11:14 PM
Now, the 4E people say that they're going to fix the game balance with the new edition. Frankly, I'm not sure I believe them. But what I am sure about is that the rules reset will wipe out the vast amount of collected optimisation experience that powergamer-types draw upon to build twinked characters. Suddenly everyone'll be on a level playing field.

Alternity has been out for like 10 years now, maybe longer, and it isn't broken. Why? Because the system was built to avoid breakability. There are steps you can take to avoid such problems, and it looks like they've taken at least some of them. They say that player skill matters more than build skill, which may well be true if they did a good job on the system. Its about balance, in the end, and the new system can make it a lot harder to be unbalanced.

That doesn't mean it can't be unbalanced, but it does mean that with greater uniformity and more linearity they're less likely to print anything which breaks the system. They know old polymorph is broken, they know the shenanigans familiars and animal companions can do, and these seem to be gone from the core rules, which could fix a ton of issues.

I think my favorite thing is the power system; it makes combat a lot more dynamic and interesting, and a lot less boring. Playing a Warblade is a blast, and having everyone use similar mechanics will be great.

The set hp/level is a definite improvement, and, as other people said, "its about time". Hopefully the stats will be point buy as well, as that will help balance parties.

Lower levels being more balanced is also a plus, and the slower progression rate in terms of power creep is a definite plus.

I'm glad they made a core lizardy race, and them being dragony will make a lot of people enjoy them. I know I'm going to probably make my first character one.

I like traps being more interesting.

I like collapsing skills so that people don't put ranks in skills they never use - athletics and acrobatics are a lot better as skills than having to invest in balance, swim, climb, and jump all individually.


I thought it was Warcraft that has made people think of gnomes as being mad tinkerers.

Nope.

Nothing Blizzard ever does (EVER) is original, it is all stolen.

Warcraft is entirely ripped off from Dungeons & Dragons and Warhammer; it is incredibly blantent.

Starcraft rips off a variety of sources, but the biggest ripoff is Warhammer 40,000, which they ripped off pretty badly, particularly in the case of the Tyranids... er, I mean the "zerg".

Diablo is a rogue-like game; that is to say, you fight through a randomized dungeon to hell, exactly per rogue. To be fair, rogue itself is a ripoff of D&D, so perhaps not so original in the end.

Oh, one final thing I like:

This game may actually have monsters with attacks which knock characters back, slamming them against walls and sliding down them leaving a trail of blood. That sort of thing being in the rules is awesome.

lumberofdabeast
2008-03-06, 04:42 AM
How generous of you.

...One of us is missing a reference here. Probably me. *sigh*

Anyway, while I haven't actually done anything with the system yet, the reworked combat system looks wonderful. I just hope it'll have hybrid role classes... a Leader/Striker-type could be very fun indeed...

Starbuck_II
2008-03-06, 08:52 AM
How generous of you.

We can all hope that 4E doesn't turn into a game of Lechary. :smallbiggrin:

SamTheCleric
2008-03-06, 08:54 AM
I've got it preordered and prepayed. I think it looks to be a good system, and I've even volunteered to be the first DM for our gaming group, running the H1 adventure.

I'm 100% on board with not feeling useless in a fight. I hate just standing there while everyone bats cleanup.

Deepblue706
2008-03-06, 12:40 PM
Starcraft rips off a variety of sources, but the biggest ripoff is Warhammer 40,000, which they ripped off pretty badly, particularly in the case of the Tyranids... er, I mean the "zerg".


While at a cursory glance I see a lot of similarities, I always thought the Zerg were more like the Xenomorph - which had all the nonsense of putting embryos into people and getting "new results". I mean, yeah, the Zerg don't operate the same way, but they all use different genetic material to produce wacky new offspring, and have a hive-mind (Overmind, or The Queen?). I believe I read in a handbook that Ultralisks are derivative from elephants, and Zerglings some kind of Canine, or something to that effect.

I honestly don't know how close that comes to Tyranids (I never bothered reading up much because of how poorly written what few samples I've seen have been), but the zerg don't have "Bug Rifles", at least.

Edit: Wait, Bug Rifles? Didn't the Starship Troopers book have Bugs with Rifles?

Artanis
2008-03-06, 01:34 PM
The Zerg "ripped off the Tyranids" about as much as they ripped off Xenomorphs and Buggers and Bugs, and as much as Tyranids ripped off such sources before they came out.


Edit: Wait, Bug Rifles? Didn't the Starship Troopers book have Bugs with Rifles?
In the book, yes.

fendrin
2008-03-06, 04:27 PM
The Zerg "ripped off the Tyranids" about as much as they ripped off Xenomorphs and Buggers and Bugs, and as much as Tyranids ripped off such sources before they came out.


In the book, yes.

I always thought of Zergs as Xenomorphs, which were ripped off from H.R. Giger, who was inspired by H.P. Lovecraft, who dreamed up Cthulhu, who spawned Illithids. See how it's all interconnected? :smallconfused:

Not to mention halflings being thinly veiled hobbits. Not that tolkein was all original, nordic elves could interbreed with humans, and were concerned with a magic ring...

So come on, let's not start pointing fingers about various things ripping off others, lest we start to have to question our own sacred cows.

Beware, lest they say 'moo'. :smallconfused: :smallconfused: :smallconfused:

Oslecamo
2008-03-06, 04:43 PM
What I like in 4e and may actually make me play someday:

-More hp at first level.
-More monsters on each ecounter and easier to make large enemy groups.
-Monsters with new nifty tricks.
-The whole bloodied thingy.
-More negative hit points.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-07, 01:00 AM
The Zerg "ripped off the Tyranids" about as much as they ripped off Xenomorphs and Buggers and Bugs, and as much as Tyranids ripped off such sources before they came out.

To be entirely fair, yes, Games Workshop itself rips off a great deal of its stuff secondarily. Starship Troopers (the book, not the horrible, horrible movie) comes to mind, not to mention D&D as a source of Warhammer stuff.

Sucrose
2008-03-07, 01:26 AM
...One of us is missing a reference here. Probably me. *sigh*

Anyway, while I haven't actually done anything with the system yet, the reworked combat system looks wonderful. I just hope it'll have hybrid role classes... a Leader/Striker-type could be very fun indeed...

Didn't they say that the classes could take on the traits of others with certain feats, and that multiclassing will be more functional? Even if there aren't hybrid classes, from what I recall, hybrid characters should be a snap.

Rachel's comment was just because of how utterly miserable FATAL is, your previous comment is akin to "well, it's hotter than zero kelvin." While technically civil, it was still largely a damnation by faint praise (I know that I got that saying wrong (What's the right way to say that one?)), which is probably outside the thread's intent.

horseboy
2008-03-07, 01:51 AM
From what I heard, Starcraft was originally going to be a licensed GW product. But at the last minute it got pulled, so they changed it JUST enough to not get sued. Or so I heard.

Artanis
2008-03-07, 02:49 AM
From what I heard, Starcraft was originally going to be a licensed GW product. But at the last minute it got pulled, so they changed it JUST enough to not get sued. Or so I heard.
If it was anything, it would've been Warcraft, because StarCraft started off as Warcraft In Space.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-07, 03:11 AM
So, the only thing about 4E that I can say I like, with no qualification, is the concept of combat advantage. I like having that generalized. I would like to imagine that there are all manner of ways to gain combat advantage, and lots of things that key off of combat advantage. I like sneak attack using combat advantage, for example. Combat advantage also simplifies things in a good way. "You gain X benefit whenever you have a combat advantage" is a solid mechanic. Since you can (hopefully) take lots of feats/etc. that key off of having combat advantage, it rewards tactics in a way 3E doesn't.

ShadowSiege
2008-03-07, 03:21 AM
Actually, in regards to Blizz ripping off other works, it's more they boil it down to the barest bones and then build it up from there. Warcraft? Humans vs Orcs/Monsters. Starcraft? Psychic aliens, space marines, bugs. Diablo? Fighting the armies of Hell singlehandedly.

Warhammer is just as derivative as Warcraft or Starcraft. More than anything, they take a cue from the same sources more than each other, though there are times where they do borrow from each other. Ultimately, the space marine idea comes from Starship Troopers and to a lesser extent, Lensman. Orcs and orks are from Tolkien. Chaos is taken from Moorcock. Illithids are taken from Lovecraft. Tyranids and Zerg are based on Xenomorphs from Alien, the Formics from Ender's Game, and the Bugs from Starship Troopers. What matters is that both products are unique and of excellent quality.

Back to the topic on hand, I do like that dragons don't have all the spellcasting of 3e. The larger numbers of enemies per encounter makes me happy, as does the classification of enemies into role and challenge (minion/normal/elite/solo). The removal of the CR system is a wonderful thing. It had its uses, but it was inaccurate.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-07, 03:55 AM
Who, wait a minute: what do you mean dragons don't have 'all the spellcasting of 3e?"

Indon
2008-03-07, 09:28 AM
Who, wait a minute: what do you mean dragons don't have 'all the spellcasting of 3e?"

4e doesn't have all the spellcasting of 3e. Dragons would fall under that.

ShadowSiege
2008-03-07, 01:54 PM
Who, wait a minute: what do you mean dragons don't have 'all the spellcasting of 3e?"

Given the previews and assuming I'm not interpreting the information incorrectly, dragons will be more like the Xorvintaal dragons found in MM5, which have special abilities and no sorcerer progression.

Artanis
2008-03-07, 03:35 PM
From the descriptions we've gotten of 4e Dragons beating the living daylights out of entire parties, I get the feeling that they probably won't need spells :smallwink:

Oslecamo
2008-03-07, 03:47 PM
From the descriptions we've gotten of 4e Dragons beating the living daylights out of entire parties, I get the feeling that they probably won't need spells :smallwink:

They beated the living daylight out of parties 3 levels lower. And more than once it was the dragon who bited the dust. Maybe some spellasting wouldn't hurt them.

fendrin
2008-03-07, 04:09 PM
They beated the living daylight out of parties 3 levels lower. And more than once it was the dragon who bited the dust. Maybe some spellasting wouldn't hurt them.

'More than once' was still a very small percentage of the time, most were TPKs.

No, of course adding spellcasting won't hurt them i terms of adding options, but I have a feeling they will be powerful and awe-inspiring enough as it is. If there is one thing that WotC will be really careful about messing up it's the dragons. For the record (and in my opinion), 3e dragons' weakness was a weakness of the system, not of the dragons themselves.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-07, 04:57 PM
They beated the living daylight out of parties 3 levels lower. And more than once it was the dragon who bited the dust. Maybe some spellasting wouldn't hurt them.

They do get a few magic spells: Black Dragon uses darkness to blind.

So I assume Dragons have a few spell-like abilities similar to Dragon Shaman: Remember in 3.5 how they get spell-like abilities based on what Dragon they emulated, same idea.

Rutee
2008-03-07, 05:49 PM
No, of course adding spellcasting won't hurt them i terms of adding options, but I have a feeling they will be powerful and awe-inspiring enough as it is. If there is one thing that WotC will be really careful about messing up it's the dragons. For the record (and in my opinion), 3e dragons' weakness was a weakness of the system, not of the dragons themselves.

This is correct; The Action Penalty weighed /far/ too heavily in 3rd ed (And most other systems that do not specifically work to circumvent it) for single monsters to be credible threats without being Save-or-TPK types. I'm not sure I can legitimately call it a weakness (When ti's so common in other systems) but it's definitely a bad thing.