PDA

View Full Version : Things you dislike about 4th edition.



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Indon
2008-02-25, 05:20 PM
Inspired by Lupy's thread about compiling features people like about 4'th edition, I felt that we should compile a list of specific features people dislike about the upcoming 4'th edition of D&D.

Please note that this is not a "Positive vs. Negative features" thread. Restrict debate, merely list the specific things you dislike about 4'th edition, and please limit your comments on what other people dislike about it (specifically, if they will inevitably lead to debate).

And even if you largely like 4'th edition, if there's a change you particularly dislike, you could list it here. Note that if there's a feature you don't like and you intend on houseruling it away, it counts (Personally, I intend on houseruling everything I don't like away, whenever possible, should I decide to play 4'th edition).

This thread is created in the hopes of finding common changes which seem unpopular, and looking for common elements why people don't like said changes.

That said, this is what I particularly dislike about 4'th edition:

-The changing of everyone to the same per round/encounter/day "power" model seems to me to be mechanically uninteresting, removing much of the variety that I feel a class-based system should offer.
-I dislike the possibility that different players will now no longer have significant differences in to-hit or saves (judging from SAGA edition, and the 4'th ed Rogue article), because it renders the system even more generic, and removes character strengths and weaknesses which could make combat and other situations more interesting.
-I dislike that they seem to be getting rid of Wish, and I wish they'd have instead treated it like they're treating ressurection spells, by restricting a system with great potential rather than scrapping it.
-I dislike the reduction in the importance of alignment. I liked the strong mystical and moral backdrop that the alignment system could give, and as such this change saddens me.
-I dislike the removal of iterative attacks as being a removal of an iconic D&D combatant capability.
-I dislike the removal of the copper dragon, rather than the bronze dragon, simply because I consider copper/silver/gold to be more iconic of metallic dragons than bronze/silver/gold (not a very major complaint).

Ganurath
2008-02-25, 05:37 PM
...They bumped out half-orcs. That's all I need.

KindaChang
2008-02-25, 05:39 PM
I'm going to go with everything you just listed, and include some of my own:


-Removal of gnomes from the PHB. Wtf?
-Addition of tieflings to the PHB. Didn't we have enough options for whiney doesn't fit in characters with half-elves alone?
-Removal of racial penalties to ability scores. *sigh* It almost feels like they don't want there to be challenges.

Maerok
2008-02-25, 05:39 PM
They removed a dragon? Why?!?! My favorite poster is one of all ten (basic) kinds of dragons. They probably wanted a Bronze, Silver, Gold theme as with medals... which is superficial. Copper would fit in better as it coincides with the money system, unless they have sinister plans to bastardize that as well.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-25, 05:43 PM
Restrict debate, merely list the specific things you dislike about 4'th edition, and please limit your comments on what other people dislike about it (specifically, if they will inevitably lead to debate).

Wait, how do one limit commenting if will cause debates? How are we to know?


-I dislike the possibility that different players will now no longer have significant differences in to-hit or saves (judging from SAGA edition, and the 4'th ed Rogue article), because it renders the system even more generic, and removes character strengths and weaknesses which could make combat and other situations more interesting.

You haven't played Saga that much, no?

There are to hit/save differences.
I found this out when I last played, but anyway, I don't mind if there was.



-I dislike the reduction in the importance of alignment. I liked the strong mystical and moral backdrop that the alignment system could give, and as such this change saddens me.

Alignment causes too much debate.

I dislike that con mod isn't added to every level: I know we get to add Con Score at 1st, but I like the adding of Con mod.
I'm sure there are balances reasons, but I like big numbers.

I wish they didn't change Psionics to be restricted to certain things. I perfer the 3.5 Version of Psionics.

It was fun and balanced.
I just don't want them taking away my energy powers and giving them only to wizards.

holywhippet
2008-02-25, 05:43 PM
I'll wait to judge it as a whole rather than based on what has been revealed. It's unfair to compare it piecemeal as you are basically comparing it to the current system(s). That isn't fair or entirely relevant as the new edition is intended to have it's own new checks and balances.

If I was chosing a dislike I'd say I dislike PCs not getting a CON bonus to HP on level up (or at least the rogue doesn't). That heavily reduces the usefulness of CON.

DementedFellow
2008-02-25, 05:46 PM
My beef with it (from what I've read and understood, so I could be reading it wrong) is that the Paragon Paths are just given to the players at level 10 (or was it 11?). These Paragon Paths are supposed to replace PrCs, but from what I've read their isn't even the illusion of being "specialized enough" to be in a PrC. From what I understood (which is again may be wrong) there will be a list of stuff you can be at such-and-such level, whereas with a PrC, you have to devote x number of ranks and take x feat(s) in order to gain access to this higher power. In my opinion, PrCs at least give the illusion of "okay, he is good enough to do that." I haven't read any such thing about the Paragon Paths.

Scintillatus
2008-02-25, 05:48 PM
Lack of Bards is unacceptable in the extreme.

I will never forgive you, Pointy-Hatted Old Gits from the Seaside! :smallannoyed:

Overlard
2008-02-25, 05:52 PM
That it provokes complaints about tidbits of information without any real context. :smallwink:

Indon
2008-02-25, 05:53 PM
Wait, how do one limit commenting if will cause debates? How are we to know?

Example -




I don't like this change because of suchandsuch.
Well, I like it, and have a different reason to like it.


You haven't played Saga that much, no?

All classes have the same BAB, right? And judging from the Rogue article, a Rogue has a Reflex save 2 higher than average, and that's it. I do not feel that to be significant.


Alignment causes too much debate.
I think debate can be good. But preferably not in this thread. :smallwink:

horseboy
2008-02-25, 05:54 PM
Hmm, well if I have to complain about something, I'd go with the skill system and their maintaining D&D as a hack and slash game.

Matthew
2008-02-25, 05:58 PM
Iterative Attacks? Good riddance! They were just an artefact of D20. Seriously, though, whilst the value of that mechanic is no doubt subjective, it can hardly be called iconic.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-25, 06:18 PM
All classes have the same BAB, right? And judging from the Rogue article, a Rogue has a Reflex save 2 higher than average, and that's it. I do not feel that to be significant.


Nope. They just dropped 1/2 BAB for Heroics.

Soldier/Jedi = Full
Scout/Scoundrel/Noble = 3/4th.

Non-Heroics are 1/2.

Back on topic, I wish Bards were in the PHB 1.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-25, 06:20 PM
1) The destruction of the fluff. Even I couldn't summon enough hubris to completely remake Faerun. Ditto the Great Wheel.
2) 'Evil fighting evil will be made less of an issue'. Isn't that part of what distinguishes Evil from Good? And, besides bands of unlikely heroes, Good's only advantage?
3) 'It's all about the PCs' mentality. Yes, the PCs are the reason the game exists. No, that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to make the things they probably won't see. The great cathedrals were adorned with statues placed so high that only God could see them.
4) The gnomes and the teiflings and the bard. The less said about that decision, the better.

I have no doubt 4e will succeed at attracting its target audience. I just don't feel I'm a part of that audience anymore. And really, I'm no old-school gamer. 3.5 was my first RPG (GURPS was my second, but that's another story)! Of course, that may be part of the reason I feel this way...

longtooth878
2008-02-25, 06:45 PM
It seems to me that they are changing stuff that was iconic in DND just for the sake of change. Getting rid of certain dragons, races and the way wizard cast spells, giving every class a way to heal. It is like they are gutting it like a fish and replacing it with number 2 and saying its better because its new. It was the same thing with Champions (a super hero RPG) they had a loyal fan base and they went to a "new" system and it tanked. I am not saying that things don't need to change, but they should fix the things that need to be fixed and update the system not replace it. I have lived through 3 editions and this to will pass if they survive, does anyone remember Traveler, Twilight 2000. All I know I was in trouble when I took the test to be one of the play testers and had stuff from non-DND (but WOTC) products on it. Sorry for the rant but I was holding it in for awhile.

:frown:

Lupy
2008-02-25, 07:05 PM
Inspired by Lupy's thread about compiling features people like about 4'th edition, I felt that we should compile a list of specific features people dislike about the upcoming 4'th edition of D&D.

Good idea.

Why! Why! My bard! My beloved Bard! *and lupy wept*

Guildorn Tanaleth
2008-02-25, 07:14 PM
I dislike how people are constantly debating its features while barely knowing anything about it. I also dislike the erroneous use of "4'th" instead of "4th."

Mkhaiwati
2008-02-25, 07:16 PM
Style issues

Specifically, the "I can do it in 30 levels in the time for you to go 20 levels" mentality. This style of play is also evidenced in the strikes that do healing to the party, per encounter abilities, and much more. It isn't a style I want to play.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-25, 07:33 PM
I dislike that they took out gnomes and several base classes won't be on the 1st PHB.
Hmm... I got nothing more.
The by encounter/by day mechanics... I'll have to see.
I don't see removal of Wish as something so bad. I *think* vancian casting will be removed or lessened, so you don't need a spell that can replace others. Plus, most of the things you were supposed to do with it will (hopefully) be handled by others spells.
I don't think that iterative attacks are so iconic (I started playing AD&D, only the fighter, ranger and paladin gained up to 2 or 3 attacks every 2 rounds).
Actually, if the characters get less dependent on full attacks (that doesn't come often), it'll be better.

Talya
2008-02-25, 07:50 PM
It seems to me that they are changing stuff that was iconic in DND just for the sake of change.

Indeed. Change for change sake alone is not good. They're "fixing" some stuff that was never broken.

SadisticFishing
2008-02-25, 07:54 PM
Golden. Wyvern. Adept.

I stronly dislike forced fluff for no reason. It's perfectly acceptable for the Eye of Gruumsh to have fluff, or for the Purple Dragon Champion. But for a simple Wizard? Chameleon is one of the only examples I can think of in 3.5, of something that has useless fluff for no reason whatsoever. What if I don't want to be an assassin, but want to be versatile? Grumble, grumble.

The new schools of magic are my main problem, my wizard should be a Conjurer or Illusionist, not a... Iron Sigilist, or Hidden Flame-guy-thing.

Grumble, grumble, boo hiss.

Prophaniti
2008-02-25, 08:11 PM
Very much agree with everything Longtooth878 said up there, echoed by Talya. They're changing so much that doesn't need to be changed, and forcing a lot of fluff down our throats with their new mechanics. I have no issue whatsoever with things like changing the way crits work, or making hp gain per level a constant instead of random, or any of the purely mechanical changes to the system.

It's the things like tiefling changes, dropping gnomes and half-orcs/elves, dropping bards, adding new dragon colors and dropping old ones, giving everyone self-healing, changing the wizard schools... the list goes on and on.

Some of these things will be very difficult, if not impossible, to seperate from the core books so I can run the campaign world I want (complete with bards and gnome illusionists and half-orcs and no teiflings as a core race and...) with their very sensible and well-structured mechanics. That is why I'm fairly certain at this point that I won't upgrade to 4th until everyone in my group flatly refuses to play anything else. Instead, I'll just house-rule the mechanics I like into my already-existing-and-needs-no-tampering-thank-you-very-much campaign.

RTGoodman
2008-02-25, 08:12 PM
It seems to me that they are changing stuff that was iconic in DND just for the sake of change. Getting rid of certain dragons...

I actually totally agree with that - really, who knows the difference off the top of their head between copper, bronze, and brass dragons? The replacements (Iron and Adamantine) are more distinctive and seem like common sense to me.

I'm generally all for 4E, but there are a few things I don't like:

-No ability penalties for races - that just seems weird to me.

-The loss of Half-Orcs - I'm okay with leaving Gnomes until later, but I loves me some Half-Orcs and they just cut them out in favor of deserty dragon-man. Really, how fanboyish can it get?

Theodoxus
2008-02-25, 08:18 PM
Golden. Wyvern. Adept.

I stronly dislike forced fluff for no reason. It's perfectly acceptable for the Eye of Gruumsh to have fluff, or for the Purple Dragon Champion. But for a simple Wizard? Chameleon is one of the only examples I can think of in 3.5, of something that has useless fluff for no reason whatsoever. What if I don't want to be an assassin, but want to be versatile? Grumble, grumble.

The new schools of magic are my main problem, my wizard should be a Conjurer or Illusionist, not a... Iron Sigilist, or Hidden Flame-guy-thing.

Grumble, grumble, boo hiss.

My gaming group had a discussion along those lines... about Sepia Snake Sigil. I mean, how the heck am I supposed to know what that spell does? A brown snake symbol... hmm... using that as an example, I'm surprised fireball wasn't renamed 'Vermillian Sphere'.

3.5 has plenty of useless fluff, if you look close enough.

puppyavenger
2008-02-25, 08:24 PM
Would someone please tell me where these dragon changes are listed also

Iron and Adamantine So is the adamantiem dragon stronger than the iron? and iron doeesn't seem... chaotic to me. And aren't the good dragons supposed to be precsios metals, the evil colours and the nuetrel gems/other metals/elelments/mist/timeetc?

Moff Chumley
2008-02-25, 08:27 PM
Style issues

Specifically, the "I can do it in 30 levels in the time for you to go 20 levels" mentality. This style of play is also evidenced in the strikes that do healing to the party, per encounter abilities, and much more. It isn't a style I want to play.

Per encounter abilities make sense. In karate, for instance, ther are plenty of things I can do only once per fight, such as feints, overly telegraphed (but not obvious) strikes, and most locks.

Stuff I don't like:
Tieflings and Dragonborn. Srsly. However, its really not to hard to say "Okay, Tieflings are Drow and Dragonborn are Lizardfolk." A little imagination goes a long way, people.

EvilElitest
2008-02-25, 08:30 PM
Should i even comment on this thread? I would have a massive list
from
EE

Istari
2008-02-25, 08:34 PM
The fact that they are trying to target a new MMORPG fanbase instead of keeping their former customers intrested.

The Faceless
2008-02-25, 08:36 PM
My gaming group had a discussion along those lines... about Sepia Snake Sigil. I mean, how the heck am I supposed to know what that spell does? A brown snake symbol... hmm... using that as an example, I'm surprised fireball wasn't renamed 'Vermillian Sphere'.

3.5 has plenty of useless fluff, if you look close enough.

But alliteration! Granted, it could have been called Snake Glyph Trap, but where's your sense of wonder and poetry?

Also, on what i don't like: They removed wish? Wow, they really are dumbing it down for the plebs.

SadisticFishing
2008-02-25, 08:48 PM
My gaming group had a discussion along those lines... about Sepia Snake Sigil. I mean, how the heck am I supposed to know what that spell does? A brown snake symbol... hmm... using that as an example, I'm surprised fireball wasn't renamed 'Vermillian Sphere'.

3.5 has plenty of useless fluff, if you look close enough.

Honestly, that's actually different. Vancian casting dictates that someone has to discover every spell, and then name it.

CowPuncher
2008-02-25, 09:05 PM
I may be wrong, but 4e seems to have been designed to support fewer styles of play, with the justification that those styles of play will work better with the tighter focus. That's what all of the talk about a "sweet spot" said to me, anyway: "3.5 is the most fun at mid-level when everybody's got clear combat roles, so we're trimming the fat and making the whole game into that." As it happens, that's not the kind of D&D I go in for.

I'm going to miss sucking at 1st level, dungeon-crawling in terror after casting my last spell for the day, getting a 1 on my hit die and having to play it tight for a level or two. I'm going to miss the rag-tag band of psychopaths, which will apparently be phased out in favor of the clockwork party where every character has a clear mechanical function.

The gnome is a great example of what 4e will be missing (yes, I know gnomes will be in the game, but their absence from the PHB is symbolic). Gnomes have no clear function, they're mechanically unexceptional and they have no clear stereotype to play off of. They just don't "click" neatly into the system. But that's what makes gnome characters work: Yeah, I'm a Paladin, but I can also do magic tricks and talk to badgers. The character becomes more than the class, not just in the imagination of the players, but mechanically. I hope that aspect of the game isn't lost.

LoopyZebra
2008-02-25, 09:16 PM
They removed a dragon? Why?!?! My favorite poster is one of all ten (basic) kinds of dragons...

Its been a while since I've posted, but I'd like to say this is incorrect. As a fan of the copper dragon, I'd like to point out it's in the first 4ED Monster Manual.

"...and eliminated two "alloys" [i.e. bronze and brass] that weren't well defined."
-Worlds and Monsters, pg. 28.

It's also handy to note that bronze and brass will probably return, most likely in the second monster manual.

"This doesn't mean we've killed off two metallic dragons for good... they're just not part off the "big five" anymore."
-Worlds and Monsters, pg. 29.

EDIT: I mixed up the OP's comment about coppers being gone with Maerok's post. My bad. But I suppose my reply is directed to both of you.

Rutee
2008-02-25, 09:49 PM
Honestly, that's actually different. Vancian casting dictates that someone has to discover every spell, and then name it.
Sepia Snake Sigil doesn't involve someone's name. Sepia is a font type. Also, I'm relatively certain that Vancian Casting Does Not Work That Way.


I may be wrong, but 4e seems to have been designed to support fewer styles of play, with the justification that those styles of play will work better with the tighter focus. That's what all of the talk about a "sweet spot" said to me, anyway: "3.5 is the most fun at mid-level when everybody's got clear combat roles, so we're trimming the fat and making the whole game into that." As it happens, that's not the kind of D&D I go in for.
Apparently you like sucking mechanically for no other reason then to suck mechanically? That's really all I can get from "I like being OHKO material for Red Shirts".


The fact that they are trying to target a new MMORPG fanbase instead of keeping their former customers intrested.
...Epic Failure. That's.. just not what's going on, at all.

I personally dislike the removal of Guhnomes and Bards from the PHB, but it doesn't matter much to me either. If Tieflings were in fact angsty, that'd bug me, but they're basically not, so.

horseboy
2008-02-25, 10:01 PM
I actually totally agree with that - really, who knows the difference off the top of their head between copper, bronze, and brass dragons? The replacements (Iron and Adamantine) are more distinctive and seem like common sense to me.
*Raises hand* Bronze dragons live near the ocean. The breathe lightning and repulsion gas. Depending on the edition/setting bronze were only able to assume animal form, not humanoid.
Brass are chatty busy bodies that breath desert heat and sleep gas (? Okay that one I don't remember, it's been a decade ago since I've read anything about a metallic dragon). They didn't have shape shift until the first Draconomicon. Copper, well okay you've got me on the copper. Wait, weren't they the ones with the bad sense of humour? Bah, they were one step up from the gem dragons.

Jayngfet
2008-02-25, 10:38 PM
they have no...

bards, gnomes, half orcs, sorcerers, evil in fighting

they basterdised

halflings, tieflings, elves, dwarves, and just about everything else.

the one thing I would even consider barley passing is the computerised, since all my group uses computers in huge doses, and if you cant cast magic missile at some random bird for crapping on your good pointy hat I will disown it.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-25, 11:14 PM
the one thing I would even consider barley passing is the computerised, since all my group uses computers in huge doses, and if you cant cast magic missile at some random bird for crapping on your good pointy hat I will disown it.

At will Magic Missile says yes you can use it on the birdie.

CowPuncher
2008-02-26, 01:50 AM
Apparently you like sucking mechanically for no other reason then to suck mechanically? That's really all I can get from "I like being OHKO material for Red Shirts".

"Sucking mechanically" isn't quite how I'd put it. You can optimize a 1st-3rd level character such that he doesn't suck compared to the challenges he faces. There's just a fundamental difference in the way that 3.X deals with low-level characters as compared to high-level characters. Low-level characters aren't awash in bonuses from equipment and high-level magic, so their small bonuses from mundane equipment, race. etc. matter more. Low level characters are generalists compared to high-level characters; the wizard has to carry a crossbow unless he only wants to be useful twice per day. In-character tactics mean more to low-level characters, whereas OOC rule-exploitation means more to high-level characters.

I'm not saying that my way is the only right way to play, just that I like it and I'm disappointed that 4e appears to be moving away from it.

It may surprise you to discover that I prefer Exalted to D&D. Then again, maybe that accounts for my preferences. D&D is the game that I play when I'm tired of being an Ultimate Badass.

Rutee
2008-02-26, 02:11 AM
It may surprise you to discover that I prefer Exalted to D&D. Then again, maybe that accounts for my preferences. D&D is the game that I play when I'm tired of being an Ultimate Badass.

There's a vast gulf between "OHKO-bait for red shirts" and "Ultimate bad-ass". Personally, I wouldn't say that 15-30ish HP at level one isn't "Ultimate bad-ass".

CowPuncher
2008-02-26, 02:41 AM
There's a vast gulf between "OHKO-bait for red shirts" and "Ultimate bad-ass". Personally, I wouldn't say that 15-30ish HP at level one isn't "Ultimate bad-ass".

No, it isn't. I wasn't saying that. What I'm saying is that there's a distinctive, fun gameplay experience in running a character who isn't all that much tougher than the captain of the watch or the local cutpurse. It's fun to be in a sword fight where a sword really can kill you if it stabs you, rather than just chipping a few more HP off of your total. At least, I think it's fun.

In 3.5, we can both have our way; you can start a game at 5th level and avoid the whole low-level routine, while I can keep my games below 5th level and have a blast. While there's something to be said for the effort to make gameplay more consistent in 4e, I'm personally disappointed that my favorite style will probably be harder to pull off.

Rutee
2008-02-26, 02:50 AM
In 3.5, we can both have our way; you can start a game at 5th level and avoid the whole low-level routine, while I can keep my games below 5th level and have a blast. While there's something to be said for the effort to make gameplay more consistent in 4e, I'm personally disappointed that my favorite style will probably be harder to pull off.

That's the part I'm not sure on. It's still crazy easy to die to nameless peons in DnD 3.X (I don't think that'll change though..); When the focus of winning is to burst enemies the hell down, well.. succinctly put, as it stands, my way /might/ work, but it's much harder to pull off then yours. I get being disgruntled at a change in the status quo in that case, but do take note that we don't really know how things'll change in terms of how combat works.

With physical attacks remaining meaningful from level 1-20, since there's no iterative attacks, I'm incilned to think that sword hits will always be dangerous, but we can't confirm that.

Xuincherguixe
2008-02-26, 03:10 AM
I hate that it won't have any Deep Squirrel Themed Revenge Party Goers, or DSTRPG. I HATE them for that. Oh sure, they were really annoying but admit it, you loved giving them the tiny ants, because it made them explode with purple. All kinds of pretty.

But I suppose it was understandable. It was after all not in any previous editions, and in fact something I mostly made up, but not quite on the spot.

No, what bothers me about 4th edition that I just made up on the spot is that Sorcerors won't be allergic to pie. They really need that balancing factor quite frankly. The fact chances are there won't be Sorcerors does not excuse this.

Tempest Fennac
2008-02-26, 03:27 AM
I know that it's ironic that I'm making this comment, but why did they remove ageing penalties? While I think the 3rd Edition rules were illogical due to not considering how class and chance would play important rolls in how you deterriorate as you get older, but I still think having some penalties makes sense. I'm also annoyed about Vancian casting being eliminated (I like the system), and I agree with other people about Gnomes and racial stat penalties being eliminated, and I find it ridiculous that all classes have a small amount of self-healing ability (I know I'm a powergamer, but I actually like the powergaming to make sense). Regarding HPs, I persoanlly prefer the system where you just add Con and the median number on your classes HD due to how it prevents ridiculous HP extreams, but it does seem as though WotC want to limit playing styles.

Crow
2008-02-26, 03:39 AM
Sepia is a font type.

I'm pretty sure it was a type of ink first. A brownish-hued one at that.

Or did I totally miss some internet sarcasm you were trying to include?

Rutee
2008-02-26, 03:42 AM
I'm pretty sure it was a type of ink first. A brownish-hued one at that.

Or did I totally miss some internet sarcasm you were trying to include?

It wasn't very good, I admit, but it got my central point across: Sepia Snake Sigil is a completely evocative name, not a "Someone discoverred it, so it has their name on it" thing.


I find it ridiculous that all classes have a small amount of self-healing ability (I know I'm a powergamer, but I actually like the powergaming to make sense). Regarding HPs, I persoanlly prefer the system where you just add Con and the median number on your classes HD due to how it prevents ridiculous HP extreams, but it does seem as though WotC want to limit playing styles.
Explain to me in detail what HP is, that it seems ridiculous that everyone has self-healing. Also, limitting the usefulness of Con is not the same thing as limiting playstyles (Also take note that Con is just as important for rogues as it is for fighters still; One can presume that targeting the Fort. defense will still be fairly common)

Crow
2008-02-26, 03:46 AM
It wasn't very good, I admit, but it got my central point across: Sepia Snake Sigil is a completely evocative name, not a "Someone discoverred it, so it has their name on it" thing.

Ok, I got it now =D I'm on the tail end of a 13 hour shift...brain functions are limited (more so than normal!).

I actually like the alliteration of the name. Though admittedly, I do always have to look it up to see what it does.

As far as the self-healing goes; With HP representing so much more than physical well-being, I would have preferred that they called the self-healing ability something like "Second Wind", or "Great Stamina" rather than "Healing Surge". By adding "healing" in there it connotates that physical wounds are being healed...which is nonsensical unless magic is involved.

Tempest Fennac
2008-02-26, 03:55 AM
My comment about limiting playing styles was concerned with the class changes rather then HPs speficially. Regarding everyone being able to heal themselves, I don't see how it can be justified with fluff a lot of the time, and I prefer the idea of classes being able to do some things which other classes can't do (eg: while classes other then Divine Casters could heal other characters in the 3rd Edition, the abilities did fit in with the class to a certain extent. Unless all of the classes include basic reiki as far as training goes, self-healing makes very little sense while taking away from specilist healers). Building on what Crow said, a feat (or possibly a class feature for some Warrior-types) could be called 2nd Wind while giving the user some temporary HPs (it would make some sense while not being given to all the classes).

Rutee
2008-02-26, 04:07 AM
I just call it Second Wind anyway.


My comment about limiting playing styles was concerned with the class changes rather then HPs speficially. Regarding everyone being able to heal themselves, I don't see how it can be justified with fluff a lot of the time, and I prefer the idea of classes being able to do some things which other classes can't do (eg: while classes other then Divine Casters could heal other characters in the 3rd Edition, the abilities did fit in with the class to a certain extent. Unless all of the classes include basic reiki as far as training goes, self-healing makes very little sense while taking away from specilist healers).
No, they're identifying roles that were already present in design philosophy, predominantly. I imagine there WILL be nerfs to Wizards and clerics and whatnot, but they're freakin' insane as it is. As to "Specialist healing"? Healbotting sucks. Making it less necessary so that the Buffer spot can go to more interesting and potentially useful actions. As to objections to literally, actually-factually, healing wounds sustained in battle? What is HP?

Tempest Fennac
2008-02-26, 04:14 AM
I tend to class HPs as being a measure of how much damage you can take. Also, what's wrong with playing as a specialist healer?

Rutee
2008-02-26, 04:16 AM
Nothing, if you can stomach it, but making the role as unnecessary as possible is pretty much an unmitigated win for a game system. But that's the mechanical concern; What are HP, in-character, to you?

Tempest Fennac
2008-02-26, 04:28 AM
In character, I'd still class HPs as being about how much punishment you can take. Why would playing a healer be a problem for a lot of players?

Crow
2008-02-26, 04:36 AM
HP (to me) represents your ability to roll with blows, your stamina, and to a lesser extent, the amount of punishment you can take. Like when you learn how to fall in a martial arts class. The guy with a lot of HP has been trained to minimize the damage he takes when he gets thrown to the ground, while the guy with little HP is the untrained guy. Likewise, a character with a lot of HP could have excellent conditioning, able to dodge and minimize the effects of blows for much longer than the guy with little HP. The guy with a lot of HP is like the football player who plays through injuries, while the guy with little HP is sidelined with a sprained pinkie.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-26, 04:47 AM
Sepia Snake Sigil doesn't involve someone's name. Sepia is a font type.
A color, actually. The point of Vancian casting is that "the creator names the spell", not that "every spell must be named after the creator" (although many are, because high-powered wizards tend to be vain).


I don't think that anything, anything at all, will be removed from 4E. Sure, things like gnomes, bards and so forth may not be in the very first player's handbook, but WOTC wouldn't be WOTC if they didn't add a source book later on with an update for every single class or race we've had in any earlier edition of D&D.


I think what I dislike about fourth edition is that they're calling it "fourth edition". With so many more fundamental sweeping changes than in any other "new" edition, this is not a new edition - it's a whole new game. Of course, they have to call it the same for reasons of marketing, but if they're designing mechanics, classes, worlds and indeed everything else from the bottom again, it's a separate game. It may be a very cool separate game, but the differences bother people who are expecting a simple update of the earlier game.

That's why, for instance, GURPS 4.0 is reasonably similar to GURPS 3.0, and why "Vampire: the Requiem" isn't called "4th edition Vampire". That's why, for instance, people disliked the arcade game "PacLand" - not because it's a bad game, but because it's a game completely unrelated in gameplay from PacMan, with the name tacked on.

Thamir
2008-02-26, 05:09 AM
They are making it WOW!:smallfurious: :smallfurious: DEATH TO ALL WOW PLAYERS!!!

They have taken all the customisation and freedom of later 3.5 products and gone back to ADnd. A rogue has to be a sneak or a thug? What about a diplomat or a conman or an inquisitive? I HATE IT!!!:furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious:

Thanatos 51-50
2008-02-26, 05:12 AM
I'm not a fan of the Rogue's weapon list, or the apparant lack of the ability to turn one into a con artist, but we'll see...

Swordguy
2008-02-26, 05:21 AM
The fact that it's not out yet, thus leading to speculative threads like this one cluttering up the forums filled with people complaining about stuff with no context.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-26, 05:38 AM
The fact that it's not out yet, thus leading to speculative threads like this one cluttering up the forums filled with people complaining about stuff with no context.

Calling it "no context" is ignoring the seventy-four pages of sourced information we have on the subject, listed here (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e). So what you're doing is only making a straw man fallacy in an attempt to discount everybody who disagrees with you.

raygungothic
2008-02-26, 05:50 AM
The way so many people complain it's being "forced" on them. Honestly, I do not get this. Nothing compels you to change over from 3.5 if you think 3.5 suits you better.

The way so many people assume that there will be more implicit background than 3.5, just because they're so used to the enormous mass of implicit background and Gygax-legacy material in 3.5 that they fail to notice, and then complain that it will be impossible to change - as if no-one ever tweaked background in any previous edition.

The whole "zomg it's turning into wow" thing. It will be WOW only if you choose to run it as WOW. It won't if you don't. For goodness' sake, people, surely the whole point of pencil & paper RPG is that you can do it the way you want to?

Kizara
2008-02-26, 06:02 AM
I love how so many people don't respect the OP's desires for this thread, and instead argue and/or attack people's negative posts regarding 4e.

When someone SPECIFICALLY asks you to mind your peace, and not instigate an argument, and then you go out of your way to do so, I consider that pretty rude.

It has resulted in mostly derailing and bogging down this thread, which I suppose is the intent of said malcontents.

EDIT: Also, I like how said people (at least 2 of them) have ignored this post and are continuing to ignore the OP's wishes and are constantly trying to pick a fight with people.

Skjaldbakka
2008-02-26, 06:35 AM
-I dislike the lumping together of powers. I've always felt that 'magic should be different'. When it uses the same mechanics as the stuff the fighter is doing, it detracts from this, in my opinion.

Morty
2008-02-26, 07:36 AM
Hoo boy. It's a long list.
-Everyone using the same "powers". It kills a lot of variety and diversity, not to mention the flavor.
-Defining every class as "martial defender", "arcane striker" and so on. Sure, in 3ed classes have defined roles as well, but we aren't slapped in face with them.
-Constant use of terms like "dramatic tension" in articles and overall move towards dramatics. RPGs aren't books and movies, for God's sake.
-Tendency to advise DMs to make the world revolve around PCs.
-Massacring Forgotten Realms.
-Changes in cosmology.
-Removing racial attribute penalties.
-Tieflings and Dragonborn. No need to explain here.
Some of this points might prove to be wrong, but at least half of them are facts.

Rutee
2008-02-26, 08:18 AM
In character, I'd still class HPs as being about how much punishment you can take. Why would playing a healer be a problem for a lot of players?

How does the character take more punishment? Is it the anime-style "I have like, a million gallons of blood in my body, and all classes work this way, HP-wise"? Or is it something more involved (Hint: Like what Crow has).

And you really don't understand that straight-healing can be pretty boring, do you? >.>


-Constant use of terms like "dramatic tension" in articles and overall move towards dramatics. RPGs aren't books and movies, for God's sake.
RPGs can focus on story, just as a book or movie can. They don't have to, so on its face, your complaint is valid, it's the part where you make it seem as though drama can't have any place in an RPG where you become wrong.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-26, 08:31 AM
I dislike the people who come out of the woodwork to scream about how they hate 4e more than anything, yet have not played it and their arguements are often false and based on misunderstandings caused by a tenuous grasp of the English language.

On a serious note, I do have one major complaint about 4e......

It's not out yet.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-26, 08:40 AM
-Defining every class as "martial defender", "arcane striker" and so on. Sure, in 3ed classes have defined roles as well, but we aren't slapped in face with them.

Yeagh, Classes have always had roles. Remember: Fighter, Thief, Arcane caster, Divine caster (Healer) since 2nd (1st?) edition.
But than I don't want to debate this due to OP.


Some of this points might prove to be wrong, but at least half of them are facts.

Well, yes, if you shoot enough pople eventually one will have deserved it: still wrong.

I dislike that 4ED didn't use BAB paths of SAGA: maybe it will work out, but I liked them.

Zincorium
2008-02-26, 08:50 AM
Honestly, I'm learning a lot about people's opinions from this.

For those who do have major beefs, I have some questions:

-Do you have an alternative you'd prefer to see?

-If you want it to all stay the same, what was your opinion on the '.5' part of third edition?

-Do you think that WotC could keep producing constantly for the same system for the next 8 or so years? What could they have released that would have kept interest for you?


I'm looking to understand the dislike on level deeper than 'its new and I hate it'.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-26, 09:03 AM
Honestly, I'm learning a lot about people's opinions from this.

For those who do have major beefs, I have some questions:

-Do you have an alternative you'd prefer to see?

-If you want it to all stay the same, what was your opinion on the '.5' part of third edition?

-Do you think that WotC could keep producing constantly for the same system for the next 8 or so years? What could they have released that would have kept interest for you?


I'm looking to understand the dislike on level deeper than 'its new and I hate it'.

I believe the OP wanted to avoid debate like this, so a new thread *may* be needed. I personally believe that it is basic human fear of change. This then is justified through various "rational" outlets like "I invested all this money in books.." and "Looks like WotC is trying to appeal to the WoW kiddies.. no room for me to play anymore"; in order to avoid change (the source of the fear) the person in question's mind creates various acceptable and palatable scenarios to help the person avoid the change, constructed by the mind based on the underlying persona. People who are already inclined to dislike WoW/video games will draw that comparison, or if they are self concious or have a fear of alienation/rejection it may be manifested as WotC "targetting a younger audience".

/rolls his Knowledge: Psychology
//rolls his Bluff

Swordguy
2008-02-26, 09:27 AM
Calling it "no context" is ignoring the seventy-four pages of sourced information we have on the subject, listed here (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e). So what you're doing is only making a straw man fallacy in an attempt to discount everybody who disagrees with you.

Disa...I don't have an opinion on it yet. I'm waiting until I can see the whole package, rather than forming an opinion based on incomplete information. Which is the more rational response to something you haven't seen in its entirety yet?

1) ZOMG! It's the best game ever! I love what they did to A, B, and C!
2) ZOMG! It's the worst game ever! I hate what they did to X, Y, and Z!
3) I haven't seen what they've done to the rest of the alphabet yet, so I'll reserve judgment on the thing until I get to see it. Oh, and ZOMG. Just to fit in.

Morty
2008-02-26, 09:45 AM
RPGs can focus on story, just as a book or movie can. They don't have to, so on its face, your complaint is valid, it's the part where you make it seem as though drama can't have any place in an RPG where you become wrong.

Sure, a game might be dramatic in an adventure book style and there's nothing wrong with it. However, if they design the whole game to provide dramatic tension -they admitted it themselves- they're potentially hurting those who don't want their games to be dramatic. Of course, it's one of those compliants I'm aware might very well become invalid in the future. It's also very subjective, but isn't it the purpose of this thread?


Yeagh, Classes have always had roles. Remember: Fighter, Thief, Arcane caster, Divine caster (Healer) since 2nd (1st?) edition.

Sure they have. Does this change anything in my argument?


Disa...I don't have an opinion on it yet. I'm waiting until I can see the whole package, rather than forming an opinion based on incomplete information. Which is the more rational response to something you haven't seen in its entirety yet?

If you paid attention to all people have been saying, you might've noticed people are listing things they don't like in 4ed material so far, not that they hate 4ed to the bone.

Jayabalard
2008-02-26, 09:52 AM
-Removal of Racial penalties
-Removal of bards
-Replacing iconic D&D races with races that are built on fluff that I dislike.
-Removal of Vancian spell casting
-In general, removing iconic fluff for no good reason (ie precious metal dragons, etc)
-Different resurrection mechanics for PCs vs NPCs

I'm sure I could list more if I actually followed the changes.


I'm looking to understand the dislike on level deeper than 'its new and I hate it'.You could re-publish GURPS and call it D&D... and it would (IMO) be a better system, and would be totally new. But it wouldn't be D&D.

Each person who play's D&D has certain things that they consider required for the game to "be D&D" and most of the complaints that I've seen have to do with those sort of changes, where the game isn't D&D anymore.


There's a vast gulf between "OHKO-bait for red shirts" and "Ultimate bad-ass". Personally, I wouldn't say that 15-30ish HP at level one isn't "Ultimate bad-ass".didn't the OP specifically ask for people to not debate on this thread, to take it elsewhere? Perhaps you should start a new thread if you want to debate other people's opinions and aren't going to contribute to the thread?

Rutee
2008-02-26, 10:04 AM
The OP did indeed specifically ask for that. It was also something of a bad request; Starting a new thread on every last little point is wasteful of board space, liable to be taken as spam, and a patently negative thread doesn't have that same "No trolling" pull that a patently positive one does.


Sure, a game might be dramatic in an adventure book style and there's nothing wrong with it. However, if they design the whole game to provide dramatic tension -they admitted it themselves- they're potentially hurting those who don't want their games to be dramatic. Of course, it's one of those compliants I'm aware might very well become invalid in the future. It's also very subjective, but isn't it the purpose of this thread?
My objection wasn't that you objected in this regard; It was the /manner/ in which you did so.

"-Constant use of terms like "dramatic tension" in articles and overall move towards dramatics. RPGs aren't books and movies, for God's sake." has a very strong implicit tone that it's /wrong/ to play for dramatic purposes. Skjaldbakka makes almost the exact same complaint one post above you, except that when he does it, it's very clearly subjective and doesn't implicitly or explicitly say that dramatic focus is bad.

Prophaniti
2008-02-26, 10:09 AM
Ask yourselves a question: would there be fewer posts on a thread, dedicated to complaints with a product, about how stupid, ignorant and afraid of change the complainers are if the product was, say, a kind of cheese? I think so. I've been watching the 4E debate for some time now, and read many posts by both sides of the fence. It is true there are some whose dislike/hate of 4E borders on irrational (while a few skip jauntily across the gap into inexplicable). There seem to be just as many, however, who apply the same level of vehemence against those with distaste for it, even (sometimes especially, as the more irrational ones are ignored) when the distaste is expressed in calm, concise and logical terms, even when it is explicitely labeled as a personal opinion.

This thread is specifically dedicated to people with complaints, be they irrational or minor or just a matter of taste, about the new edition. It was specifically asked by the OP to keep debate to a minimum. If you have no dilikes or complaints about 4th, simply say so and move on to another thread. There are quite a few out there where the debate is still raging.

Sorry, bit preachy there. I'd just like to see this thread NOT slide into the pit of 10+ page endless-circle debate. This and the 'Positive 4E' thread are the best ones on the subject so far, provided they can stay out of that hole.

Morty
2008-02-26, 10:10 AM
My objection wasn't that you objected in this regard; It was the /manner/ in which you did so.

"-Constant use of terms like "dramatic tension" in articles and overall move towards dramatics. RPGs aren't books and movies, for God's sake." has a very strong implicit tone that it's /wrong/ to play for dramatic purposes. Skjaldbakka makes almost the exact same complaint one post above you, except that when he does it, it's very clearly subjective and doesn't implicitly or explicitly say that dramatic focus is bad.

Huh. Once again, I came across with a message I didn't intend. To clarify, I don't belive playing for dramatic purposes is Wrong Way To Play, I just don't like the fact 4ed is apparently being tailored towards it.

EvilElitest
2008-02-26, 10:58 AM
I dislike the people who come out of the woodwork to scream about how they hate 4e more than anything, yet have not played it and their arguements are often false and based on misunderstandings caused by a tenuous grasp of the English language.


Quit whining, most people dislike 4E from what we've seen so far and base these facts on the information presented.
from
EE

Hyrael
2008-02-26, 11:24 AM
I'm going to go with everything you just listed, and include some of my own:


-Removal of gnomes from the PHB. Wtf?
-Addition of tieflings to the PHB. Didn't we have enough options for whiney doesn't fit in characters with half-elves alone?
-Removal of racial penalties to ability scores. *sigh* It almost feels like they don't want there to be challenges.

WHAT? the removed racial ability score penalties? why? Bloody hell, why?

It's like if the guys at R&D decided to remove all drawbacks from all Magic cards, because "new players often have a hard time seeing the point of cards with drawbacks, at least at first. like wrath of god, armageddon, or stinking imp."

I want my half-orcs back

nagora
2008-02-26, 11:28 AM
...Epic Failure. That's.. just not what's going on, at all.


It blatantly is. WoC have been running scared of MMORPGs for years now. Instead of trying to offer a quality alternative they're trying to make the same sort of bland fantasy dull-o-vision as all those WOW clones out there.

And anyone worried about their favourite race and abilities being taken out: don't worry, WoC will be glad to sell you a nice expansion book or 40 to fill in the spaces.

Tin Can
2008-02-26, 11:47 AM
Removal of negative ability scores for races.
Changing story/fluff text for the sake of changing stuff.
Tieflings and Dragonborn as base races.
The focus on making every class more useful in combat.
The changes from the 3.0/3.5 skill system.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-26, 12:29 PM
-If you want it to all stay the same, what was your opinion on the '.5' part of third edition?

Well, I don't want it to stay all the same, but I'll answer that anyway. 3.5 is essentially balance fixing, errata, and cleanup - essentially what 2nd edition did, as well as 2nd and 3rd edition of Whitewolf or GURPS.

And of course there will be a 4.5 in three to five years, only they won't call it that. But any system this complex will need errata or rebalancing at some point, and while they can distribute it online they will eventually want to publish updated books.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-26, 12:31 PM
1) ZOMG! It's the best game ever! I love what they did to A, B, and C!
2) ZOMG! It's the worst game ever! I hate what they did to X, Y, and Z!
3) I haven't seen what they've done to the rest of the alphabet yet, so I'll reserve judgment on the thing until I get to see it. Oh, and ZOMG. Just to fit in.

ZOMGs aside, it is perfectly valid and logical to say "I'll reserve full judgment until I've seen the whole game, but what I've seen so far I (mildly/strongly) (like/dislike) overall".

It is not valid and logical for somebody to respond to that with "well, you don't know anything yet so shut up".

So, false dichotomy.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-26, 12:39 PM
And of course there will be a 4.5 in three to five years, only they won't call it that. But any system this complex will need errata or rebalancing at some point, and while they can distribute it online they will eventually want to publish updated books.

This is part of why they're simplifying a lot of things. For example, it's a whole lot easier to balance classes when they all have the same at will/per encounter/per day power progression, compared to, say, entirely at-will classes vs. entirely per-day classes like 3.5 had.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-26, 12:44 PM
It blatantly is. WoC have been running scared of MMORPGs for years now. Instead of trying to offer a quality alternative they're trying to make the same sort of bland fantasy dull-o-vision as all those WOW clones out there.

And anyone worried about their favourite race and abilities being taken out: don't worry, WoC will be glad to sell you a nice expansion book or 40 to fill in the spaces.

This is pretty hilariously ironic, considering the common complaints about 4E are (1) it's not bland *enough*, it's got more built-in flavor (Dragonborn history, for example) than previous editions, and (2) "I want to buy more 3.5 splatbooks, not have all of them go to waste".

Incidentally, D&D is in no way a direct competitor for MMORPGs. They're very different kinds of entertainment, and D&D is, if anything, playing up its "group fun, not slack-jawed staring at a screen" aspect.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-02-26, 12:58 PM
I'll just ignore the discussion that was not meant to be and post a list

1 the new skill system, I like skill points and thus dislike this change. I feel it will lose flexibility and I'm afraid it will make skills less useful, I'm happy about the reduction in number of skills, though they might have gone top far on that too.

2 changing classes, I heard that there were going to be less classes, which I dislike, I also liked most of the classes in 3.5 although they needed rebalancing.

3 changing races, I'm one of the few people that likes gnomes, I also feel they should have inserted either both tieflings and asimar or neither, I liked the way they were sort of mirrored.

4 I agree with the dragons, copper dragons fit much better with the periodic table of elements, how does a bronze dragon come into being anyway? when a tin and copper dragon mate?

5 I dislike the discussed reset of FR, I don't even play in it, but I dislike it anyway.

horseboy
2008-02-26, 01:00 PM
No, it isn't. I wasn't saying that. What I'm saying is that there's a distinctive, fun gameplay experience in running a character who isn't all that much tougher than the captain of the watch or the local cutpurse. It's fun to be in a sword fight where a sword really can kill you if it stabs you, rather than just chipping a few more HP off of your total. At least, I think it's fun.Well, I can certainly understand the theory behind this. It's one of the reason I play Rolemaster. Even at level 12, my character could be killed by 20 level 1 mooks that set up a good ambush. I'd better come up with a plan other than "I hit it" like I do when I play D&D. Though I really don't think even low level D&D does it well enough to be a selling point.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-26, 01:03 PM
Fenix_of_Doom: Well played sir, well played.

Aquillion
2008-02-26, 01:09 PM
If I was chosing a dislike I'd say I dislike PCs not getting a CON bonus to HP on level up (or at least the rogue doesn't). That heavily reduces the usefulness of CON.The thing is, as it stands CON almost strictly dominates every non-class-specific, non-primary attribute. You max the attributes your class needs, and you max CON. Yes, they could try and make every attribute as useful as constitution is now, but this is another way to do it.

(Of course, the flip side is that unless they changed something else, which they probably did, now con is going to be nearly a dump stat for every marital class, since the minor bonus makes little difference on top of all those big dice, and they're likely to have a decent fort save anyway. But oh well.)

More importantly, though, I think they're also aiming for a more 2nd edition feel in terms of hit points... I think that this is probably a good thing... it makes blasting magic more useful (important with save-or-dies removed) and it reduces both the potential and the need for 'sick' melee builds that amplify the same bonus over and over using iterative attacks.

BAB was an awful mechanic in the first place. If anything, it was the most MMORPG thing ever added to D&D; it's basically a "you must be this tall to fight this monster in melee" line. It was stupid and generic and I'm glad to see it go.

nagora
2008-02-26, 01:10 PM
This is pretty hilariously ironic, considering the common complaints about 4E are (1) it's not bland *enough*, it's got more built-in flavor (Dragonborn history, for example)

The Dragonborn stuff IS bland hackneyed fantasy pap!

Zincorium
2008-02-26, 01:19 PM
BAB was an awful mechanic in the first place. If anything, it was the most MMORPG thing ever added to D&D; it's basically a "you must be this tall to fight this monster in melee" line. It was stupid and generic and I'm glad to see it go.

BAB is THAC0 with the numbers reversed to make more sense. And Thac0 was the combat tables condensed into a single number. Since 1975 only the format it's presented in has changed.

Also, how again are they getting rid of BAB? Just because it's not listed doesn't mean they're getting rid of a major game mechanic, and the pit fiend stat block lists the attacks as having more than just their strength to-hit. Meaning that there is some other number adding onto the stat. If you have a quote to the effect that BAB or any similar mechanic is going away, I retract that part of my criticism.

Lastly, most MMOs I've played do not have BAB, they have a significantly different system. So how it makes D&D MMO-like, even assuming that that is somehow a bad thing, is beyond me.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-02-26, 01:41 PM
Fenix_of_Doom: Well played sir, well played.
You may have to retract that statement I'm giving in:smallfrown:.



So how it makes D&D MMO-like, even assuming that that is somehow a bad thing, is beyond me.

I think what people are afraid of is changes for the sake of changes; in the directions of MMO's, I don't agree with them personally, but some sensible arguments have been made IIRC(please don't ask me to state them).

And then there are the less sensible people, you know the ones who type in caps, use loads of red smilies and too much exclamation marks, they're probably just over reacting, I never really got them anyway. Don't worry though, I think most will go away after a while.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-26, 02:21 PM
Things I know I will dislike:

- The New Cosmology. I still can't wrap my head around the idea that there is a PC race whose home is someplace that PC adventueres aren't expected to be running around in until the Paragon Tier.

- Fluffication of Core Mechanics. I personally like names of feats/powers that are descriptive of their mechanical effects and not any fluff. This makes homebrewing for me easier since I don't need to subtract fluff before I add my own.

- The New Tiefling and the Dragonborn. I just don't find them interesting and useful as player races. This is probably because of my innate prejudice for core PC races not havinig obviously monsterous physical qualities.

Can I get rid of all these things? Sure. Do I want to have to change things signifigantly in a book I just paid $35 for? No.

Things I suspect I will dislike but don't know for sure yet.

- The round/encounter/day mechanic for magic. It seems to me that this could potentially kill the versitility of casting classes. Going by the rogue preview, it looks as though there will be one ability known of each kind (round/encounter/day) per level or fewer. That is a very limited spell selection and may undermine the viability of a 'generalist wizard'.

- Skills. Looking at the rogue list I wonder if they went overboard with the combining of skills. I also wonder if they added in new ones that ultimatley be superflous.

- Weapon Proficencies. My hope, going by the rogue preview, is that weapons fall into categories like 'short sword', 'dagger' and 'shuriken' and that weapon proficencies do not refer to those weapons specifically.

Draz74
2008-02-26, 03:17 PM
(Of course, the flip side is that unless they changed something else, which they probably did, now con is going to be nearly a dump stat for every marital class, since the minor bonus makes little difference on top of all those big dice, and they're likely to have a decent fort save anyway. But oh well.)

A valid concern, but hopefully "number of healing surges" being tied to CON will make mele types still care about it. And, as you said, there could be powers tied to it or whatever.


Also, how again are they getting rid of BAB? Just because it's not listed doesn't mean they're getting rid of a major game mechanic, and the pit fiend stat block lists the attacks as having more than just their strength to-hit. Meaning that there is some other number adding onto the stat. If you have a quote to the effect that BAB or any similar mechanic is going away, I retract that part of my criticism.

The fear is that every character, across the board and without regard to class, now has 1/2 BAB. Which essentially means BAB doesn't exist anymore, since it means "add one-half your character level to your attacks, just like you do to your defenses and your untrained skills."

And if this weren't the case, it would be pretty strange for the Rogue class not to list its BAB progression.


- The New Cosmology. I still can't wrap my head around the idea that there is a PC race whose home is someplace that PC adventueres aren't expected to be running around in until the Paragon Tier.

I think the Feywild is supposed to be pretty accessible to low-level, Heroic Tier characters. It's kind of "the plane that isn't actually a very separate reality," or "the low-level adventurer's custom-designed source for interplanar experiences!"


this could potentially kill the versitility of casting classes. Going by the rogue preview, it looks as though there will be one ability known of each kind (round/encounter/day) per level or fewer. That is a very limited spell selection and may undermine the viability of a 'generalist wizard'.

Depends if Rituals are available at low levels, or if they're all big, dramatic stuff like Teleportation and Resurrection.

fendrin
2008-02-26, 03:19 PM
They killed the Wizard class, added ultra-customizable fluff and mechanics to the sorcerer and tried to pass it off as the Real Deal.

Oh wait, that's a good thing.

EDIT: correction. What I don't like is that the 'Wizard' class is too much of a Sacred Cow for them to be truthful about what they did. Come on, WotC! I want Sacred Steak!

Sucrose
2008-02-26, 03:19 PM
Personally, I'm just irritated that they're calling it D&D. It might be an excellent game, one with hours upon hours of fun to be had, but the name sets up certain expectations from the community, and that leads to internet debates like there's been in this thread. For example, I like the Great Wheel being removed; it's unnecessarily complicated, and nothing like real-world myth. However, it bothers people to not have the stupidly complex Great Wheel in a game of D&D for some reason, and there's no cause for giving grognards ulcers.

For similar reasons, I wish that they'd left the old settings alone, and just made new ones, rather than try to squeeze them into 4E assumptions. I don't have any particular attachment to the old ways, but I can see that it's unnecessarily upsetting some people. Then again, maybe we'd just get people complaining about the game abandoning their favorite settings, like with Planescape from 2E to 3E.

Lastly, I dislike the "Golden Wyvern Adept" feat name, and all of the spell school names. I just think that it sounds rather stupid. The names of a lot of things are unnecessarily evocative, when I'd rather just have names describing mechanical effect, so that I can reflavor them to suit my purposes. I know that you can do that with things with established fluff too, but that leads to lots of people complaining about you ignoring the fluff, when you just care about your character's fluff more than the bloody base mechanic's.

Oh, and it led to that Tiefling and Gnome interview cartoon, for which I may never forgive it.

RukiTanuki
2008-02-26, 03:20 PM
Dodging the side discussion...

Um... I find it unfortunate that gnomes will not be given a front-and-center presentation in the PHB, though they'll be usable in the MM. I'm sadly disappointed that, though Wizards has pointed out the gnome's lack of a solid niche, that I have yet to see where they've been placed in the 4e world.

I wish bards, sorcerors, and druids could be in the first PHB.

That's about it. I'm scraping for bad eggs at this point. Honestly, most everything I've read so far has had the immediate reaction of "great, I've run into issues with the way things were in 3.x at least once, and that's very similar to the brainstormed ideas I've had to fix things." Thus, I remain optimistic.

I'll continue to try my best to duck out of the ensuing debate. Truth be told, the squabbling will be all but forgotten six months from now, as there's no substitute for reading the books thoroughly and running real games with them. The actual merits of the game will be based on the game itself, and not on the doomsayers or happy-campers fighting over incomplete snippets from a book they've not yet read.

And so, I wait. :)

Kizara
2008-02-26, 03:22 PM
The fear is that every character, across the board and without regard to class, now has 1/2 BAB. Which essentially means BAB doesn't exist anymore, since it means "add one-half your character level to your attacks, just like you do to your defenses and your untrained skills."



I strongly dislike this.

It is a very lame way to hard balance things that removes alot of individual character identity.

It is also pretty MMORPG like to have things be so directly tied to your level.

Sucrose
2008-02-26, 03:26 PM
I strongly dislike this.

It is a very lame way to hard balance things that removes alot of individual character identity.

It is also pretty MMORPG like to have things be so directly tied to your level.

On the other hand, it also makes it much easier to balance. Also, it doesn't remove character identity, it removes some degree of class identity, essentially forcing people to determine their characters' roleplaying traits by themselves, rather than relying on tired cliches like "dumb meatshield" or "elitist wizard." Really, it strikes me as sort of like playing as a team of superheros. Given the default assumptions of the primary setting (PCs are Big Damn Heroes) that's a good thing.

MMOs have things directly tied to the level because it's the simplest way of making sure that the CR system works.

Indon
2008-02-26, 03:32 PM
Its been a while since I've posted, but I'd like to say this is incorrect. As a fan of the copper dragon, I'd like to point out it's in the first 4ED Monster Manual.

Really? Huzzah!

I must have misremembered the name of the dragon they were keeping for some reason. That's good to know.


It may surprise you to discover that I prefer Exalted to D&D. Then again, maybe that accounts for my preferences. D&D is the game that I play when I'm tired of being an Ultimate Badass.

You could just play Heroic Mortals in the Exalted universe. Or if you're going for a bit higher power, God-blooded, and a little bit higher than that, Dragon Kings (in 1'st edition Exalted, all of the above is in the Player's Guide) or Fae.

There is room for a great variety of playstyles born of power in Exalted.


...Epic Failure. That's.. just not what's going on, at all.

No, Wizards is not making paper books illegal and forcing people to play on the internet Or Die.

But Wizards is shifting their business away from the traditional paper format in favor of the internet.

So yes, that is exactly what is going on, to some degree. Some people view the change as likely being part of a long-term business strategy that may culminate with the reduction of significance of D&D as a 'paper and pencil' RPG. Others do not. But the change so far is not up for debate.


-Do you have an alternative you'd prefer to see?

For each of my personal qualms, respectively:

-I would like for Wizards to not sacrifice diversity for balance. Seek balance, but don't just mash everything into some monomechanic soup to get it.
-I want players to have more significant weaknesses. Not bam-you're-dead-because-the-game's-all-about-offense, but some attacks should be _significantly_ more effective against people than others. As it is, it would seem a rogue is 10% more likely to dodge a Fireball than a Fighter. Meh?
-That rather than getting rid of Wish, they'd instead made it more of a plot-point type mechanic like they imply ressurection is going to be.
-I want alignment to remain happily vague, so that I can run a campaign with significant moral and ethical implications reflected in the game mechanic without heavily houseruling.
-I think that giving primary combatants multiple attacks was what helped define them. Now they're just going to get a different set of tricks than everyone else.
-And apparently, the Copper dragon's still in the game. Yay!


-If you want it to all stay the same, what was your opinion on the '.5' part of third edition?
I don't want it all to stay the same. I posted a pretty decent list on the "Positive 4'th edition" thread as well. I like some of the changes, dislike some others, and will decide to play 4'th edition based on how much work I need to houserule the parts I don't like away in order to get to the parts I do like.


-Do you think that WotC could keep producing constantly for the same system for the next 8 or so years? What could they have released that would have kept interest for you?
I'd probably have bought a 3.5 upgrade for Spelljammer. I played a campaign in that setting once and I liked it.


I'm looking to understand the dislike on level deeper than 'its new and I hate it'.

I should hope that I've clarified my statements enough that this is evidently not the case, at least to you.

I hold no such hope for the ironically named Mr. Friendly - Sir, feel free to start a "I think people who dislike 4'th edition are fools/morons" thread, but please don't start it here. Thank you.

Edit: Actually, disregard. Looks like you already tried that.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-26, 03:45 PM
I strongly dislike this.

It is a very lame way to hard balance things that removes alot of individual character identity.

It is also pretty MMORPG like to have things be so directly tied to your level.

How on earth does it remove character identity? A Wizard attacking with his staff is still going to be pathetic compared t a Fighter attacking with his sword.

It's not very MMORPG at all--the difference between four levels is just +2 AB/AC/saves. That's not too much compared to the differences new powers will make, and peanuts compared to the differences between 3.5 characters who are four levels apart. (Four points of BAB, two spell levels, etc.)

CowPuncher
2008-02-26, 04:12 PM
In general response to some of the comments I've seen in this thread, I think that an overarching concern is that the game will become more one-size-fits all than in the past. The gameplay experience from level to level, the tactical choices from class to class, the group dynamic from party to party and the recognizable setting elements from game-world to game-world all seem to be less diverse. Granted, part of that is probably because we're only seeing the skeleton of the system, not the flesh and blood. However, the design statements seem to bear out the idea that consistency of gameplay is seen as a virtue and is intentional.

I guess my question is, Why? WotC is sitting on far-and-away the biggest RPG franchise there is. They release tons and tons and tons of material and have third party publishers to produce even more. In fact, their success depends on producing lots of material. So why not make the game bigger instead of smaller? I hold out hope that they may do this, especially in an effort to reach out to gamers who feel alienated by the new style of play. If they don't, they may find their increased accessibility to new players offset by a grognard exodus to a generation of "fantasy heartbreakers" designed to recapture lost modes of gameplay.

Telonius
2008-02-26, 04:28 PM
Things I know I dislike about 4th ed:

- Lack of Gnomes in the PHB
- Lack of books to buy
- Lack of money with which to buy the books

Other than that, it's all up for grabs. I have my doubts about some of the mechanics, but I'll wait to see the finished product before I judge those.

horseboy
2008-02-26, 04:58 PM
The actual merits of the game will be based on the game itself, and not on the doomsayers or happy-campers fighting over incomplete snippets from a book they've not yet read.
And so, I wait. :)
Not being a *Happy Camper* makes us *frumple*. Don't you want to be a *Happy Camper*?

Draz74
2008-02-26, 05:02 PM
- Lack of money with which to buy the books

Come to think of it, that's something I don't like too. :smallannoyed:

Kizara
2008-02-26, 05:28 PM
How on earth does it remove character identity? A Wizard attacking with his staff is still going to be pathetic compared t a Fighter attacking with his sword.

It's not very MMORPG at all--the difference between four levels is just +2 AB/AC/saves. That's not too much compared to the differences new powers will make, and peanuts compared to the differences between 3.5 characters who are four levels apart. (Four points of BAB, two spell levels, etc.)

Remember the part where the intention of this thread was to remain free of people attacking your opinions? Cause I do. Read the OP again please.

And btw, yes I do have a rebuttal, but I'm not going to encourage a thread derailment.


To Sucrose, see the same above and also, thanks for Straw Maning me.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-26, 05:33 PM
Things I don't like about 4th Ed: Looks like it's going to have "minis and battlemat" as very much the default in combat, instead of as optional extras.

Of course, this was kinda the case in 3.5 as well.

strayth
2008-02-26, 05:42 PM
-the price. I'm a little tired of paying for new editions (or sub-editions) whenever WotC feels the need for green.

-Tieflings in the PHB, and those dragonkin things. Just, no.

-Not as many classes in the PHB. No druid, did I hear that right? I understand removing monk from core but druid? Gag.

That's about it so far. I'm really on the fence, interested but annoyed at the same time. Makes it convenient to take sides, if the urge ever strikes.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-26, 06:31 PM
Golden. Wyvern. Adept.
Extraordinary.Spell.Aim. Complete Adventurer, page 109.
The actual bad thing is how they are giving fancy names and background for things that could be simple. Call it extraordinary spell aim, and all problems solved.
Hopefully we won't have a "raging monkey style" (Power Attack) or "rhino heckeless headbutt" (Shock Trooper).

warmachine
2008-02-26, 07:28 PM
I was going to reserve judgement till I saw all the rules but certain facts are disturbing me.

No bards - bards cannot do anything well but they can do many things and it's an excuse to show off. Some people don't care they're subpar in combat and want to have fun. Don't the designers know this?
No gnomes - 3e doesn't have enough races in PHB as it is. A game of D&D's maturity should be rich out-of-the-box. WotC should be adding more races, not removing any.
No BAB - so the melee classes are only better then primary casters in hand-to-hand due to their tricks rather than being plain better? That suggests a novice player with a poorly built character could be beaten in hand-to-hand by a well-built, expertly played sorcerer. That's wrong.

Rigon
2008-02-26, 08:31 PM
- the fact that i have no "exact" clue about the system. i would need a basic rule book without fluff/pictures but otherwise full PHB to decide wether i like it or not. i'm simply too lazy to collect all that information that has been scattered all over the web. and i do believe that those darn books are ready to print they are just charging up the demand gauge with the waiting time.

EvilElitest
2008-03-01, 12:28 PM
My biggest complaint about 4E is WOTC ways of going "This is how the game should be played, this is the only way it can/should be played, this is the only way we will support it being played."

That and verisimilitude is being shot in the head. Like Hellsing shot

I dislike the general video game (not WOW in particular just in general) feel i get from the game, in the way it is played.


I also dislike

The PC having unique one of a kind powers


NPCs being scenery

Monsters in being kinda existent for being killed

The PC centric way things are going

Less character death

The way monsters and NPCs are generally handled

The fact that NPCs die at 0 HP but PCs die at -9

Personal peeves include

Change in wizards

No more great wheel

Some of hte monster changes

Tiers

Change in gods
from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-03-01, 12:50 PM
Less character death
EE

Can you like expand on the badness of this? I never thought dying was fun, did you?

AKA_Bait
2008-03-01, 12:55 PM
Now that some crunch is up, I have a few things to add that I don't like about 4e.

Healing Surges. Don't care for them. HP and Adrenalie are now linked?

Rest for 6 hour and be totally healed. Very much not ok with this. Frankly, if that was a mechanic they really wanted in there, wouldn't it have been better for versimilitude just to give the Cleric a Ritiual outside of combat that takes like 4 hours to cast and heals everyone?

Threatening Reach as an additional feat. This bothers me. If a trolls arms are long enough to grab someone 5ft away, why does that change when it isn't their turn? Why would it change back if they took a feat?

Indon
2008-03-01, 12:56 PM
Can you like expand on the badness of this? I never thought dying was fun, did you?

Dying isn't fun, but risk sure can be.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 12:58 PM
Can you like expand on the badness of this? I never thought dying was fun, did you?

Let's say you had some epic fight and the lives of nations depended on you killing off the BBEG. Now let's say you had metagame knowledge that you were probably going to spontaneous heal from being gored or having an arm severed. Kinda spoils the fun factor doesn't. Of course we can't have verisimilitude in this game because lives wouldn't hang in the balance of whatever you do. Whenever you walk away, an NPC is no longer existant. In fact you could teleport away and kill the BBEG by that same mentality.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-01, 01:04 PM
Let's say you had some epic fight and the lives of nations depended on you killing off the BBEG. Now let's say you had metagame knowledge that you were probably going to spontaneous heal from being gored or having an arm severed.

Suppose your character is facing a horde of armed, screaming half-men, carrying wickedly carved knives and thirsting for blood.

Suppose you have metagame knowledge that those knives probably only do d6 + 2 damage, and you have 247 hit points anyway.

D&D characters don't *get* their arms severed. They sometimes get "gored" but all that does is deplete their store of a pool of points which can be trivially replenished by magic that the Gods dole out like candy.


Kinda spoils the fun factor doesn't. Of course we can't have verisimilitude in this game because lives wouldn't hang in the balance of whatever you do. Whenever you walk away, an NPC is no longer existant. In fact you could teleport away and kill the BBEG by that same mentality.

Because when a man takes eight sword blows to the head with no ill effects, that's the height of verisimilitude, but when he takes nine, it's just unbelievable.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-01, 01:09 PM
Now that some crunch is up, I have a few things to add that I don't like about 4e.

Healing Surges. Don't care for them. HP and Adrenalie are now linked?

Rest for 6 hour and be totally healed. Very much not ok with this. Frankly, if that was a mechanic they really wanted in there, wouldn't it have been better for versimilitude just to give the Cleric a Ritiual outside of combat that takes like 4 hours to cast and heals everyone?

I think the point was that they wanted to stop Clerics being an obligatory part of every adventuring party. They recognized that the default D&D playstyle is so high combat that you need healing, but instead of inventing spurious magic to do it (thereby having horrible knock-on consequences for your society which no D&D setting has ever adequately addressed) they just made it automatic for everybody. Speaking personally, I'd *far* rather have my genre conventions made explicit, rather than justified by a weird IC maguffin.

Deepblue706
2008-03-01, 01:14 PM
Extraordinary.Spell.Aim. Complete Adventurer, page 109.
The actual bad thing is how they are giving fancy names and background for things that could be simple. Call it extraordinary spell aim, and all problems solved.
Hopefully we won't have a "raging monkey style" (Power Attack) or "rhino heckeless headbutt" (Shock Trooper).

Howabout Yellow Zombie General?

Don't worry if you don't catch the reference - that thread is a bit old, now :smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-03-01, 01:19 PM
Can you like expand on the badness of this? I never thought dying was fun, did you?

Because it robs the game of a feeling of excitement and it basically reduces it to a video game aspect of "kill it, loot it, light its body on fire, move on". With death as a minor thing, the PCs don't feel engrossed in the world and more importantly they don't feel like the world is dangerous and don't act as such
When death is a real possibility, the PCs are less likely to feel like the world is dangerous and thus take it less seriously. With death as a very real possibility, the PCs feel like the world is dangerous and that they should take is seriously. So yes death is fun. In my first game, my character was mauled by a wild Boar because i walked by it without really paying attention. The world is dangerous and that my inability to take is seriously cost me my life. So yes death is fun, if you only die at dramatic moments or times when it seem "right", then your world is robbed of an important element, the element of fright. This leads to the same sort of PC arrogance that is a prevalent theme in DM of hte Rings, nobody is afraid of death, so nobody takes the game's world seriously. If at level one i enter a fight with a bunch of orcs, i want the possibility to exist of my dying, so that i will be encouraged to fight more carefully next time, so there is a risk, so the game isn't just me going "I win, i win, i win" all day long

from
EE

AKA_Bait
2008-03-01, 01:30 PM
Again, this is going to be a taste thing but I'll explain myself.


I think the point was that they wanted to stop Clerics being an obligatory part of every adventuring party.

I understand why they did it. I just don't like the way they did. They could give a similar mechnical out of combat ability to a warlord or non magical character too which symbolizes bandaging wounds and appling a salve or something.


They recognized that the default D&D playstyle is so high combat that you need healing, but instead of inventing spurious magic to do it (thereby having horrible knock-on consequences for your society which no D&D setting has ever adequately addressed) they just made it automatic for everybody. Speaking personally, I'd *far* rather have my genre conventions made explicit, rather than justified by a weird IC maguffin.

I think they were pretty explicit before and this is a larger departure from the explicit ones we are all used to. Either way we have a weird IC maguffin. Personally, in a world with magic, I find getting healed by magic to be less strange than just getting better.

Also, at risk of reigniting a debate from another thread, it bothers me that the NPC statistics blocks we have seen don't have any notation for using a healing surge. I'm extrapolating from that absence that NPC's can't do it. That's a mechanical difference that cannot help but seep into the versimilitude of encounters. "I, a human martial character can heal myself midbattle but that human martial NPC can't. Why? Because we are the bloody heroes that's why!"

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-01, 01:39 PM
Again, this is going to be a taste thing but I'll explain myself.

I understand why they did it. I just don't like the way they did. They could give a similar mechnical out of combat ability to a warlord or non magical character too which symbolizes bandaging wounds and appling a salve or something.

I suppose that they didn't want to have anybody stuck in the role of "party healer", or to make any character type indispensable.


I think they were pretty explicit before and this is a larger departure from the explicit ones we are all used to. Either way we have a weird IC maguffin. Personally, in a world with magic, I find getting healed by magic to be less strange than just getting better.

Fair enough. I like it because it seems like they're finally sticking to their "Hit Points do not represent actual physical injury" guns. A D&D character who has lost 200 of their 214 Hit Points doesn't show any actual signs of physical injury, so having it "healed" by spells always struck me as odd.


Also, at risk of reigniting a debate from another thread, it bothers me that the NPC statistics blocks we have seen don't have any notation for using a healing surge. I'm extrapolating from that absence that NPC's can't do it. That's a mechanical difference that cannot help but seep into the versimilitude of encounters. "I, a human martial character can heal myself midbattle but that human martial NPC can't. Why? Because we are the bloody heroes that's why!"

It depends on how closely you think OOC mechanics are visible IC. It's not like a "Healing Surge" literally represents your wounds closing and your severed limbs reattaching. From an IC perspective, you're fighting and that guy is fighting, and neither of you are dead yet. It doesn't strike me as any more unusual than "I, a human being with all the same internal organs as that guy over there, can drink a bucket of molten lava and suffer no ill effects".

Arutema
2008-03-01, 02:33 PM
Destroying the great wheel.
Detonating FR.
Over-simplifying the skill system.

Rogues not proficient in rapiers?

Draz74
2008-03-01, 03:48 PM
I'm OK with the Healing Surges system, but healing 100% by sleeping overnight? :smallconfused: Guh? Since when has D&D abandoned verisimilitude enough to make you heal from a grevious wound in your stomach overnight without magic?

All high-level characters being good at just about everything. Yuck. Especially as it relates to the skills system.

No way anymore to represent non-adventuring aspects mechanically (e.g. Craft/Profession skills). This has pros and cons. The cons are players who say, "yeah, my character is good at everything that the game doesn't have a skill to represent."

Paladins as a base class. What are multiclass Fighter/Clerics for, again?

Paladin alignment restrictions gone. Don't get me wrong, I totally approve of (un)holy warriors for other alignments, like the way the Crusader in ToB could be other alignments. It's just using the word "paladin" for non-honorable characters that bothers me.

Per day abilities still existing. Motivations for the party to practice narcolepsy. Although at least now there are some downsides to taking a full rest.

The "powers" system. Hmmm. I know there are good things about it, but it's been taken too far. Where almost all class features are Powers. Where Wizards never really get tired of casting their magic except for losing access to their few per-day spells. Where people's claims that Tome of Battle feels like it makes warriors into casters will become slightly more valid, rather than less valid like I hoped. Where (apparently) no classes share powers, even if the power would be thematically appropriate for either of them.

Half-Elves still being a major Core race. Old-fashioned, too nostalgic for Tolkien (even when most aspects of the game have moved away from Tolkien in many ways). If half-elves need to exist, they should be some kind of subrace for elves or humans, not a separate race (mechanically). And they don't deserve space in the PHB. Why demote gnomes and half-orcs, but not half-elves?

I'm not used to agreeing with EE (:smallwink:), but I second the stuff he said about the game world feeling so PC-centric.

Oversimplification of many things. Like the Defenses system, and the way you can now stab someone with a knife by overcoming their Will defense, if you use the right power. Or the ways new grappling, trips, disarming, and bull rushes are limited (new info this morning).

Classes being less generic than they could have been, as demonstrated by the Rogue preview, in spite of the customizability that the Powers system should have introduced. No swashbuckler-type Fighters?

Still having enhancement bonuses to attacks/damage, AC/defenses based on items.

Claiming the game is simpler, yet giving every character about 723 options they can do on their turn (through class powers, racial abilities, item options ...).

Numbers inflation. At low levels, at least, the higher HP of characters and monsters is made up for by the higher damages they dish out. So ... what's the difference again? Oh right, things sound more powerful because the numbers are bigger. Just like an MMO. (OK, in an MMO they'd be 100000000000 times bigger instead of 10 times bigger.)
... This one might not be a problem in actual play, but it bugs me in the Reviews people are writing about 4e right now. ("Look how cool my ranger is! He can do 20 damage in one shot at level 1!" Um, so?)

The dramatic jumps in game style between Tiers.

Cleric and Paladin abilities that help their party but still let them attack at the same time, in ways that don't really make sense. The kind where the only way WotC can justify the abilities is by saying, "well, we thought it would be boring for the cleric or paladin player if they actually had to give up one round of attacking ..."

The cosmopolitan nature of Points of Light. "Yeah, sure, all the characters are from an isolated little town, or its nearby villages. In a backwoods swampy area. But we want a racially diverse party, without having to have crazy-different backgrounds for them all. So even though it's small and isolated and the main inhabitants are Halflings, there's a few families of humans and dragonborn scattered throughout the town. And there's no real prejudices against those minorities. And nobody really bats an eye or feels like it's weird when a new eladrin or tiefling or dwarf traveler wanders into town to join the party, even though this is an isolated town and the area around it is dangerous." I like the feel of Points of Light, but it breaks my verisimilitude when it doesn't limit parties from small, isolated areas to just a couple of race options.

OK, that's my main complaints for now.

Indon
2008-03-01, 03:55 PM
The "powers" system. Hmmm. I know there are good things about it, but it's been taken too far. Where almost all class features are Powers. Where Wizards never really get tired of casting their magic except for losing access to their few per-day spells. Where people's claims that Tome of Battle feels like it makes warriors into casters will become slightly more valid, rather than less valid like I hoped. Where (apparently) no classes share powers, even if the power would be thematically appropriate for either of them.

Nice list, but I'd like to talk a bit about this.

I don't think it's so much that martial classes are becoming like casters - rather, the distinction between "Arcane spellcaster", "Divine spellcaster" and "Nonmagical character" is reduced to what you write into your "Power Source" box on your sheet, similar to a Mutants and Masterminds character.

Ooh. Dragon could so be a class in 4'th edition. Power Source: Racial! That's a potential homebrew there.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-01, 05:17 PM
Rest for 6 hour and be totally healed. Very much not ok with this.

Yep, that'll be my first house rule if I get around to DM'ing 4E. I like at least having the option of putting the PCs on edge by not having them at maximum efficiency all the time.

Plus, clerics can no longer heal people - they can only improve the other guy's healing surges. How is that not weird?

EvilElitest
2008-03-01, 09:18 PM
Destroying the great wheel.
Detonating FR.
Over-simplifying the skill system.

Rogues not proficient in rapiers?

1. Hey, the great wheel was to complex, our puny minds can comperhend anything with more than three worlds. i mean they have four different planes for elements, one for fire, water, earth, and air, do you realize how confusing that is, i mean four planes, it hurts my brain
2. Oh they are destroying FR, they are improving it. Just like the Mummy II was an improvement to the first Mummy, or PotC II was so much better than number one, or how A hundred an one dalmatians II was so much better than number one, or how Uwe Bolls films are better than the games
3. How are they a simplification? It does nothing but make sure that everything is focused and robs you of those annoying ideas like having not super characters. We can handle anything complex, i'm so glad WOTC tells us everything
4. Oh come one, look at the rouges who inspired the class. Did robin hood sword fight? Did the Crimson Shadow use a rapier? Did Seahawk have that sort of dueling rouge quality? Did Frodo Baggins not use acrobatics and fancy flips? Did they?......well yeah they did, but that isn't the point, the point is taht WOTC knows better than you ever will


Yep, that'll be my first house rule if I get around to DM'ing 4E. I like at least having the option of putting the PCs on edge by not having them at maximum efficiency all the time.

I don't understand the complaint here, i mean why would you want to concern yourself with things like that. I mean sure in real life it is totally impossible, and it kinda works existing in a world and doesn't logically make sense. And sure it makes 4E like a video game in the sense of "you kill it, rest, kill it again" and might remind you of playing Icewind Dale I generally, but really, it makes sense. When you rest you feel better right? And resting heals injuries right? (I know that from watching Naruto and Kenshin). Well look at this way, the PCs in 4E are epic super heroes right? Everything they do is epic right, and epic things are super versions of normal actions right? So they are resting in an epic manner. They are epic sleepers. They sleep far more epically than everybody else, their dreams are basically Wuxia films, there snores mimic the final song from Don Govonvi, their groans are basically 300 style battle roars (and just as annoying) and their tossing and turning involve epic background music in a style similar to death note. They are the epic masters of sleep, and thus they get special healing. See, that makes perfect sense.
/sarcastic satire



I'm not used to agreeing with EE (), but I second the stuff he said about the game world feeling so PC-centric.
Proven fact, every time you agree with EE, you live a day longer. Proven medical fact

from
EE

Nonanonymous
2008-03-01, 09:26 PM
The fluff. The tieflings are so full of wangst it makes me want to puke.

Rutee
2008-03-01, 09:28 PM
Wangst? The fluff quite unequivocally states that the race's attitude on their situation is "Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". In what sense is that angst?

EvilElitest
2008-03-01, 09:34 PM
Wangst? The fluff quite unequivocally states that the race's attitude on their situation is "Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". In what sense is that angst?


The whole "forgotten" "misunderstood" "Forsaken" race thing (which is weird because D&D is getting ride of racism apparently). Or the whole "Bad boys of D&D" thing, the leather deal going for them, the general "Demon people trying to repent the sins of their race"

Sure that can be cool for individuals, but this is apparently the entire race. It is like begging for Drizzt clones (or hopefully, Drizzt inspired good characters, but there will be clones) which is who they appeal to i imagine) in terms of the the whole "Look at me i'm a badass loner fighting against the view of my race". Which if ironic, because unlike Drow, it appears that the entire races is like this.

Anyways, what i want to know, why not make a totally new race, these dudes aren't tieflings anymore, just called them Demon folk or something
from
EE

Roderick_BR
2008-03-01, 09:45 PM
Hmm...I agree that the healing is a bit weird now. Players should have options to heal better, but going *poof* "healed", spoils it a bit, and that sounds too much like videogames.

For death, since the damage is being scaled down, I don't think they should make so many rules to avoid death. Reducing damage at higher level is enough, since it's those 300+ points of damage that instakill characters. I like the idea of increasing the "dying" state to more than 10 HP, though.

About monsters dying at 0 HP, and players dying at -10 or more... it has been like that since AD&D. Kinda weird to see it as a default rule, though.

Draz74: What's wrong with paladins? They've been around since AD&D. They are iconic. Though they could be a sort of advanced fighter. Though that would make them look like the knight from FF1... hehe

Deepblue, I really don't catch what Yellow Zombie General means... XD

Rutee
2008-03-01, 09:55 PM
The whole "forgotten" "misunderstood" "Forsaken" race thing (which is weird because D&D is getting ride of racism apparently). Or the whole "Bad boys of D&D" thing, the leather deal going for them, the general "Demon people trying to repent the sins of their race"

This is the part you got the most wrong in the post. Forget, for a second, that "Badass" is mutually exclusive with angst. The racial stereotype of Tieflings that /most/ Tieflings (AKA most NPCs) subscribe to, by the preview book, is that they /do not care/ about their origin. Not caring is /also/ mutually exclusive to "Angst". I have little doubt that stupid people will use it for Drizzt clones, but I don't /care/ what stupid people do with it; It has no effect whatsoever on how I play.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 09:58 PM
I don't /care/ what stupid people do with it; It has no effect whatsoever on how I play.

Wait... you don't care what 3847897 internet fanboys think? I refuse to believe this is true, everyone knows that people that post on forums are always correct and know your opinion better than you!

:smallamused:

EvilElitest
2008-03-01, 10:53 PM
Hmm...I agree that the healing is a bit weird now. Players should have options to heal better, but going *poof* "healed", spoils it a bit, and that sounds too much like videogames.

Oh come on, in what video games do you heal in every way by sleeping in an inn?




This is the part you got the most wrong in the post. Forget, for a second, that "Badass" is mutually exclusive with angst.

No, you can be badass without being angsty, contary to pouplar belief now today.


The racial stereotype of Tieflings that /most/ Tieflings (AKA most NPCs) subscribe to, by the preview book, is that they /do not care/ about their origin. Not caring is /also/ mutually exclusive to "Angst".
Yet again, also not true, you can care and still be badass.



I have little doubt that stupid people will use it for Drizzt clones, but I don't /care/ what stupid people do with it; It has no effect whatsoever on how I play.
But it is the way WOTC is promoting them for that purpose



Wait... you don't care what 3847897 internet fanboys think? I refuse to believe this is true, everyone knows that people that post on forums are always correct and know your opinion better than you!

Exact same thing can be said of you

Konig
2008-03-01, 11:32 PM
It seems very... condensed.

Now, my kneejerk reactions were:

Dragonborn - zero interest in 'em. I'll let it be since I'm sure others have an interest in 'em.

Paladins - I was ready to cheer when they said they were freeing up alignment restrictions... but then I saw how the Paladin was laid out... it's very archetypical LG, with no room for building LE villains or any of that.

I guess it's just that they've got so much freedom & resources to really make something fantastic, yet they're really simplifying roles & making things so typical. Gnome... they could've really expanded on it, instead of relegating it to the back shelf. I've never played gnome, but I could really get into it if I was given good reason to.

Telok
2008-03-02, 04:51 AM
I dislike the exclusion of gnomes and bards. Gnomes have always had a definite role in my games and settings. I've always kept the AD&D method of +2 Int, -2 Wis, -2 Str, favored class: Illusionist and my settings have always included both the Gnomes of Zurich and Mt. Nevermind (often they were at war with each other). I've always used bards in a more Celtic style as law givers and poet-historians for semi-nomadic peoples. Never had any complaints with any of it, people tend to play gnomes more than they play halflings in my games.

I dislike the new races. Mostly for the fluff given to them.

I dislike that WotC... well their recent tone seems to imply that we've been playing the game wrong and they want to correct us on it. It's just an impression I get from some of the official posts I've seen.

I dislike the 6 hour rest total rejuvenation and regeneration crap. The healing surges I'm actually ok with, although I may want to cap them at 1/2 or 3/4 total HP. But the 6 hour heal...

"Bob the Fighter has been swimming in this vat of acid for five minutes now while his party fights off a dragon. Just a second ago the Rogue speared him with a harpoon to fish him out after he fell unconscious from having his skin dissolved. Having been saved from drowning and dissolution by getting his liver pierced his friends are now wrapping him in bandages. But what's this? The Cleric is dead and all the healing potions were evaporated by a stray Fireball spell? That's OK! With the new six hour insta-rest cure old Bob will be up and chipper and ready to go before morning as if nothing bad had ever happened to him! Being a Hero (TM) is living the good life!"

Not pigeon holing the divine casters into healing role is nice, but this is lame. Bard's Tale had this sort of thing back in the 1980's. You've had 20 years since then, you can do better than that. Hey, here's one, let's make the Healing skill actually useful. How's that?

Pauwel
2008-03-02, 05:31 AM
@ EvilElitest

Look up "mutually exclusive".
I was gonna make a snarky comment about your username too, but I chose not to.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 05:47 AM
I'm OK with the Healing Surges system, but healing 100% by sleeping overnight? :smallconfused: Guh? Since when has D&D abandoned verisimilitude enough to make you heal from a grevious wound in your stomach overnight without magic?


I know I keep going on about this every time somebody mentions it, but it genuinely confuses me.

D&D abandoned verisimilitude enough to make you heal from a grievous wound in your stomach overnight at roughly the time it made you able to carry on fighting at full effectiveness despite said grievous wound, roughly the same time it allowed high level fighters to take multiple greatsword blows to the face and not even blink.

Rutee
2008-03-02, 05:49 AM
No, you can be badass without being angsty, contary to pouplar belief now today.
....You did not read my post. My exact words said that one cannot be Bad-ass, /and/ be Angsty. At least, not at the same time.. but if Angst is terribly proliferate in your cahracter's interactions, that pretty much kills being a bad-ass.



Yet again, also not true, you can care and still be badass.
....This is intentional. It has to be. I said "You can't be uncaring and angsty at the same time" in unequivocal English and you /still/ got it wrong.


But it is the way WOTC is promoting them for that purpose
I can certainly see how you would draw this conclusion, given how badly you misinterpreted unequivocal english, considering they'd be speaking colloquially.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-02, 06:22 AM
-The changing of everyone to the same per round/encounter/day "power" model seems to me to be mechanically uninteresting, removing much of the variety that I feel a class-based system should offer.

Strongly disagree; this is the very best thing about 4th edition. Playing Warblades and other ToB classes is a blast, and using a similar system for all classes will be quite balanced and a ton of fun. It also allows for a lot more interesting combat options and a great deal more variety. Having the ability to completely use up your abilities ALA 3.5 wizard leads to classes which are really annoying to deal with, both as a DM and as a party member.


-I dislike the possibility that different players will now no longer have significant differences in to-hit or saves (judging from SAGA edition, and the 4'th ed Rogue article), because it renders the system even more generic, and removes character strengths and weaknesses which could make combat and other situations more interesting.

Strongly disagree again; the looks of the defense system indicate to me that different classes will have VERY different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, a creature with high defenses but a relatively low AC will be vulnerable to the fighters and rogues, but particularly the fighters, while the spellcasters will have a problem and a lot of the spell-like and more finesse abilities won't work well on it; a high reflex, high AC but low fort/will monster will be relatively easy prey for spellcasters but hard for the fighter and rogue to deal with. It actually allows for a lot more differential because there are a lot of different defensive possibilities, as well as other possibilities - their special attacks and ability to resist being moved/move the characters themselves could certainly make a big difference in terms of what happens in combat. It doesn't lead to greater uniformity but greater differentiation, even though the characters seem obstensibly more similar in to-hit chances.

It also has the nice thing that a monster with relatively equal AC, Fort, Will, and Reflex will be roughly as likely to be hit by all the characters in the party.


-I dislike that they seem to be getting rid of Wish, and I wish they'd have instead treated it like they're treating ressurection spells, by restricting a system with great potential rather than scrapping it.

I'm glad they're getting rid of Wish, it was always an annoying spell to adjucate and could enable all sorts of potential shenanigans.


-I dislike the reduction in the importance of alignment. I liked the strong mystical and moral backdrop that the alignment system could give, and as such this change saddens me.

I hated alignment; I think its a stupid system which was in need of scrapping. Its okay for deities to have codes, but they should be less ambigious than "good" and "evil", which are oversimplifications in my opinion. Its okay for such things to exist, but the alignment system ultimately was a lot more headaches than it was worth; the new system, hopefully, will be more coherent and less arguable-about.


-I dislike the removal of iterative attacks as being a removal of an iconic D&D combatant capability.

They've replaced them with better mechanics, so I have no problem with getting rid of them.


-I dislike the removal of the copper dragon, rather than the bronze dragon, simply because I consider copper/silver/gold to be more iconic of metallic dragons than bronze/silver/gold (not a very major complaint).

They removed bronze, not copper. To be honest, though, I've always thought that the lower types of dragons had a lot more personality than silvers and golds; a dragon which will talk your ear off is a ton of fun, and I hope they made the copper into that rather than got rid of it entirely, because that idea has always struck me as absolutely hilarious.


-Removal of gnomes from the PHB. Wtf?

I'm glad they put in dragonborn; they're much more distinctive, which means they're more interesting than the various "humans with funny ears" races. That said, I've always had a soft spot for gnomes, but they weren't particularly popular, and I am not going to shed tears over their removal.


-Addition of tieflings to the PHB. Didn't we have enough options for whiney doesn't fit in characters with half-elves alone?

Tieflings could be cool, if dealt with properly, but I am not a big fan of the planars being core races; I've never really liked them. But I'm willing to see how they work out.


-Removal of racial penalties to ability scores. *sigh* It almost feels like they don't want there to be challenges.

There's not much difference between giving lots of bonuses and giving out a few penalties, to be honest, and there's no indication of lack of challenge there; the whole system is balanced with this in mind, so it is fine. In any event, some of the stat penalties seemed a bit random in the first place.


In character, I'd still class HPs as being about how much punishment you can take. Why would playing a healer be a problem for a lot of players?

Because it isn't very much fun to have your primary role be healing people; few people enjoy that, it gets boring after a while, and if you put in healers, every party needs one. When you minimize the need for them you make it so some poor sod doesn't get stuck being a healer when they don't want to be just so the party can stay in one piece.


I think what I dislike about fourth edition is that they're calling it "fourth edition". With so many more fundamental sweeping changes than in any other "new" edition, this is not a new edition - it's a whole new game. Of course, they have to call it the same for reasons of marketing, but if they're designing mechanics, classes, worlds and indeed everything else from the bottom again, it's a separate game. It may be a very cool separate game, but the differences bother people who are expecting a simple update of the earlier game.

I disagree; it is still very recognizably D&D. To be honest, I think the biggest thing about D&D which is recognizable is the very clear level demarcation and the very clear class demarcations present in the game. That's what makes D&D what it is. The only other "real" attribute D&D has is a largely avoidance-based damage system rather than a largely damage reduction based one - that is to say, if you get hit, it hurts, but you don't get hit all that often.

I don't think it is any more different from 3rd edition D&D than 3rd edition was from 2nd edition D&D; the change from 2nd edition to 3rd edition was approximately as large. I think this edition does what 3rd edition did not and cleans up a lot of stuff which was unnecessary.

I'm going to stop there, because it really is looking a lot like I'm going to be saying "you're wrong" a lot to a lot of the people, and then "I disagree" with the rest, and I suspect in six months you'll almost universally be singing a different tune anyway.

Matthew
2008-03-02, 06:31 AM
*stuff*

Mate, this is a thread for complaining about 4e, not for defending it.

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 12:44 PM
@ EvilElitest

Look up "mutually exclusive".
I was gonna make a snarky comment about your username too, but I chose not to.

I fail to see your point

And feel free to mock my user name, that is what it is there for
from
EE

Morty
2008-03-02, 01:19 PM
Mate, this is a thread for complaining about 4e, not for defending it.

Yeah, but why waste a perfect opportunity to say "I have a different taste than you do, therefore you're WRONG and you won't be saying this in a six month time anyway"?

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 01:23 PM
Yeah, but why waste a perfect opportunity to say "I have a different taste than you do, therefore you're WRONG and you won't be saying this in a moth's time anyway".

M0rt, there are rules for this kind of thing

If somebody makes that claim, their option is > your option. that is the rules


WOTC option of what is the 'right' way to play D&D > anyone else's idea

Glad we cleared that up :smallwink:
from
EE

Corsec1337
2008-03-02, 02:57 PM
Um... How about how magic missle is now an attack roll against the reflex score.

They simplified the game so that it is easier to program for that stupid online experince. Dragonborn are stupid. It should have been kobalds and not these silly half dragon wanna-be's walking around. I was really hopeful for 4.0 ignoring the stuff that made me cringe as I read. But after looking at the 4.0 character sheets on the wotc website i'm disgusted by the changes.

Rutee
2008-03-02, 08:59 PM
Yeah, but why waste a perfect opportunity to say "I have a different taste than you do, therefore you're WRONG and you won't be saying this in a six month time anyway"?

If memory serves, you were in the "Things I like about 4e" thread doing the same. If so, you are standing in a glass house, which puts you in a very bad position to get into a stone-throwing fight.

fireinthedust
2008-03-03, 01:05 AM
I'm not a huge fan of some of the fluff; but I have to admit I kinda like the rules the way they're heading. abilities and powers, with the roles as guidelines for what the character does.

The dragonborn seem silly.

Dragons might not have a section on designing from the ground up,

and I'm not liking the bias against monsters with PC levels; monster levels look good, but I like how Paizo had incredible variety in classed monsters.
I think of intellegent monsters (like Xen'drik giants, or mind flayers) as powerful races. If they focus on skill development in an area, like wizardry or mastering weapons, and are "civilized", why not have PC class levels on top of their stats?
Items and equipment will give variety, but... well, Pappy (the frost giant warlock) should be different from the kids (standard FGs)

I kinda miss PrCs, though I think having packages of abilities linked to a PrC-like path (kinda like a feat tree or substitution levels in Dragon Mag.) would be a fun way to put that in there.

Otherwise I'm not entirely against the new edition, an I'm fairly sure the things that bug me aren't unsolvable.

Bassetking
2008-03-03, 01:21 AM
1. Hey, the great wheel was to complex, our puny minds can comperhend anything with more than three worlds. i mean they have four different planes for elements, one for fire, water, earth, and air, do you realize how confusing that is, i mean four planes, it hurts my brain

So, you've got the Prime Material Plane, which directly connects to, and is surrounded by a twelve-pointed sphere which bisects two additional planes. The sphere is comprised of the four elemental planes: Air, Water, Fire, and Earth. These form the four main "Quadrants" of the sphere surrounding the prime material. These are further divided as they interact with each other, giving rise to the paraelemental planes of Smoke (Air and Fire), Ice (Air and Water), Ooze (Earth and Water), and Magma (Fire and Earth).

Now, beyond that, the sphere comprising the four elemental spheres and the Prime Material sphere is further divided; bisected, by the Positive and Negative energy planes, giving rise to a primary six.

Where these energy planes interact with the representitive elemental planes, an additional eight planes are added, as the Quasielemental planes. At the intersection of the Positive Energy Plane and the planes of Air, Earth, Fire, and Water are Lightning, Minerals, Radiance, and Steam. Around the Negative Energy Planes are Vacuum, Dust, Ash, and Salt.

(1) Prime Material + (4) Elemental + (2) Energy + (4) Paraelemental + (8) Quasielemental =...

Nineteen planes, and we're not even getting started yet...

Moving onward! The outer planes! Physical representations of the domains of ideas and gods, home to outsiders, and primarily hinging on the four-spoked alignment system to give rise to their positions, and are arranged along a sliding scale upon each axis of the scale. There are seventeen in all, including the neutral realm of the Outlands, home to the hub of the wheel, Sigil, city of doors. Clockwise from the upper Right, starting with the extreme LG:

Celestia, Bytopia, Elysium, Beastlands, Arborea, Ysgard, Limbo, Pandemonium, Abyss, Carceri, Hades, Gehenna, Baator, Archeron, Mechanus, Arcadia.

Each of these planes is divided further into realms and layers.

Nineteen and Seventeen... Thirty six planes, and we're not done yet.

We have the Far Realm, we have the Astral Plane, we have the Ethereal Plane, we have the Shadow Plane, we have the Mirror Plane, we have the Temporal Plane, and we have the Phlogiston.

43, and still going!

We have Demiplanes! Most notably, the Demiplane of Dread, Ravenloft, but there are others! We'll just count Ravenloft, as I'm feeling generous on that account.

44.

44 planes, not including or counting the realms or layers there within.

Now, we move on to the fun bits.

Some of these planes are Coterminous. There's a defined border between the Elemental Plane of Fire, and the Elemental Plane of Earth. Some of these planes, however, are Coexistant. See the Prime Material and the Ethereal. Some are Coterminal on one side of a Coexistant plane, and Coexistant on the other side. This segues us tidily into the last portion here...

Portals.

See, each and every plane has a way to get there. Some realms, layers, and demiplanes have distinct and unique means to reach them, or certain specific portions of them; many of which are only accessable to individuals who are already on a specific access plane. The only way to get to the second layer of Graz't's three layer domain is to approach from the layer above.

So, we have 44 different planes, all of which have separate and unique rules of physics, magic, divinity, energy use, food consumption, not to mention social culture and interaction. All of which require unique and specific methods and means to gain entry not to mention freely traverse.

If four planes hurt your brain, I apologize, in advance, for the mortal embolism you just suffered.

horseboy
2008-03-03, 01:39 AM
We have the Far Realm, we have the Astral Plane, we have the Ethereal Plane, we have the Shadow Plane, we have the Mirror Plane, we have the Temporal Plane, and we have the Phlogiston.
Is that the same Phlogiston that's outside the crystal spheres? Holy crap, I hope not. That does bring up one of my non planescape playing questions from the time. How did Planescape compensate for how in different spheres different divinities ruled the same plane? I mean, sure in DS sphere they didn't have them at all, so it does beg further problems and questions.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-03, 02:05 AM
Forget, for a second, that "Badass" is mutually exclusive with angst.

OK. That's easy to forget, since it isn't true. Angst is present in most badass characters. I can't think of any 'badass' characters that are happy, cheerful people.

So, the things I don't like about 4E:

Starting at level 5.
-I get the impression that starting 4E characters are approximately 5th level 3.5 characters. I enjoy playing games that start in the 2-4 region. From what I can tell, those levels don't exist in 4E.

Magic isn't different.
-Spellcasters use the same mechanics that everyone else uses. I prefer for magic to be more different. It feels like wizards just wield spells now, the same way a fighter wields a sword, or an archer wields a bow.

Longer combats.
-I've seen reviews of 4E that laud the 10-20 round combats 4E encourages. I don't want to spend that much time on a fight unless it is the Big Bad. Which, by the way- I have managed to make long involved fights in 3.5 when I wanted them. But I don't want that often. 10-20 round combats are bad for an RP heavy game.

But that's ok, I still have BESM.

DementedFellow
2008-03-03, 02:13 AM
OK. That's easy to forget, since it isn't true. Angst is present in most badass characters. I can't think of any 'badass' characters that are happy, cheerful people.

Captain Jack Sparrow
Ace Ventura (think modern day druid-like class)
The Dude from The Big Lowbowski (okay not happy, cheerful, but certainly not angsty)

Granted these are comedy movies, but I don't think that hurts any badass points.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-03, 02:16 AM
Jack Sparrow had angst. This was not fully obvious from just the first movie though.

Those other two guys- not badass.

Also, PotC, not a comedy.


Also, to clarify:


OK. That's easy to forget, since it isn't true. Angst is present in most badass characters. I can't think of any 'badass' characters that are happy, cheerful people.

DementedFellow
2008-03-03, 02:25 AM
Jack Sparrow had angst. This was not fully obvious from just the first movie though.

Those other two guys- not badass.

Also, PotC, not a comedy.


Also, to clarify:

I never really saw Jack have much angst at all. He was crazy, but it never really came across as "I had a horribly traumatic event in my past and it has stunted the growth of me emotionally."

Dude, if The Fifth Element can be called a comedy, then so can PotC. Comedies make us laugh. I laughed at both, as I'm sure you did too, assuming you saw The Fifth Element as well.:smallsmile: Good movies all around.

...except for Ace Ventura 2. You can have too much of a good thing after all.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-03, 02:35 AM
I don't consider 5th element to be a comedy. Blackadder is a comedy (a good one, too). Airplane is a comedy. 5th element is a lighthearted action movie. It is closer to a comedy than PotC is.

I seem to recall that Jack sold his soul for a ship, and then his crew mutinied and left him to die on a deserted island. I also seem to remember that his driving motivation was getting a) his ship back and b) revenge.

So yes, angst. Perhaps you are confusing well used angst with poorly used angst (also reffered to as wangst)?

Also- we can't really define comedy as 'movies that make us laugh'. I laughed during Schindler's List. But it is most definitely not a comedy. Similarly, I laughed watching The Man Who Cried. Also not a comedy.

I define a comedy as something that makes us laugh first, and tells a story second (or doesn't really tell a story at all).

Edit - Comedies make us laugh, therefore anything that makes us laugh is a comedy is a classic logic error, btw.

DementedFellow
2008-03-03, 02:40 AM
You may be right there. While thinking of characters, I thought of Xena and she was kinda wangsty at times, as was Hercules for that matter.

Although, I typically don't put anger in with angst. Revenge isn't really angst. To me, angst is more about "woe is me" or some form of worry. Jack Sparrow didn't seem that worried. He seemed to skate by the skin of his teeth time and time again.

Maybe in my mind I associate angst with wangst. You got me there.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-03, 02:45 AM
I recommend TVtropes.org (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage?text=angst&pagename=Main%2FSearchWiki)'s discussion on angst.

Morty
2008-03-03, 10:34 AM
If memory serves, you were in the "Things I like about 4e" thread doing the same. If so, you are standing in a glass house, which puts you in a very bad position to get into a stone-throwing fight.

If you're referring to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73156). thread by Lupy, there's precisely one my post there, listing things I like about 4ed.


So, we have 44 different planes, all of which have separate and unique rules of physics, magic, divinity, energy use, food consumption, not to mention social culture and interaction. All of which require unique and specific methods and means to gain entry not to mention freely traverse.

True. However, I fail to see how is that bad. Now, I realize many people consider 3ed cosmology too crowded, but the thing is, it's much easier to ignore things when there are too many of them than to add new ones when there aren't enough.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-03, 10:41 AM
My biggest complaint about 4e is the rift it created in the D&D players. The same rift existed in the transition from 2nd Ed to 3.0 and then 3.5... just now the internet has 'empowered' everyone to have an opinion and everyone on the internet is inherently correct, no matter what anyone else says.

We've become a community of people that are sitting on opposite sides of a fence that we havent even seen in it's complete state.

I suppose that's my complaint with internet forums more than 4e in general.

I have not seen anything mechanically that I dislike. I have not read the preview books so I do not know the "fluff".

AKA_Bait
2008-03-03, 11:16 AM
We've become a community of people that are sitting on opposite sides of a fence that we havent even seen in it's complete state.


I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Sure, there are some people firmly on one side or the other, but I think the majority of the community is still sitting on the fence, perhaps leaning one way or the other. Generally speaking, I don't think it has gotten that virulent and has prompted some pretty interesting and worthwhile discussions about game design and play style.

Now, this may not be true of other communities, but I've found that the playgrounders, although we may disagree with eachother, aren't a community divided in any way more signifigant than we already were on any number of other issues people disagree about.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-03, 11:41 AM
Yeah, that's a comment about the community as a whole (all D&D players)... here it's generally pretty mild.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-03, 03:10 PM
Yeah, that's a comment about the community as a whole (all D&D players)... here it's generally pretty mild.

Well, that's part of the reason I like this place. As for a general community of D&D players I've never really understood that. I feel like I'm a part of the community here on the GitP forums and I suppose one could call the people I game with a community but I've never really understood how the idea something being a community gets applied to a group of people who all purchase and use a specific product. To me that would be like saying that I'm worried about divsivness of introducing deep dish into the pizza eating community.

Matthew
2008-03-03, 03:38 PM
Heh, that's an interesting point. I would say that GitP is a 'community', in that we come together and express opinions and discuss things in a fairly regular manner. As a group, many people within this community are part of a larger group that 'plays and purchases D&D'. That group is an audience and it belongs to a larger market, which is the RPG market. I don't really consider myself to be part of a shared community that extends to the Wizards Forums, for instance, but I acknowledge that D&D is a communal experience, in the sense that we broadly experience the game in similar ways.

Those groupings or communities are fairly tentative, though, as well as being mutable and diverse. One thing that 'old school' communities often do is seek to excise none 'old school' players and products from their community, even going so far as to consider the possibility that they wouldn't want that 'sort of person' in their community. In real life, there are a lot of people (gamers included) that I wouldn't really want to spend any time in the company of, and I'm sure that goes both ways.

Really, though, it's about defining 'community' and that seems to be relative to the grouping being described.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-03, 03:45 PM
My biggest complaint about 4e is the rift it created in the D&D players. The same rift existed in the transition from 2nd Ed to 3.0 and then 3.5... just now the internet has 'empowered' everyone to have an opinion and everyone on the internet is inherently correct, no matter what anyone else says.

We've become a community of people that are sitting on opposite sides of a fence that we havent even seen in it's complete state.

I suppose that's my complaint with internet forums more than 4e in general.

I have not seen anything mechanically that I dislike. I have not read the preview books so I do not know the "fluff".

I take a certain mea culpality on that one, to be fair though, I was technically "on the fence" until recently, I just had to vigorously defend the middle ground against certain, shall we say... evil and elite villains who enjoy spreading disinformation and trolling.

I am switching to 4e, flaws and all, I could really care less if one person or another switching over or not. However, I cannot stand to listen to people make up strawman arguements and then vigorously attack them, confusing people along the way.

Arcane_Secrets
2008-03-03, 04:47 PM
Honestly, I'm learning a lot about people's opinions from this.

For those who do have major beefs, I have some questions:

-Do you have an alternative you'd prefer to see?

-If you want it to all stay the same, what was your opinion on the '.5' part of third edition?

-Do you think that WotC could keep producing constantly for the same system for the next 8 or so years? What could they have released that would have kept interest for you?


I'm looking to understand the dislike on level deeper than 'its new and I hate it'.

Answering these in order:

1) Yes. What I'd like to see is something that builds on what I thought were the better parts of 3.0/3.5 edition, and represents significant improvement upon those areas where both had problems instead of going off on a massive tangent in ways that I really dislike. The things I like about 4e are:

Going back to static XP for monsters. I've played/run both 2nd ed and 3rd ed, and static XP was honestly a better system than the CR charts. It lent itself easily to putting together encounters, and it also meant that if PC's were in situations where they weren't against enemies that were their approximate CR, they at least got credit for the fights.

Some parts of the new dying rules-just that negative hp isn't a static -10, which I thought didn't make sense.

The improved toughness.

The problem is that none of this really counterbalances all of the things that I dislike about 4e, such as:

The changes to Forgotten Realms and the cosmology.

The naming conventions and other factors that are constantly insinuating themselves into the way it's designed, without ever coming out explicitly and saying such.

The fact that 4e is a huge step backwards in terms of the way monsters are built compared to 3e (where both the monsters and the PC's sort of were 'written in the same language').

The fact that 4e has, from what I'm seeing about the game mechanics, apparently been trampled to death by a horde of "Balance Monsters".

I look at 4e and I see very little that would encourage me to want to play it.

2) I liked 3.5 edition, but I think that some of the changes they were making towards the end sort of presaged 4e.

3) Yes, I do think they could've kept producing. Things that would've held my interest would've been the following:

A book on yugoloths, and more 'themed' monster books. I really liked Elder Evils, and regardless of what I think of 4e, I'll probably buy it even though it'll be one of the last WotC products I'll buy because of 4e.

Environment books.

More books expanding FR in the regions that never got much coverage in 3e, instead of setting us up for 4e by killing off those pesky high powered NPC's that apparently lots of people that were listened to were complaining about.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-03, 05:01 PM
Really, though, it's about defining 'community' and that seems to be relative to the grouping being described.

Well yeah, it's a semantic thing but I think one worth paying attention to. Companies frequently take active steps to promote the idea that their consumer base is a community, particularly companies that target demographics which tend to be social 'out groups'. D&D's market is one of those demographics. The reason they do it is to promote self identification with the product among their customers and therefore brand loyalty. Of course, people do this on their own too as you pointed out with 'old school' groups.

I think it's important to note because it's one of those tricks of language that cause people to get wrapped up in and worried about something, divisivness in the D&D 'community' at large with the release of 4e, that doesn't really effect their lives. I dislike seeing people worried or unhappy for no real reason.

DementedFellow
2008-03-03, 05:15 PM
I really like Arcane_Secrets' post. I agree with most of what this poster said. XP being static is a good thing.

I am not so much a fan of FR. I never read the books, so that's why I don't have much of an attachment to it. So expounding upon a world that I didn't really care about would not appeal to me much. Would I buy such a supplement? Probably. I have bought a number of supplements and I haven't regretted any of them. The creators of the supplements take care to inject a vibrant sense of "I would like to play that class" or "What a cool item" or "That's a neat setting". So even if it was an addition to a place that I could give a care about, I would wholly support any supplements that would catch my eye.

4e is just a system that doesn't appeal to me. The pictures of the books (what little I've seen) are pretty. But pretty doesn't make me want to shell out money.

And about an earlier comment. I agree, we may argue about points concerning 4e, but we are still a family of sorts. I've only been on the boards a short time and I can already tell that people aren't looked down on for stupid questions. Heck, my first thread was a question that I needed help with. It was answered swiftly and with no insults. It's refreshing to be in an environment where there are no dumb questions.

Truth be told, when I play D&D, it's a more free-form game, when it comes to social interactions, if a bluff is believable it kinda succeeds without rolling. We just use 3.x as a barebones system for the meagre combats we have. The thought of saying, "Trust me." and rolling a high check without the NPC saying "Why should I trust you?" breaks the verisimilitude. And it makes it more fun if you can think on your feet in character.

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 11:22 PM
I really can't stand the change in FR's style, and the justification for this change. If they have to change everything that we know and love, could they at least try something intersting, time of troubles was cool
from
EE

Nohwl
2008-03-03, 11:29 PM
i just started playing about 6 months ago and am going to have to buy new books. i dont feel like i got enough use out of 3.5.

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 11:43 PM
i just started playing about 6 months ago and am going to have to buy new books. i dont feel like i got enough use out of 3.5.

Ouch, really bad luck man i'm sorry
from
EE

Charity
2008-03-04, 03:56 AM
Those groupings or communities are fairly tentative, though, as well as being mutable and diverse. One thing that 'old school' communities often do is seek to excise none 'old school' players and products from their community, even going so far as to consider the possibility that they wouldn't want that 'sort of person' in their community. In real life, there are a lot of people (gamers included) that I wouldn't really want to spend any time in the company of, and I'm sure that goes both ways.


Aha now we know [/michell and webb reference]

click the sig, click it, clicky clicky v


Nohwl seriously matey, there will be plenty of folk still using 3.5, for many years to come, check out Matt and his 2e grognardism :smalltongue: , the advent of 4e is not going to stop you using your 3.5, in fact the flood of books onto ebay will in actual fact be a huge boon to folk whom want to stay with 3.5 I imagine.

Durendal
2008-03-04, 09:18 AM
I was wondering if anyone else had seen the character sheets they posted at WotC. I really liked the melee character's power's, but the caster sheets kinda threw me, especially the cleric sheet. The cleric's powers were nothing like his 3.5 spells. Its guess its not so mush dislike as disillusion.

oh, and who thought "exploit" would be a good name for melee powers?

[edited for spelling]

Cyclone231
2008-03-04, 11:39 AM
oh, and who thought "exploit" would be a good name for melee powers?
Probably the same person who thought "feat" would be a good name for... well, feats.

JadedDM
2008-03-04, 11:41 AM
Nohwl seriously matey, there will be plenty of folk still using 3.5, for many years to come, check out Matt and his 2e grognardism , the advent of 4e is not going to stop you using your 3.5, in fact the flood of books onto ebay will in actual fact be a huge boon to folk whom want to stay with 3.5 I imagine.

Err, well now, don't get the lad's hopes too high up. I wouldn't say there are 'plenty' of us 2E grognards left. Actually, it's very difficult for me to find players at all. I usually have to recruit new people (people with no D&D experience whatsoever) because of all the stigma WotC has placed on the older editions (like they are doing now for 3E).

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-04, 11:44 AM
oh, and who thought "exploit" would be a good name for melee powers?

[edited for spelling]


I was wondering if anybody else had noticed that.

I wonder if the high-level Exploits will be things like "Conveniently Placed Spawn Point" and "Infinite Gold Loop"

Doglord
2008-03-04, 12:00 PM
My group have already agreed we're gonna play 3.5 for a loooong time still.

They should not mess with the core classes or races, they should not remove so much depth and I will murder anyone who speaks of the dragons changing.

also my 15 3.5 sourcebooks will be redundant and they didnt come cheap.

fendrin
2008-03-04, 12:17 PM
I was wondering if anybody else had noticed that.

I wonder if the high-level Exploits will be things like "Conveniently Placed Spawn Point" and "Infinite Gold Loop"

Well, apparently, some epic level (21-30) powers read something like "Once per day, when you die..." so they might function like a Convenient Spawn Point (in the FPS style of spawn points, anyway).

I just read that in a blog entry by some playtester or designer, I think. I'll try to track it down again. I got lost in a web of interlinked blog entries, though, so if someone else has it, please post the link for me... thanks!

DementedFellow
2008-03-04, 12:27 PM
I read last night that the online service will be replacing the magazines. Which is kinda crappy. Because if you are a subscriber of a magazine, after you stop paying the subscription, the magazines are still yours. If you stop paying the online fee, it isn't available to you.

People who are staunchly pro-4e have a hard time seeing that it is very nicely disguised money grab. I will laugh so very hard when 4e comes out with yet more "Complete ..." series for 4e. Along with all the other supplements. For plenty of us, 3.5 is still a solid system. And the potentially cheesy classes are harder to fit into a campaign. It is hard to place a druid in a campaign where two industrious nations are at war. Playing a game is a group endeavor. So if you choose a class that has some class restrictions like druid or monk, then you have to not only have a reason why they would join, but you have to realize that other people are at the table and it is more fun to not let yourself lord over the fight.

Rutee
2008-03-04, 12:30 PM
They should not mess with the core classes or races, they should not remove so much depth and I will murder anyone who speaks of the dragons changing.

So the Core Classes should be "Elf, Dwarf, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, and Fighter"?


People who are staunchly pro-4e have a hard time seeing that it is very nicely disguised money grab.
No, we haven't. It's a company. EVERYTHING IT DOES is a money grab. It's up to you whether you think it's worth spending money on.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-04, 04:44 PM
So the Core Classes should be "Elf, Dwarf, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, and Fighter"?

I think you'll find that should be "Elf, Dwarf, Fighter, Thief and Magic User".

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-04, 04:47 PM
Well, apparently, some epic level (21-30) powers read something like "Once per day, when you die..." so they might function like a Convenient Spawn Point (in the FPS style of spawn points, anyway).

I was thinking more in terms of monster spawn points. Something like: "At will you can cause 1d6 low-level creatures to appear. These creatures will immediately attack you, and you earn full XP for defeating them".

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-03-04, 06:32 PM
I dislike that 4th Edition does not exist on the open market yet.

It's hard to dislike something with authority when all my information is heresay and subject to change.

Deepblue706
2008-03-04, 11:33 PM
Well, I've been having doubts, but some have been turned around. Some ideas currently seem hamfisted (ie Paladin's Divine Challenge), but maybe more details on how it works and why it's good will be more clear in the future.

I'd like the system to support a less abstract way of taking damage - but, it doesn't look like they're really considering much about actual wounds.

Fhaolan
2008-03-04, 11:39 PM
I think you'll find that should be "Elf, Dwarf, Fighter, Thief and Magic User".

"Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, Fighting Man, Cleric, and Magic User" [Thief wasn't added to D&D until the Greyhawk Suppliment, which also added Paladins, Gnomes, and Half-Elves.]

Sorry, I had to. That grognard cred isn't worth much, so I have to use it when I can. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2008-03-05, 05:14 AM
Where does the Old Black Box come in: the one with the big red winged fiend on the front: was it a re-release of 1st Ed? it was a basic set, only supporting up to 5th level play, but it had Cleric, Thief, Fighter, Magic User Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. Does it count as a pre - 1st ed D&D set?

As my introduction to D&D, I found it entertaining enough. I wonder if any of its things might make a reappearance: Coins encumbrance instead of pounds, bronze golems, thouls, rhagodessa, etc.

I do think the cosmology of 4th ed is interesting: primordials as malevolent creators of the world. I am less sure about the reduction of options for some creatures: but it is hard to strike a balance between too many and too few options.

Muyten
2008-03-05, 05:23 AM
Where does the Old Black Box come in: the one with the big red winged fiend on the front: was it a re-release of 1st Ed? it was a basic set, only supporting up to 5th level play, but it had Cleric, Thief, Fighter, Magic User Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. Does it count as a pre - 1st ed D&D set?



Yes that was before they put the Advanced in (the one they removed with
3rd edition). That was the good old days when an elf was just an elf. That's the game I started out playing so very long ago :)

Oslecamo
2008-03-05, 06:47 AM
So the Core Classes should be "Elf, Dwarf, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, and Fighter"?


No, we haven't. It's a company. EVERYTHING IT DOES is a money grab. It's up to you whether you think it's worth spending money on.

4e classes currently are:

Defender 1, Defender 2, striker 1, striker 2, striker 3, leader 1, leader 2, controller.

Who needs variety inside classes? Fighters shouldn't be able to hit hard, and rogues shouldn't be able to lead, and clerics shouldn't be able to control.

And believe it or not, companies are run by humans, and humans sometimes make mistakes. So, there must be somethings wotc doesn't do for money grab.

Wait, wotc is controled by a giant alien brain inside a jar with psychic powers

OMG they indeed only care about doing money.

Deepblue706
2008-03-05, 10:26 AM
Yes that was before they put the Advanced in (the one they removed with
3rd edition). That was the good old days when an elf was just an elf. That's the game I started out playing so very long ago :)

Oh man, I remember the black box! I still have it somewhere...

My first character was a Halfling, for which I happened to roll 18 for STR. I don't think I had a single stat under 9, either.

Indon
2008-03-05, 01:29 PM
Who needs variety inside classes? Fighters shouldn't be able to hit hard, and rogues shouldn't be able to lead, and clerics shouldn't be able to control.

The game needs very little. But why can't a Fighter be a hulking brute who tears apart his enemies, or a rogue be a quick-witted tactician, or a cleric be a worshipper of the God of Temporarily Disabling Enemies?

The more versatile player options are within the system, the less we as the players have to hack at it to get it to work for us. And the more we have to hack at it, the more we're reminded that it's a system, and that other systems exist out there that might require less work on our part to get functioning.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-05, 02:43 PM
The game needs very little. But why can't a Fighter be a hulking brute who tears apart his enemies, or a rogue be a quick-witted tactician, or a cleric be a worshipper of the God of Temporarily Disabling Enemies?

The more versatile player options are within the system, the less we as the players have to hack at it to get it to work for us. And the more we have to hack at it, the more we're reminded that it's a system, and that other systems exist out there that might require less work on our part to get functioning.

There's two possible answers to this.

The first is to say "chances are, all of those options will be just as well supported in the new system as the current system, if not more so".

The second is to say: does it really which class you use for a particular concept, as long as the concept itself is viable. If you want to make a "quick-witted tactician" and you can do it easily using (say) a warlord, why does it matter that you might not be able to do it with a Rogue.

Indon
2008-03-05, 03:03 PM
The second is to say: does it really which class you use for a particular concept, as long as the concept itself is viable. If you want to make a "quick-witted tactician" and you can do it easily using (say) a warlord, why does it matter that you might not be able to do it with a Rogue.

Because the more I have to hack the system into what I want it to be, the less I'm going to like and want to keep using the system.

If I want to play a technical fighter who uses clever techniques to neutralize his opponents, and I have to gut the Wizard class to do it, I'm going to just go play Exalted or something instead of bothering to put forth the effort.

Rutee
2008-03-05, 04:30 PM
4e classes currently are:

Defender 1, Defender 2, striker 1, striker 2, striker 3, leader 1, leader 2, controller.

Who needs variety inside classes? Fighters shouldn't be able to hit hard, and rogues shouldn't be able to lead, and clerics shouldn't be able to control.

GG at recognizing context. Notwithstanding that you're contradicting WotC's statements on people being able to fill multiple roles, the person I quoted directly said that Core Classes should never be touched. Therefore, I conclude that they wanted the core classes from 1st ed back.

Fhaolan
2008-03-05, 07:09 PM
Where does the Old Black Box come in: the one with the big red winged fiend on the front: was it a re-release of 1st Ed? it was a basic set, only supporting up to 5th level play, but it had Cleric, Thief, Fighter, Magic User Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. Does it count as a pre - 1st ed D&D set?

It depends on how you consider editions.

My list is from the version of Dungeons and Dragons published by Guidon Games in 1974

Rutee's and Dan’s list appear to be partial lists from the version of Dungeons and Dragons published by TSR, starting with the blue-book Basic set in 1977. This version was a true edition change from the Guidon Games version, and went through several minor revisions each time a new set (Expert, Companion, Masters) was published. I say partial lists as the full list is Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, just like the list you have.

Advanced D&D was published in 1977 as well. It was originally intended that Basic would lead to Advanced, but for some bizarre political reasons they were written independant of each other, creating in effect two different editions of D&D simultaneously. Both versions had sufficient support in TSR to maintain separate parallel, and incompatable, product lines.

Your black box set is the 1991 version of Dungeons and Dragons that was meant to be an intro to the Rules Cyclopedia version that combined the Basic, Expert, Companion, and Masters sets into one book, with some further revisions. This version is sometimes called the 'Classic' version, as it's labeled like that in the 1994 printing.

plainsfox
2008-03-05, 07:54 PM
The thing I dislike the most about it is that it is a whole new system. They haven't really sold it on me. It's like a wolf in sheep's clothing....more or less. When the shift over was made from AD&D to 3D, you could still play a Paladin. You could still play a Bard. You could still play the same characters you've been playing for a while. Sure, You couldn't be a Fighter 20/Wizard 20 Elf anymore, but you'd be close in power.


Now, you'll have to wait for Splat books (Or splat E-content) to play core classes that were in 3.5. As someone who plays a Barbarian/Sorcerer with a familiar, I'm REALLY thrilled about that.

Oslecamo
2008-03-05, 08:03 PM
GG at recognizing context. Notwithstanding that you're contradicting WotC's statements on people being able to fill multiple roles, the person I quoted directly said that Core Classes should never be touched. Therefore, I conclude that they wanted the core classes from 1st ed back.

What I remember hearing from Wotc is that classes can fill other character's roles, but they'll do a poor job if they seek to fill the other guy's shoes.

I even remember hearing for some playtesters that they tried to make a no leader class party, and a no striker class party.

The no leader class party would struggle if the battle lasted for more than a couple rounds, as they had no easy way to quickly heal whoever had been targeted by the monsters.

The no striker class party would take quite more time to end the battle, as they simply couldn't deal damage fast enough. This leaded to monsters with special recharge abilities who sit in the bacline to be especially dangerous as they would get a better chance of spamming their best powers.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-05, 08:23 PM
Compare that to a 3.5 party with no divine caster or no arcanist or (in a trap-filled dungeon) no trap/skillmonkey.

Indon
2008-03-05, 08:29 PM
Compare that to a 3.5 party with no divine caster or no arcanist or (in a trap-filled dungeon) no trap/skillmonkey.

I'm presently playing a game in a party with no divine caster (in Iron Kingdoms, no less, so it wouldn't much help). We've been faring well, though we're somewhat narcoleptic because we're low-level.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-05, 11:38 PM
Compare that to a 3.5 party with no divine caster or no arcanist or (in a trap-filled dungeon) no trap/skillmonkey.

The difficulties there are a myth. I've played in several games that lacked full casters. All it does is change your tactics.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-06, 12:47 AM
I don't like that they simplified the beautiful Bo9S system into at will/per round/per encounter/per day abilities. I like the card shuffle system better.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-06, 12:49 AM
I like the card shuffle system better

Wow. I don't think I've ever heard that sentiment expressed before. It never really bothered me, but I've only ever heard complaints.

Oslecamo
2008-03-06, 04:06 AM
Compare that to a 3.5 party with no divine caster or no arcanist or (in a trap-filled dungeon) no trap/skillmonkey.

No divine or arcane? Well, that's for what UMD is. The fighter and the barbarian also can easily be ranged monsters, and cleave allows to crush large numbers of small enemies, or trip builds, etc.

No trap/skill monkey? Well, either the divine or arcane sucks it up and prepares utility spells, or the barbarian or fighter advance and trust their high HP, strenght and AC to crush the traps/challenges.

Shademan
2008-03-06, 05:47 AM
prolly been said a thousand times allready but:
why is tiefling a core race now and aasimar aint!?
and why is halflings river-folks!? i want nomads!!

not a direct part of 4E but why do everyone draw tieflings as hunks-a-hunks o' burnin' luuve? they have -2 in charisma for a REASON!!!

Mad Mask
2008-03-06, 05:59 AM
not a direct part of 4E but why do everyone draw tieflings as hunks-a-hunks o' burnin' luuve? they have -2 in charisma for a REASON!!!

Wizards said that they're removing racial penalties. And I don't know why tielflings would make good warlocks if they weren't charismatic.

Shademan
2008-03-06, 06:44 AM
Wizards said that they're removing racial penalties. And I don't know why tielflings would make good warlocks if they weren't charismatic.

having horns might get the guys to jawdrop here and now. but would people in a medieval fantasy world think that woman with a tail and huge horns is hawt?
more likely: scared!

Corsec1337
2008-03-06, 08:38 AM
Things I dislike about 4e... I'll list the latest one that i read today on the wizard forums that bothers me:
1) str or con for the new fort save
2) cha or wis for the new will save
3) int or dex for the new reflex save

tyckspoon
2008-03-06, 08:47 AM
Things I dislike about 4e... I'll list the latest one that i read today on the wizard forums that bothers me:
1) str or con for the new fort save
2) cha or wis for the new will save
3) int or dex for the new reflex save

The only one that strikes me as at all weird is Int for Reflex defense. Str and Con both represent the toughness and power of the body, Cha arguably makes more sense for Will than Wis (being in part force of personality/strength of 'self').. Intelligence makes you react better? Not quite getting that one.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-06, 08:51 AM
I think of it the same way I think of the feat that allows Int to Ref saves:

You don't need to jump out of the way, you know where best to stand to limit the damage. You know how best to angle yourself to limit damage from collapsing objects from above. You know to step lightly in a dungeon to minimize the chance of falling in a pit... etc.

Its not reaction, its planning.

Matthew
2008-03-06, 09:00 AM
I think of it as 'speed of thought'. Reacting quickly to circumstances can be as much a mental as physically governed event. I would say that, though, since I was using these combinations before I ever heard of 4e. :smallbiggrin:

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-06, 09:02 AM
not a direct part of 4E but why do everyone draw tieflings as hunks-a-hunks o' burnin' luuve? they have -2 in charisma for a REASON!!!

Since you seem to care so much about the subject and certainly seem knowledgable, perhaps you could answer a question for me?

Now, many races and monsters have a Charisma penalty or low charisma. Like Tieflings and Goblins. These races invariably are described as "hideous" or "ugly" or "monstrous" or like Dwarves have "abrasive personalities". The other catagory being those monsters with a 1, 2 or - for CHA who are said to lack a sense of self or are barely aware of their existence.

So, this makes me wonder... which is it? Does a monster(being) get a CHA penalty for being ugly or for lacking a sense of self or for having a bad personality?

If a being gets penalized for being ugly, why do ghouls and ghasts have a CHA bonus? Surely being a stinking, rotting corpse is at least as disgusting, scary and horrifying as an otherwise normal and attractive woman with horns?

If it is that the being gets a CHA penalty for having a bad personality, does that mean if I roleplay the character as a kind and generous person who does nothing but nice things for people and who is friendly and congenial, that his CHA score will improve or the penalty will go away? If I roleplay really nice, can I have a CHA bonus? Or am I simply not allowed to roleplay my character how I want and he must have an abrasive personality?

Perhaps it is that "lack of sense of self" thing. But isn't this also covered by roleplaying?

/not really confused
//just pointing out the inconsistancies of CHA and how stupid it is to have racial penalties to it.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-06, 09:05 AM
The only one that strikes me as at all weird is Int for Reflex defense. Str and Con both represent the toughness and power of the body, Cha arguably makes more sense for Will than Wis (being in part force of personality/strength of 'self').. Intelligence makes you react better? Not quite getting that one.

Well I can think of a couple of things in 3e that lets you do INT to Initiative, and I can think of a few other game systems that factor Intellegence into reaction speeds (Shadowrun is number one to come to mind, at least 1st - 3rd Editions)

Corsec1337
2008-03-06, 12:32 PM
The only one that strikes me as at all weird is Int for Reflex defense. Str and Con both represent the toughness and power of the body, Cha arguably makes more sense for Will than Wis (being in part force of personality/strength of 'self').. Intelligence makes you react better? Not quite getting that one.

Strength is supposed to represent your actual strength, how strong you are and what not.
Constitution represents how durable your body is.
Dexterity represents how flexible and reactive you are.
Intelligence is how smart you are (such as planning and math).
Wisdom is how wise you are (what goes up must come down).
Charisma is your personality (force of personality) and looks.

I just don't see strength being good for a fortitude save since you can be extremly strong but have a low tolerance to pain. While their are feats in 3.X to make Int your Reflex save, you had to train at it. I don't see it being logical to automatically understand that since the fireball is on a path to hit here, I can manuver my body like so and take minimal damage. This just seems like something that you would have to train at, aka a feat. Wisdom vs charisma is the only one that I can see as logical at the beginning levels. An example of this could come from the fourth Harry Potter book how Harry is able to throw off the mind control spell by force of personality.

Doesn't this allow more stats to be dump stats though? Since no emphasis is placed more on others.

Indon
2008-03-06, 12:40 PM
//just pointing out the inconsistancies of CHA and how stupid it is to have racial penalties to it.

By your logic, bonuses to charisma are just as silly. Not that your logic is wrong ('cause it isn't, cha is kinda funky that way), but we do need something to work with here.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-06, 12:46 PM
Doesn't this allow more stats to be dump stats though? Since no emphasis is placed more on others.

Looks like it might yeah. Hard to know without seeing the powers. Some may have prerequesites of high scores or that you need high scores to get.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-06, 12:53 PM
Strength is supposed to represent your actual strength, how strong you are and what not.
Constitution represents how durable your body is.
Dexterity represents how flexible and reactive you are.
Intelligence is how smart you are (such as planning and math).
Wisdom is how wise you are (what goes up must come down).
Charisma is your personality (force of personality) and looks.

I just don't see strength being good for a fortitude save since you can be extremly strong but have a low tolerance to pain. While their are feats in 3.X to make Int your Reflex save, you had to train at it. I don't see it being logical to automatically understand that since the fireball is on a path to hit here, I can manuver my body like so and take minimal damage. This just seems like something that you would have to train at, aka a feat. Wisdom vs charisma is the only one that I can see as logical at the beginning levels. An example of this could come from the fourth Harry Potter book how Harry is able to throw off the mind control spell by force of personality.

Doesn't this allow more stats to be dump stats though? Since no emphasis is placed more on others.

Right, but whe start with the really hard definistions of stats, we begin treading a FATAL path. If we wanted to be truly simulationist, we would have a saving throw for each stat. However, I feel the 3 saves is "good enough" and as far as the 2 stats per save... you could avoid dump stats simply by making the modifier the average of the two stats. Also, look at the pairings:

STR or CON - Sure, for a Wizard or what not, STR might become a dump stat and CON a stat that he'd want high... oh wait... A fighter takes a high STR and then uses CON as a dump stat?... it's "possible".

DEX or INT - Sure the fighter might make INT a dump stat and DEX a high stat.... Oh wait...

WIS or CHA - Yeah certain arcane casters might dump WIS for a better CHA... oh wait...

To me these are kind of pointless pairings all in all, they are the same dump stats for the same classes anyway, basically. It just makes MAD characters not get quite as screwed since they can dump some stats a little more and not end up with garbage saves.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-06, 12:57 PM
By your logic, bonuses to charisma are just as silly. Not that your logic is wrong ('cause it isn't, cha is kinda funky that way), but we do need something to work with here.

I would agree that the bonuses to CHA are just as wonky for more or less the same reasons as penalties, though it is easier to roleplay the bonuses that to roleplay the penalties. The penalties seem to tell you that you HAVE to be a certain way or look a certain way - the bonuses can more easily be read as "the sky is the limit".

tyckspoon
2008-03-06, 04:43 PM
To me these are kind of pointless pairings all in all, they are the same dump stats for the same classes anyway, basically. It just makes MAD characters not get quite as screwed since they can dump some stats a little more and not end up with garbage saves.

I would dare to guess that reducing the suckitude of MAD is the point. It's probably also trying to mitigate situations like 3.x where you have a class with a bad save and no reason to invest in that saves' modifying stat (like Fighter with Will).. although there still doesn't seem to be a lot of reason for a 4E Fighter to devote many resources to improving Will defense beyond having a high Will defense.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-06, 04:50 PM
/not really confused
//just pointing out the inconsistancies of CHA and how stupid it is to have racial penalties to it.

The same problem applies to most stat penalties actually. How do you describe a character whose race has a stat penalty in an area in which that character has a positive score?

Does your Charisma 14 Dwarf still have an abrasive personality, because otherwise he would have Charisma 16? Is your Con 14 Elf still frail and delicate, because otherwise she would have Con 16?

Charity
2008-03-06, 05:05 PM
The same problem applies to most stat penalties actually. How do you describe a character whose race has a stat penalty in an area in which that character has a positive score?

Does your Charisma 14 Dwarf still have an abrasive personality, because otherwise he would have Charisma 16? Is your Con 14 Elf still frail and delicate, because otherwise she would have Con 16?

It's just the same the other way round, which is why many advocate that stats are crunch, and characterisation /idiosyncrasies are fluff. The two being functionally separate and need not be linked in any meaningful manner...

Sebastian
2008-03-06, 05:33 PM
The only one that strikes me as at all weird is Int for Reflex defense. Str and Con both represent the toughness and power of the body, Cha arguably makes more sense for Will than Wis (being in part force of personality/strength of 'self').. Intelligence makes you react better? Not quite getting that one.

If they really wanted to go that way I think that they should have gone with the average rather than the higher of the two. By their logic Einstein should have been very hard to hit. (and an old man harder to hit than a youngster assuming they keep stat modifiers for age.)

AKA_Bait
2008-03-06, 05:34 PM
By their logic Einstein should have been very hard to hit.

I'm now pondering the possibilties of Stephen Hawking with a high Reflex save...

Sebastian
2008-03-06, 05:51 PM
What I don't like of 4e is that is too gamist, they gave up too much "realism" in exchange for playability, there are things that can happen in game, perfectly possible by the rules that make no damn sense, for example by the rules if a ranger is grappled succesfully by someone, he can still fire arrows with his bow, with no penalities, to boot. It don't matter how much effort I put into it, I just can't picture how exactly that could happen.

Sebastian
2008-03-06, 06:06 PM
Since you seem to care so much about the subject and certainly seem knowledgable, perhaps you could answer a question for me?

Now, many races and monsters have a Charisma penalty or low charisma. Like Tieflings and Goblins. These races invariably are described as "hideous" or "ugly" or "monstrous" or like Dwarves have "abrasive personalities". The other catagory being those monsters with a 1, 2 or - for CHA who are said to lack a sense of self or are barely aware of their existence.

So, this makes me wonder... which is it? Does a monster(being) get a CHA penalty for being ugly or for lacking a sense of self or for having a bad personality?


I usually consider the charisma penalty for many races just a kind of "bad reputation" their races have. People just don't like tiefling, dwarves, goblins,etc each one for different motives.
As a conseguences I don't consider their penalty when dealing with the appropriate race, actually sometimes I make a reverse penalty, humans, elfs, etc have a charisma malus when dealing with goblinoid because adventurers gave a bad reputation to thier races, if you go in goblin tarritory it is better you hire a goblin guide to deal with the natives (if you don't plan to kill every goblin you meet, of course)

For other monsters it could be different, you should consder each case separately.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-06, 06:07 PM
What I don't like of 4e is that is too gamist, they gave up too much "realism" in exchange for playability, there are things that can happen in game, perfectly possible by the rules that make no damn sense, for example by the rules if a ranger is grappled succesfully by someone, he can still fire arrows with his bow, with no penalities, to boot. It don't matter how much effort I put into it, I just can't picture how exactly that could happen.

Just out of interest, where are you getting that from? I've not seen anything about grapple rules.

tyckspoon
2008-03-06, 06:12 PM
I usually consider the charisma penalty for many races just a kind of "bad reputation" their races have. People just don't like tiefling, dwarves, goblins,etc each one for different motives.
As a conseguences I don't consider their penalty when dealing with the appropriate race, actually sometimes I make a reverse penalty, humans, elfs, etc have a charisma malus when dealing with goblinoid because adventurers gave a bad reputation to thier races, if you go in goblin tarritory it is better you hire a goblin guide to deal with the natives (if you don't plan to kill every goblin you meet, of course)

For other monsters it could be different, you should consder each case separately.

Which works fine for adjudicating just social interactions, but still doesn't explain why a dwarf or a tiefling should be a worse Sorcerer or Bard than a human.

Sebastian
2008-03-06, 06:18 PM
The same problem applies to most stat penalties actually. How do you describe a character whose race has a stat penalty in an area in which that character has a positive score?

Does your Charisma 14 Dwarf still have an abrasive personality, because otherwise he would have Charisma 16? Is your Con 14 Elf still frail and delicate, because otherwise she would have Con 16?

A 14 con elf is as though as 14 con human and a 14 con dwarf, but he look "much* thouger than the *average* elf, you look at him and say "wow, that guy is incredibly tough... for an elf" you look at the human and say "wow, tough guy, but I've seen even tougher", you look at the dwarf and you say... nothing, it is a normal dwarf, a bit tougher than average, but nothing to write home about. The same (but inverted) happen with charisma

It is a little like the story of the big fly and the small elephant. :)

Sebastian
2008-03-06, 06:24 PM
Just out of interest, where are you getting that from? I've not seen anything about grapple rules.

it was in a post at Enworld. I'll try to find it.

Found it :)
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220310

Grapple - You can attempt a grapple check with anything that is within 1 size category of you. To initiate, you make a Strength Check vs. Reflex Defense. This also doesn't provoke an Opportunity Attack. If you fail, nothing happens. If you succeed, you cause your target to be "Immobilized" for one round. The target can escape his immobilized condition using an Acrobatics or Athletics check. You may move the target 1 square by succeeding on an additional grapple check in the following round.

Immobilized - Deciding to immobilize a target is essentially like a PC deciding that he would like to spend his combat rounds as a Tanglefoot bag. An immobilized target can still attack normally, but cannot move. Foes around an immobilized target receive Combat Advantage against him.

Combat Advantage - You get a +2 to hit the target. Flanking a target allows you to have Combat Advantage against a target, as do most physical afflictions (such as being immobilized or prone). Being on fire, however, does not grant foes combat advantage.

hopefully they are not 100% definitive or complete, but if they are ...

Sebastian
2008-03-06, 06:37 PM
On a more specific thiing that I don't like of 4e. No more healing spells to damage undeads or "inflict" to heal them, it is a little thing, but I loved details like this.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-07, 01:43 AM
I dislike the increased level 1 HP. There are no more squishy levels in 4E.

horseboy
2008-03-07, 01:57 AM
I'm now pondering the possibilties of Stephen Hawking with a high Reflex save...
How do you think rogues "disappear" in an enclosed room fireball? Hawking holes! He was smart enough to figure out how to do it. :smallwink:

Rutee
2008-03-07, 02:12 AM
How do you think rogues "disappear" in an enclosed room fireball? Hawking holes! He was smart enough to figure out how to do it. :smallwink:

You mean a Fry hole, right? But yeah, I'll be slightly surprised if the nonsense about High Levels being a requisite for high skill checks, /for NPCs/, is gone..

horseboy
2008-03-07, 02:25 AM
You mean a Fry hole, right? But yeah, I'll be slightly surprised if the nonsense about High Levels being a requisite for high skill checks, /for NPCs/, is gone..Eh, non-combat skills are handwaved in 4th, even for PC's. So, since there is no craft skill anymore the DM creates a certain blacksmith of Plotpointq to get the Whogewhatsit of Yournamehere made. Kinda like in, well, most other stories.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-07, 02:32 AM
I dislike the increased level 1 HP. There are no more squishy levels in 4E.

This is delicious.

Bassetking
2008-03-07, 02:50 AM
This is delicious.

Like scrumptious candies!

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-07, 03:15 AM
Would you care to elaborate? I like having a range of levels that are squishy. The games I have enjoyed the most started at the high end of cannon fodder (3-5), and then worked my way up to badass. It is so much more rewarding, IMNSHO, than just starting as a badass. I prefer to earn my awesome.

From what I have seen, this style of play is flat-out impossible in 4E.

Rutee
2008-03-07, 03:17 AM
Earn your fake awesome?

Regardless, I don't think you quite qualify as bad-ass for not being OHKO-bait for a red shirt.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-07, 03:22 AM
Way to be confrontational and yet, say nothing, Rutee. My biggest complaint with 4E is that it won't support my preferred play style. At All. That Is It. I Don't Want To Be FORCED To Start At Level 5.

Sometimes I play in higher level games, but I prefer starting at low level. There is more of a sense of accomplishment that way.

Rutee
2008-03-07, 03:27 AM
Raise monster damage output, lower monster HP. Inelegant, but it gets the job done. And you're the one saying that not dying in one hit to a red shirt makes you a bad-ass, I'm merely questioning how that's remotely possible. Way to duck your own words, guy.

The_Hunting_Enemy
2008-03-07, 03:27 AM
I dislike that it isn't out yet and everyone is acting as if they murdered the game already.

Save it for when we know, people!

GammaPaladin
2008-03-07, 03:42 AM
The bits of info they've released are enough for me to know I won't like it.

If everyone is raving about the newest ice-cream flavor, and it has artichokes in it, I know I'm not going to like it. Period. I hate artichokes that much.

Similarly, when they release info about things they've put in that are elements I hate, it's silly for me to think "Oh well, maybe I'll like it! I don't know yet, after all, even though it's full of things I can't stand!"

Charity
2008-03-07, 04:01 AM
I don't like mint or dark chocolate but I like After eights, sometimes things combine in favourable ways... I'm not suggesting this is always the case but you get my point.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-07, 04:04 AM
Raise monster damage output, lower monster HP. Inelegant, but it gets the job done. And you're the one saying that not dying in one hit to a red shirt makes you a bad-ass, I'm merely questioning how that's remotely possible. Way to duck your own words, guy.

Sure, I could make houserules. I imagine even FATAL could be a good game with enough houserules. In point of fact, I enjoy homebrewing. However, in terms of effort involved- it is far easier for your playstyle to just start at level 5 then for my playstyle to change the rules so that there are low powered levels.

In response to your question- there are no such things as red shirts at low level, unless it is the PCs themselves. The challenge is surviving to get promoted to a different color shirt.

Also, OHTO's are not as big a problem as you think. You need to be lucky to survive level 1. You need not to be unlucky to survive level 2. Once you hit level 3, you have to have a rapid sequence of bad luck to be taken out by lower level guys. Unless they are spellcasters, but that is because spellcasters are not properly balanced. Given that you avoid low level play, and I prefer low level play, I imagine I have more experience in that area than you do. Gal.

In 3E, being badly outnumbered at low level matters. From what I can tell, it is assumed in 4E, and the PCs are assumed to be able to handle that, at every level. Just another symptom of the paradigm shift from simulationist to gamist.

Rutee
2008-03-07, 04:10 AM
Sure, I could make houserules. I imagine even FATAL could be a good game with enough houserules. In point of fact, I enjoy homebrewing. However, in terms of effort involved- it is far easier for your playstyle to just start at level 5 then for my playstyle to change the rules so that there are low powered levels.
Of course, your playstyle is even better served with hackmaster, where it's /always/ lethal and you don't grow out of it.


In response to your question- there are no such things as red shirts at low level, unless it is the PCs themselves. The challenge is surviving to get promoted to a different color shirt.
So you name all the mook Orcs and whatnot at first level, but stop later on?


Also, OHTO's are not as big a problem as you think. You need to be lucky to survive level 1. You need not to be unlucky to survive level 2. Once you hit level 3, you have to have a rapid sequence of bad luck to be taken out by lower level guys. Unless they are spellcasters, but that is because spellcasters are not properly balanced. Given that you avoid low level play, and I prefer low level play, I imagine I have more experience in that area than you do. Gal.
You needed experience to know that 1d8+1 damage can crit to OHKO you if you're a fighter, and one-shot you if you don't have a d10 hit dice of a decent con mod? Maybe I'm overestimating you.

Regardless, I'm pretty OHKOing is exactly as big a problem as I think, and you did a wonderful job of explaining why. I need luck to survive? I die on a 20, no save? Yeah, no, that's pretty much the definition of lame. Good stories don't end 5 minutes into the narrative with the heroes dead because the bad guys got lucky.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-07, 04:34 AM
Of course, your playstyle is even better served with hackmaster, where it's /always/ lethal and you don't grow out of it.

Way to miss the point. My preferred playstyle is to grow out of it. I like to start where things are still lethal, and grow into the role of badass. Did I say that I prefer to start at level 1, and stop at level 5, when things start beign easy? No. I said I prefer to start at level 3-4, and continue from there. Starting vulnerable, and then becoming something better is not supported by 4E, which is one of my two big complaints about it.


So you name all the mook Orcs and whatnot at first level, but stop later on?

Names? I have names for NPCs that are meant to be interacted with in a non-combat fashion. Whether they have names or not has nothing to do with their 'red-shirt' status. All my combats are meaningful. I don't use mooks or random encounters. They are boring, because nothing is on the line in those fights.

Also, generally speaking, everything is named at low level, yes, but that is because there are not NPCs so weak that the PCs can just brush them off. That being somewhat of the point. The town guard are something to be concerned with at low level. That said guard is in the first villain's pocket is actually a problem at low level. etc. At high level, this is not a problem, because they can't touch you. Those kind of plots simply don't work.

Also, everyone tends to have names and in depth personalities at low level because I have usually spent a great deal of time setting up the starting town before I start a campaign. Which is beside the point.




I die on a 20, no save? Yeah, no, that's pretty much the definition of lame. Good stories don't end 5 minutes into the narrative with the heroes dead because the bad guys got lucky.

I die on a 1, no save? Oh wait, that was the save? Or even better- I just die, no save, no initiative, no nothing, because the bad guy is Batman? Suck. This is a problem at high level too.

Good stories/bad stories. Whatever. I have run many a campaign that started at low levels, and somehow, I haven't managed a TPK yet until much higher level. In your preferred range. Maybe my players have learned to try and think there way out of situations, instead of relying on the numbers on their character sheet to win the day.

Also- I do not like starting at level 1. For various reasons. So your whole 'needing luck to survive comment' - doesn't apply. The lowest level I start a game is 2, and I prefer 3. Which is in the 'needs to not have horrible luck'. Where is the excitement if you can't die?

Needs to not have horrible luck is also inclusive of not being horribly outnumbered, btw. Which ought to be avoided, but from what I can tell, there is little reason to even care about being outnumbered in 4E. Ever.


Good stories don't end 5 minutes into the narrative with the heroes dead because the bad guys got lucky.

You're right. They start with character development. Difficult to pull off if you are already fighting 5 minutes in.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-07, 04:46 AM
I don't like mint or dark chocolate but I like After eights, sometimes things combine in favourable ways... I'm not suggesting this is always the case but you get my point.
Yes, but there are things you hate passionately enough that you won't touch them no matter what they're mixed with, yes?

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-07, 04:52 AM
You know, this conversation is not productive. You don't like my playstyle. I have a solid player base that does, and a few DMS that do as well. Which means the playstyle has merit. In point of fact, it would be against the forum regs for you to tell me that my preferred playstyle is without merit. However, that is the direction this conversation is going, and personal attacks lead to flames, which lead to flame wars, wihhc leads to hurt feelings and a locked thread. We don't want that, so lets just agree that you don't like my preferred playstyle, and that I don't have a problem with your preferred playstyle.

4E does not support my preferred playstyle, because it starts PCs off at a higher power level than I prefer to start my games at. Hence, I do not like the increased HP at first level.

That statement is on-topic. As it is a statement of fact, not opinion, it is not subject to question, unless you presume to think you know my preferences better than I do.

Charity
2008-03-07, 05:11 AM
Yes, but there are things you hate passionately enough that you won't touch them no matter what they're mixed with, yes?

Nope, I keep an open mind.

I am not saying you should try 4e, it matters little to me what any of you guys does or doesn't do. From a general point of view I would suggest it is preferable to regret something you have done rather than something you haven't done.

Oslecamo
2008-03-07, 06:00 AM
Regardless, I'm pretty OHKOing is exactly as big a problem as I think, and you did a wonderful job of explaining why. I need luck to survive? I die on a 20, no save? Yeah, no, that's pretty much the definition of lame. Good stories don't end 5 minutes into the narrative with the heroes dead because the bad guys got lucky.

Actually, 90% of the good stories out there involve the heros geting their asses kicqued in the beginning and sudenly beig saved by some ex-machina, like geting a big robot/magical servant/mysterious power at their comand out of nowhere or the apearance of some other guy who will become their mentor.

That's for what DM's are for. If the players are geting too unlucky, he gives them a little help. Happens all the time in books and movies and series.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-07, 06:39 AM
Actually, 90% of the good stories out there involve the heros geting their asses kicqued in the beginning and sudenly beig saved by some ex-machina, like geting a big robot/magical servant/mysterious power at their comand out of nowhere or the apearance of some other guy who will become their mentor.

That's for what DM's are for. If the players are geting too unlucky, he gives them a little help. Happens all the time in books and movies and series.

I don't find Duex Ex Machina a good story idea. I'd rather win by my own abilities.
What stories do you mean?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-07, 07:49 AM
Actually, 90% of the good stories out there involve the heros geting their asses kicqued in the beginning and sudenly beig saved by some ex-machina,

Absolutely not. "Getting your ass saved by a deux ex machina" is mutually exclusive with "good story".

I'm sure a lot of DMs and mediocre fantasy writers pull this trick, and they can certainly be enjoyable stories, but that doesn't make them good stories.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-07, 08:25 AM
On points addressed so far:

If CHA penalties represent the "bad reputation" of a race, why is the CHA penalty still applied when the character is Alter Selfed, Polymorphed, etc. ? Also, if it is a bad reputation, what happens, if, via roleplaying and in-game events, the character redeems the entire race of creatures? Does the penalty for the entire race disappear?

On the "players have to suck and continue to suck until I the DM say they are allowed to not suck" vs. "players should be allowed to have characters that can survive without DM fiat" playstyle debate..

While I am sure some of the participants of this debate wouldn't characterize their playstyle as I have, that is how I see it. I have played with more than enough DMs who were exactly like that and hated it. Yes, PCs should be able to die at 1st level and *news flash* they still can. The difference is though that the odds of the party getting TPK'd at first level aren't quite as high. And given the revisions to the CR system/encounter guidelines plus the changes to critical hits, the chances of tearing up the party have increased exponentially at every tier. The chances of of permanently killing them all have simply decresed significantly at fist level and the odds of permakill go up with each level... which is how it should be.

3/3.5 has the power scale bass ackwards. You die, die, die, die, roll good stats, die, die, make it to 10th level and never have a real threat ever again.

Whereas 4e seems to be going for challenging (possibly lethal) that scales upward to every level, so that the danger level remains constant even increasing I would say, since now you crit without confirmation, it makes the horde of chumps look a lot scarier...

Also - Deus Ex Machina sucks. Why should I bother playing your game if *I* can't do anything and instead have to be subordinate to your favorite DMPC? It's garbage and a sure sign of lazy DMing/writing. Once in a while, yes, sure fine.. it can be significant and meaningful.

However if every adventure in your campaign consists of wiping the party out and having your favorite all-time character show up to Rez them, cast Fireball and slice off heads with his +9000 Vorpal Sword, you really need to rethink your campaign and learn more about DMing.

Oslecamo
2008-03-07, 08:43 AM
Absolutely not. "Getting your ass saved by a deux ex machina" is mutually exclusive with "good story".

I'm sure a lot of DMs and mediocre fantasy writers pull this trick, and they can certainly be enjoyable stories, but that doesn't make them good stories.

LOTR's Tom Bombadill.

The lv1 players find a treeefolk in the forest and before they notice it they fail their will saves and are at the mercy of the old tree. 2 get grappled and the other 2 can't hurt it.

DM doesn't want the campaign to end there so he throws Tom Bombadill to save the day.

Later, Tom Bombadill appears again to save them from some kind of wraith, after they all geting unlucky in their will saves again.

When Frodo begins to fail the saves against the Dark rider's cursed dagger effect, weee, an elf appears with an uber fast horse who carries Frodo to the place where they were going, because they can't afford a raise dead spell.

Yet Tolkien is considered one of the best fantasy writers out there, having inspired countless other works and D&D.

Then we have FMA, a very popular anime, where the main characters learn alchemy from who is suposedly one of the best alchemists of the land wich by pure coincidence passes by their little village after their mother died and saves them from being drowned. But what the hell was she doing in a tiny village like that? Nobody knows, but the main characters needed someone to teach them alchemy.

But please, show me great works of fantasy where there isn't deus ex machina.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-07, 09:16 AM
LOTR's Tom Bombadill.

The lv1 players find a treeefolk in the forest and before they notice it they fail their will saves and are at the mercy of the old tree. 2 get grappled and the other 2 can't hurt it.

DM doesn't want the campaign to end there so he throws Tom Bombadill to save the day.

Later, Tom Bombadill appears again to save them from some kind of wraith, after they all geting unlucky in their will saves again.

When Frodo begins to fail the saves against the Dark rider's cursed dagger effect, weee, an elf appears with an uber fast horse who carries Frodo to the place where they were going, because they can't afford a raise dead spell.

Yet Tolkien is considered one of the best fantasy writers out there, having inspired countless other works and D&D.

Then we have FMA, a very popular anime, where the main characters learn alchemy from who is suposedly one of the best alchemists of the land wich by pure coincidence passes by their little village after their mother died and saves them from being drowned. But what the hell was she doing in a tiny village like that? Nobody knows, but the main characters needed someone to teach them alchemy.

But please, show me great works of fantasy where there isn't deus ex machina.

First, let me say.. Tolkien sucks. Yes, LotR as a whole is "good"; if you can get past Tolkien's hideous writing style and boring narratives. One of the worst writers in my opinion, just as bad as Stephen King, only Tolkien had beter ideas.

Next, LotR, as a D&D adventure, would suck. All you do is get your ass kicked and meekly obey the DMPC. Wow, sounds like a thrill a minute... :smalleek: Kill the badguy? Nope. Destroy the artifact and save the world? Nope; you aren't even allowed to toss a friggin ring into a pool of lava. You have to get your frigging finger bitten off and then the DMPC gets to destroy the ring.

If that is your idea of a fun game, that's great. If your players have so little else to do other than listen to you sit around and *tell* them what they do; why not just save everyone some grief and some work, buy a few fantasy novels, pick a character for each PC and have the PCs make a cup of cocoa and sit at your feet and obediently keep their mouths shut as you read the stories to them.

As for your FMA strawman, you mean to tell me that the MAIN CHARACTERS (AKA PCs) were TRAINED during what was, essentially, character creation and backstory, by the most powerful alchemist? OMGWTFBBQDMPC!11111 Deus-ex WTF!!1111111

ahem, no - sorry kiddo. Their techer doesn't show up every fight and save them. She is a background NPC who exists to give plothooks and quests, she doesn't do the adventures for Al and Ed. She certainly wasn't there anytime they *really* needed her like against Envy, Sloth etc. or against the serial killers inside living armor like Al's.

If anything, your FMA arguement is the antithesis of the Deus Ex Machina arguement. There are powerful NPCs all over in FMA and rarely do any of them show up to help the brothers. Sure, they get NPC helpers semi-frequently, but they are usually just cannon fodder and not as powerful as Al or Ed.

/FMA fan

You want great fantasy without Deus Ex Machina?

Song of Fire and Ice. There is great fantasy where pretty much everyone is on equal footing and anyone and everyone can die.

How about Star Wars? Sure it's Science Fantasy, but Fantasy none the less. Aside from Yoda showing up to fight Dooku in Ep.2, the "PCs" of each film have to deal with situations on their own. Yes, an arguement can be made that the Ewoks saving the day in RotJ was a handwaves Deus Ex, another arguemnet says that C-3PO made his Diplomacy check and utilized a resource the DM put there if the PCs wanted to negotiate and not kll the Ewoks....

Indon
2008-03-07, 09:20 AM
Being on fire, however, does not grant foes combat advantage.

I am simultaneously full of hope and dread that this is being specified.

I am, however, extremely saddened that tripping someone, or disarming them, can no longer be done without Powerjutsu.

Edit: And it's looking like Sunder doesn't even _exist_ anymore.

Rutee
2008-03-07, 10:15 AM
Actually, 90% of the good stories out there involve the heros geting their asses kicqued in the beginning and sudenly beig saved by some ex-machina, like geting a big robot/magical servant/mysterious power at their comand out of nowhere or the apearance of some other guy who will become their mentor.

That's for what DM's are for. If the players are geting too unlucky, he gives them a little help. Happens all the time in books and movies and series.

I would think that I don't need to explain the difference between "Losing" and "Dying", but I keep being proven wrong. I have no problem with occasionally needing to fudge things for the PCs because something is weird or a string of bad rolls occurs, but a single 20 is not a string of bad rolls.

[/quote]


I am simultaneously full of hope and dread that this is being specified.
I keep thinking of GURPS, where setting yourself on fire is fewer penalties then blind fighting.


lulz LotR
Your tactics to get me to admit something is a good narrative technique involve invoking LotR, a really awful story? Your social-fu is clearly unrivaled. And don't get me started on FMA, with how often the NPCs /don't/ save Ed's ass.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-07, 10:15 AM
I am simultaneously full of hope and dread that this is being specified.

I am, however, extremely saddened that tripping someone, or disarming them, can no longer be done without Powerjutsu.

Edit: And it's looking like Sunder doesn't even _exist_ anymore.

Really? I need to get these advance copies of the rules that people seem to have, it looks like everyone who dislikes 4e owns a copy.

Seriously though, could you please post a link or a page number or *anything* that backs up that Trip, Sunder and Disarm do not exist at all or require use of some Power or other? The only mention I have heard of any of this was from some DDXP reports where the person in question said they didn't ask about it, but "suspected" that it was a power. Based on the way that the rules seem to be written, it seems to me that if they aren't powers, they will exist as some form of skill test ala STR vs. STR. as an opposed roll or something similar. *IF* they are powers, I imagine they will be something along the lines of the 3.5 feats Improved Disarm, Improved Trip and Improved Sunder - that is they *can* be done without the Power, but the Power makes it *much* easier.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-07, 10:50 AM
LOTR's Tom Bombadill.
First off, you can't compare LOTR, or indeed most novels in general, to a roleplaying campaign. This seems hardly the thread for "X character has to be at least level Y because he did Z / at most level P because he failed to do Q" debates. Google up "DM of the rings" for further analysis.

Second, Tolkien is not a good fantasy writer. He is an excellent linguist and world builder, and has certainly made the genre famous and prolific, but if somebody wrote a book in Tolkien's style these days, it wouldn't sell.

Third, it's debatable whether the events you mention are truly deus ex machina; an important underlying point abou LOTR is that it is really an epic struggle between certain high powers. Certainly the second event isn't; a recently-visited power who promises to watch out for you and to let you call him is not, by any stretch, a DEM.

Fourth, your point about Full Metal Alchemist has been addressed and proven wrong quite well by Mr. Friendly.

If you say you've never read fantasy without a DEM in it, I can only conclude you should read more good fantasy.



Seriously though, could you please post a link or a page number or *anything* that backs up that Trip, Sunder and Disarm do not exist at all or require use of some Power or other?
Says so on enworld. Yes, this does seem to be official. A design decision of 4E appears to be that your character cannot do anything except the actions explicitly spelled out on his character sheet. It's a matter of personal preference whether people like this because it's easier, or dislike this because it's constraining.

While I haven't seen this confirmed yet, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that sunder no longer exists, since 4E (and 3.5E, to a lesser extent) has obviously moved away from drawbacks from anything, or permanent negative results from anything. This, at least, is clear from the information so far, and arguably it's a good decision since people on the internet appear to consider sunder not much fun (and to advice against its use) because it destroys loot.

(edit) come to think of it, as I recall earlier editions didn't have sunder either, no other RPG I can think of has rules for sundering, and "breaking the other guy's stuff" can't have been all that feasible a strategy in the real-life middle ages either.

Indon
2008-03-07, 10:52 AM
Really? I need to get these advance copies of the rules that people seem to have, it looks like everyone who dislikes 4e owns a copy.

Sebastian posted a link to the ENWorld forums which had a snippet of the 4e rulebook, presumably that was given the DM's during DDXP. Disarm and Trip now explicitly require powers, and Sunder isn't mentioned despite being in that category of combat actions.

Though, we could houserule disarming and tripping and whatever into actual combat actions - they're just generic at-will powers, anyway.