PDA

View Full Version : So..we have crunch - how do you feel about 4e now?



Mr. Friendly
2008-02-29, 12:19 PM
The AICN review, Mike Shea's blog, and all* the various people who have talked about 4e (after playing it) seem to give generally positive commentary, if not outright showering praise upon the system.

Me, I'm still a bit nervous. I find myself having horribly wild swings back and forth between love and hate for all I have seen. Can this *really* be as good as it seems?

I thought after getting such a dose of crunchy goodness, I would have made up my mind fully. I just.. I don't know. It feels like, as an old naval collegue of mine is fond of saying... "It's a trap!"

So where is everyone else? I know a lot were on the fence. What about those who were comitted? Any change, for or against? What about those who were opposed to begin with? Any change, for or against?

*: all = all the people's reviews I have read so far. Just clarifying.

Tyger
2008-02-29, 12:28 PM
While the overwhelming "gush" factor is making me leery of accepting a lot of these high praises at face value, I do find that I really like most of what I am seeing crunch wise.

The ideals behind the ToB and the ToM being incorporated into base classes, the strengthening of melee classes overall, and the layout (actual alphabetical combat rules??? DOn't tease me!) all give me high hopes for it.

All that said, I am still holding off on judgement until I actually see the full rules, not just a cheat sheet designed to give a peak and not lay out any of the advancement systems, or higher level play.

All in all, I am cautiously optimistic, but that has been my stance on it all along.

Matthew
2008-02-29, 12:29 PM
It looks okay to me, as these things go. I don't like the increased number of Hit Points, the Healing surges or the 6 Hour Rests that fully restore all capabilities, but many people have been clamouring for that sort of thing for years, so I can hardly complain. The changes don't look to have been as violent as was expected, but it is recognisably another move further from what went before with BD&D, AD&D and D20.

Still, it's possible that I might prefer this to D20, but that's not necessarily saying much. :smallwink:

Indon
2008-02-29, 12:32 PM
The system has a lot of features I really like, and a lot I really dislike.

I no longer measure my feelings towards 4'th edition on a Like-Hate continuum, as a result. Instead, this is my continuum:

Difficulty and scope of neccessary houseruling --- vs --- Enjoyable qualities and potential of system.

So, on the one hand, it looks like it's shaping up to be a solid system in every way except that it will be painfully one-dimensional and boring in a mechanics perspective, which may well require more or less completely rewriting the system to fix.

On the other hand, because it will be so ridiculously simple, it should be relatively easy to mod in variant rules to do at least part of that job.

All in all, the jury's very much out on if all the houseruling will be worth it or not, or precisely what and how much I'll end up houseruling.

Muyten
2008-02-29, 12:32 PM
Well I'm still on the "ME WANT!"-side of the fence.
Most of what I've seen is pretty much like I exspected.
Not all of it may be to a degree I had hoped for (such as reduction in die-rolling) but overall I'm pretty happy.

There are still some mechanics I'm not quite sure about such as the diplomatic encounter system but I'll wait and see.

Morty
2008-02-29, 12:33 PM
It doesn't look as bad as the WoTC material so far indicated. There are still things I find just plainly bad, though. But I'm cerainly more optimistic than I were about a month ago.

kingpain
2008-02-29, 12:38 PM
Not liked but a little bit here and there. Like death and dying. So, I'll save my cash and houserule the new bleeding system.

Renegade Paladin
2008-02-29, 12:47 PM
It feels like, as an old naval collegue of mine is fond of saying... "It's a trap!"
It's a tarp! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HDLx08Oar3Q)

Sorry, had to. :smallbiggrin: Anyway, if it feels like a trap, that's because it is. :smallannoyed: There's some good stuff in there, but most of the changes feel arbitrary. Rules should never be arbitrary, whether they're the rules of a game or the laws of the land.

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-29, 12:51 PM
For awhile I have been on the fence, teetering on the edge. However, with my group saying they want to try it out, I've decided I'll get the core books and make a hybrid system, converting my 3.5 stuff to 3.75 and the 4th stuff to 3.75

I will end up homebrew a lot anyway since that's what I do in my free time now. And considering I get a minimum 42% discount with amazon.com's pre-order (and free shipping), I'm paying for 1 1/2 books, not a bad deal.

RTGoodman
2008-02-29, 12:55 PM
I've been behind 4E since it was announced (basically), and I still feel that way. The crunch we've been given, though I didn't like some of it, still backs up my feelings that I think the system will be more fun (for me at least), if not better. Of course, I've spent a lot of time and money of 3.5, so I won't leave it behind, but I'm almost definitely switching over to (the non-electronic version of) 4E when it comes out.

Human Paragon 3
2008-02-29, 12:55 PM
It's a tarp! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HDLx08Oar3Q)

Sorry, had to. :smallbiggrin: Anyway, if it feels like a trap, that's because it is. :smallannoyed: There's some good stuff in there, but most of the changes feel arbitrary. Rules should never be arbitrary, whether they're the rules of a game or the laws of the land.

Which rules feel arbitrary? This isn't a confrontation, I'm just curious about which ones you mean.

The_Werebear
2008-02-29, 01:01 PM
I'm still worried. The crunch was never what I feared, but the fluff. I am still very hesitant about Tieflings and Dragonborn as primary races.

Though, the removal of gnomes is something I have always been behind.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-29, 01:12 PM
I'm still giving it a solid 'meh'. I'm not thrilled about some of the mechanics (pretty much the ones that Matthew mentioned) and if Worlds and Monsters is any indication I'm going to loathe the fluff.

There are some things I like, and depending upon how the system runs and if advancment works smoothly, I might spend the time cutting out and rewriting the huge swaths of fluff I may need to. I'm going to need to see the system in full before I really know I suspect.

ShadowSiege
2008-02-29, 01:22 PM
I'm still firmly committed to my Amazon preorder ($68 for all three books, ~1/3 less than retail. Hail Amazon!), having been swayed early on. There are a lot of things in 3.x that I dislike, and it seems as though they'll be fixing a lot of them with 4e. Like gnomes.

I'm still not sure about dragonborn and tieflings, though I'm not vehemently opposed to them, more "wait and see, maybe they'll get played, maybe not."

Telonius
2008-02-29, 01:28 PM
I think I'm in the opposite position of Werebear. WotC can put out whatever fluff they want, and I'll continue to ignore it when it doesn't suit the needs of the campaign. It's relatively easy to repaint a car, I was more concerned that they were going to butcher the engine.

I'm also cautiously optimistic. I like some of what I'm seeing. But I'll wait to see what happens when this shiney new system gets thrown to an army of 1 million nerds who are just waiting to tear it to shreds with full ranks in munchkinry.

Rutee
2008-02-29, 01:37 PM
I think I'm in the opposite position of Werebear. WotC can put out whatever fluff they want, and I'll continue to ignore it when it doesn't suit the needs of the campaign. It's relatively easy to repaint a car, I was more concerned that they were going to butcher the engine.

Pretty much my thought on that matter.

I actually feel literally no different; Too much of the crunch feels like it's too isolated to really judge on, though it appears to back up their statements on where 4e was going to go mechanically.

[FLUX]
2008-02-29, 02:08 PM
I'll happily not buy the new edition, just like I didn't buy the old editions except in short bursts. Not because I don't like it, but because I'm cheap. I'm sure some enterprising pirate will .pdf it within a few weeks if it being released.

Even if the mechanics suck in the new edition, news flash: the 3.5 ones aren't great shakes either (Reference any OOTS strip where they make fun of technicalities in the casting system, the spiked chain cheese build, or puns on Roy's Great Cleavage). Though I do understand the "But I already know these rules" argument.

Either way, I have a related question: there are at least two responses in this thread in the vein of "I'm worried about the new edition". Are you actually worried about them releasing a new edition, like, physically worried? Or is it just a word choice thing, that I'm reading too much into?

P.S.: In before "OMG It's WoW the Tabletop kill it with fire!".

Snadgeros
2008-02-29, 02:22 PM
While certain improvements are welcome (balance/skills/etc.), character generation looks like crap. From what I'm seeing, there's not much customization, merely choosing from pre-made paths. While the simplicity is user-friendly, it doesn't offer enough room for me to make the billion and a half interesting character ideas I have. Making interesting and fun-to-play characters is my favorite part of DnD, and 4E just doesn't seem to have that.

KIDS
2008-02-29, 02:26 PM
I've been appreciative of 4E before, and after this my opinion is reinforced in that direction: likes it, quite a lot. And I enjoy this little "gushing" among tons of dreary negativity, it's a nice change. As I said before, D&D is one of rare topics where you will be actively flamed just for being optimistic. Eh, whatever :smallsmile:

Of course it could come out and I could read it and decide that it was all trash and lies, but the chances are slim.
+ -> +- -> +++

Xefas
2008-02-29, 03:02 PM
Everything I've seen about the mechanics I like.

A lot of the fluff I don't care about. I'm not getting rid of my Great Wheel, because I really super like it. I'll probably make Eladrin "High Elves" and Elves "Wood Elves" and that'll be that. Dragonborn will become the Kobold's big brother (in the vein of Goblins and Hobgoblins most likely), and Tielfings will have the same fluff as they did in 3rd edition.

Not exactly difficult to change...

Now I just wanna see the grapple, bullrush, disarm, sunder, trip, and overrun rules.

But, overall, I'm solidly sold on picking up the core books unless something horrendous and terrible comes to light before the release.

Behold_the_Void
2008-02-29, 03:11 PM
I'll likely try to browse the books before I buy them, but I have some book store gift cards sitting in my wallet with 4e's name on it, and have had them since Christmas.

SamTheCleric
2008-02-29, 03:12 PM
I just went up to pay my local shopkeep for my preorder... I was on the fence... Now I'm volunteering to DM a campaign for the local group.

Oh, and I've decided on Ranger for my Living FR character.

(I also picked up D&D Inn-Fighting. Looks amusing)

Deepblue706
2008-02-29, 03:20 PM
After reading these sheets (http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://picasaweb.google.com/gertiebarden/4eCharacterSheets), I'm feeling a bit nervous too, Mr. Friendly.

I *want* to believe 4ed will turn out great. Still, though, I really don't know what to make of it all.

Trog
2008-02-29, 03:21 PM
Still positive. They seemed to have lived up to their crunch improvement promises with what has been leaked so far. I'm looking forward to picking up the 3 core books as soon as I can.

Some of the fluff isn't exactly my favorite flavor of fluff but I'm open to change. Some of the other DnD settings were getting kind of tired long, long ago anyway. Though I AM glad they revamped their description of halflings from their earlier release. Much better now.

All in all I'm still buying it.

Spiryt
2008-02-29, 03:25 PM
I just wanted to say, that, while some stuff (Hunters Quarry) looks quite promising (I hope that it would be well developed), chalenges, especialy Divine Chalenge couldn't be much more stupid. :smallsigh:

Starbuck_II
2008-02-29, 03:38 PM
I just wanted to say, that, while some stuff (Hunters Quarry) looks quite promising (I hope that it would be well developed), chalenges, especialy Divine Chalenge couldn't be much more stupid. :smallsigh:

You do know that that was a Arcane spell in 3.5 called Mindless Rage (divine one is weaker though it seems, doesn't force them).

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-29, 03:46 PM
I'm still worried. The crunch was never what I feared, but the fluff. I am still very hesitant about Tieflings and Dragonborn as primary races.

Though, the removal of gnomes is something I have always been behind.
Why so hesitant? People have been trying to play dragon-like characters, even if they have to cripple themselves to do it (half-dragon) for ages. It's a step up from "elves, dwarves, halflings. (Also, gnomes.)" I think.

And, yes. Stupid gnomes.



Sorry, had to. :smallbiggrin: Anyway, if it feels like a trap, that's because it is. :smallannoyed: There's some good stuff in there, but most of the changes feel arbitrary. Rules should never be arbitrary, whether they're the rules of a game or the laws of the land.

How are they arbitrary? They all seem to be designed to make the game play and feel a certain way. That's not arbitrary.




So, on the one hand, it looks like it's shaping up to be a solid system in every way except that it will be painfully one-dimensional and boring in a mechanics perspective, which may well require more or less completely rewriting the system to fix.
Buh? The mechanics we've seen so far don't seem one-dimensional or boring to me. Compare those first-level characters with 3.5 core-only first-level characters.



It looks okay to me, as these things go. I don't like the increased number of Hit Points, the Healing surges or the 6 Hour Rests that fully restore all capabilities, but many people have been clamouring for that sort of thing for years, so I can hardly complain. The changes don't look to have been as violent as was expected, but it is recognisably another move further from what went before with BD&D, AD&D and D20.

Still, it's possible that I might prefer this to D20, but that's not necessarily saying much. :smallwink:

If you actually like that at first level, you can easily go down in one shot, and the roll of the die is vastly more important than any bonuses you might have...

Burn the witch!

Spiryt
2008-02-29, 03:54 PM
You do know that that was a Arcane spell in 3.5 called Mindless Rage (divine one is weaker though it seems, doesn't force them).

The thing is that we are discussing crunch, yes... The crunch of chalenges is perfectly okay - for a spell, (although rather sofisticated though), not so much for some paladin abilitty. That just screams "agro" to me.

Cybren
2008-02-29, 03:55 PM
I like the ability to go down in one shot at any level!

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-29, 03:57 PM
The thing is that we are discussing crunch, yes... The crunch of chalenges is perfectly okay - for a spell, (although rather sofisticated though), not so much for some paladin abilitty. That just screams "agro" to me.

...so it's okay for an arcane spell, but not okay for a divine power-fuelled supernatural ability. It's "aggro!" when it's a divine ability, but it's, what, "control" when it's an arcane ability.

...
...
...

Scintillatus
2008-02-29, 04:01 PM
Most of the ruleset changes so far are things I planned to modify into 3.5 myself. I don't like alignment, I don't like how Martial characters are expected to doss around while Arcane casters remake the universe, I don't like mundanity, I don't like useless races or useless classes or useless combinations. Finally, an Aasimar won't be better at being a Sorceror or Warlock than a Tiefling.

I'm really liking it. I wish they'd fit more base classes and races into the Player's Handbook, I wish they weren't waiting a year to give me more classes.

Most of the anti-4e stuff I've seen so far has followed a very simple pattern; "how dare you make the game more fun for people other than me". Yeah, it's reduced a lot - but seriously. Complaining about players being able to roll attack and damage, complaining about wizards not being godlike, complaining about a more cinematic and less simulationist feel - it's a bit ridiculous.

The Healing Surge/No +CON to Hit Points thing DOES have me mildly concerned, but that's only because cheese builds will go towards doing one massive damage burst (and doing it first). At the same time, DMs can tell cheesers to bugger off, and that's no different from 3e.

Also, "Exploits". Teehee.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-29, 04:03 PM
Incidentally, I just thought I'd point out:

We have the Fighter, the Rogue, the Ranger, and the Warlord as "martial", entirely nonmagical classes. That's 4/8, compared to 3.5's Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue, which make 3/11!

Not only that, the Warlord is a Leader, the Rogue is a Striker, and the Fighter is a Defender. Controllers seem less vital given the short duration of control effects, and I'm sure a Ranger will be able to manage some semblance of control via archery. Basically, you have the option of an entirely Martial party.

In other words, if you like playing non-supernatural characters, 4E's gonna be good for you.

Artanis
2008-02-29, 04:07 PM
I don't like .. the 6 Hour Rests that fully restore all capabilities
I just don't understand this attitude, regardless of who it's from. Resting for X hours has restored all your party's capabilities since the beginning of time. How is it suddenly different and terrible when...resting for X hours restores all your party's capabilities?

Scintillatus
2008-02-29, 04:10 PM
Oh, you know what else I like? The class system seems much, much more friendly for homebrewing and house ruling. Instead of having to make a PrC or base class, I can just make a couple Powers and Feats, and the focus of the class changes entirely.

It also means making flavorful, iconic characters is much easier. Swashbuckler? Rogue, Martial Training, Charisma and Dexterity powers. Rather than four seperate classes from three books just to get myself combat effective AND flavor-appropriate.

Spiryt
2008-02-29, 04:12 PM
...so it's okay for an arcane spell, but not okay for a divine power-fuelled supernatural ability. It's "aggro!" when it's a divine ability, but it's, what, "control" when it's an arcane ability.



Yes, beacuse, as far as I know, arcane spell is quite standard "mind-rape" spell, and DC is god-like power intervening to force some goblin/something inteligent to attack one folk instead of other - potentialy attack anything at all.

I could unterstand if it was forcing only evil outsiders or some generaly unholy beings to attack.

Rutee
2008-02-29, 04:16 PM
Yes, beacuse, as far as I know, arcane spell is quite standard "mind-rape" spell, and DC is god-like power intervening to force some goblin/something inteligent to attack one folk instead of other - potentialy attack anything at all.

I could unterstand if it was forcing only evil outsiders or some generaly unholy beings to attack.

Swing and a miss. This doesn't address Rachel's point, that because the ability comes from a new source, it's suddenly OMGAGGRO when it wasn't before. The reasons a divine force might actually do this are varied, but the simplest one is "I like my devoted follower who propagates my aims succeeding"

Honestly now that I know an Arcane spell was doing it, I'm going to start actively not paying attention to people who whine about aggro in 4e. God forbid that someone else get your shiney abilities.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-29, 04:18 PM
Yes, beacuse, as far as I know, arcane spell is quite standard "mind-rape" spell, and DC is god-like power intervening to force some goblin/something inteligent to attack one folk instead of other - potentialy attack anything at all.

I could unterstand if it was forcing only evil outsiders or some generaly unholy beings to attack.

...okay, *what*.

DC isn't "god-like power" anymore than Cure Light Wounds was.
Or, you know, Hold Person. Which *only* worked on people, not evil outsiders, and was a mind-affecting enchantment. "Oh noes", as they say on the internet. Divine spells and powers have never been only about affecting "unholy" things.

If an Archivist manages to learn a divine version of Mindless Rage (or a sorcerer with Southern Magician casts it as a divine spell), does it suddenly become "aggro!" rather than "control"?

Why is it okay for an arcane spell or ability to affect someone's mind, but not okay for a divine spell or ability to do so? Arcane/divine is just power source, the spell/ability is still just what it does.

You've got a fundamentally unfounded view of arcane vs. divine abilities that isn't based in actual arcane vs. divine spells/powers and doesn't make much sense, here.

Larrin
2008-02-29, 04:24 PM
Aggro is a way of "causing" (some would say forcing) monsters to attack. Divine challenge keeps their free will intact. But if they attack some one else, they get a penalty (plenty of divine spells do this) and some damage (plenty of spells do this). Essnetially, you cast a spell on them, but you give them a choice to prevent it from going off. Since the Paladins job is defending the weak, you want to make sure that the monsters have a REASON to attack the pally instead of the weak. I think the initial ability was "Asking Politely but with no consequences" and it just didn't work out.

DeathQuaker
2008-02-29, 04:31 PM
Thing is, even the "crunch" we've seen is fairly minimal. We get to see how some stuff works... but for every snippet of something that I see and say, "That's a good idea," or, "I do that/houserule that in 3.5 anyway," I see something else that makes me go, "Whuh?"

It's been fun in its own sort of geeky way to look at what's coming out for 4e. The thing is, I do it in spite of myself, because I know there's absolutely no way I can make a decision on 4e until I have a copy of the rules in my hands and can read through them myself. With some bits looking awful and others looking great, it's even more clear that I need to see the whole picture before I make a decision.

I could ramble about what I like and don't like, but in attempting to, I've just found myself saying, "But I don't know if that's what it'll look like as a whole."

I WILL say this: the official WotC published previews so far--i.e., the Races and Classes book and the Worlds and Monsters book--seriously turned me off purely in terms of the general poor quality of the prose ("It's cool, and it's cool, and this is cool too") and in terms of how they prioritized what they thought should tell us (e.g., we don't know much about dwarven abilities, but we must REST ASSURED, dwarven chicks are HAWT. That went REALLY far in helping me see what they felt was important about their new edition).

If the writing quality of the new books is similar, that alone may turn me off from buying a PHB--even if the mechanics are fantastic.

BUT, if the mechanics as a whole look good and someone else will run a game, I'll probably try it out as a player.

Given all the work I've put into designing my homebrew world for 3.5 and, from what I've seen of both fluff and crunch, seeing it's unlikely I will be able to easily "convert" the world over to the next edition, AND given I dislike their new fluff for the Forgotten Realms which would be the other campaign world I'd run in, I will probably not GM in the system. But again, at least with running my homebrew campaign, that may change if I see the differences are not what I expected them to be.

In a way, in retrospect, I really wish they weren't previewing the game AT ALL. I'd save myself a lot of fretting and upset over nothing I can control anyway and probably make a better and actually more informed decision when the game came out (because I wouldn't have things like the poorly written preview books influencing my choice to buy).

lordmarcoos
2008-02-29, 04:34 PM
Some of the crunch on those character sheet's really confuses me... like how that ranger can apparently either use a standard action to attack at +6 with his longbow, or, I guess, use a standard action to activate the at-will power careful attack, and get a +10 to attack. Maybe theres something I'm missing here, but when would you ever make a normal attack as that ranger?

Also, I'm wondering if any of the posters here know of anywhere to go to see someone's careful dissection of the information provided on those sheets, if such a place exists.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-29, 04:42 PM
Some of the crunch on those character sheet's really confuses me... like how that ranger can apparently either use a standard action to attack at +6 with his longbow, or, I guess, use a standard action to activate the at-will power careful attack, and get a +10 to attack. Maybe theres something I'm missing here, but when would you ever make a normal attack as that ranger?
Um, you wouldn't. The D&D XP sheets even said "use your at-will attacks instead of your basic attacks".

The only time you'll be making basic attacks is when you have to make basic attacks (like for attacks of opportunity).

Incidentally, Careful Attack looks really good. +10? That's more than anyone else gets, that's for sure.

Deepblue706
2008-02-29, 04:43 PM
If an Archivist manages to learn a divine version of Mindless Rage (or a sorcerer with Southern Magician casts it as a divine spell), does it suddenly become "aggro!" rather than "control"?

Why is it okay for an arcane spell or ability to affect someone's mind, but not okay for a divine spell or ability to do so? Arcane/divine is just power source, the spell/ability is still just what it does.

I'd like to say that's a good point.

However, I would prefer more mechanics that implicitly deal with "aggro" (for example, a spell that perhaps forces the target to just attack the nearest foe, regardless of the situation), instead of having an ability that effectively says, "Attack me or God craps on you, lol"

ShadowSiege
2008-02-29, 05:35 PM
I'd like to say that's a good point.

However, I would prefer more mechanics that implicitly deal with "aggro" (for example, a spell that perhaps forces the target to just attack the nearest foe, regardless of the situation), instead of having an ability that effectively says, "Attack me or God craps on you, lol"

I don't see how it's particularly different from the fighter's as-yet-undetailed-and-unnamed ability of "Attack me/stay in melee with me or I stab you" One is a martial source, the other is a divine, both let the target choose otherwise but makes them pay a price. As for powers that actually compel the target to attack a certain person, we haven't seen any non-rogue powers above 1st level, and those would presumably be a higher level power.

Jayngfet
2008-02-29, 06:33 PM
drow are a type of fey, two dragon types missing, no monster feats... bad things

I'm liking everything else, particularly how a fighter with an axe works differently from a fighter with a sword

but i still want my half-orcs

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-29, 06:37 PM
There's no chance half-orcs won't be in the monster manual.

Artanis
2008-02-29, 06:41 PM
drow are a type of fey, two dragon types missing, no monster feats... bad things
Those two dragons aren't missing, they've been replaced with Iron and Adamantine Dragons.

horseboy
2008-02-29, 06:51 PM
I can't quite place why, but for some reason those character sheets remind me of Mordheim gang characters.

Leon
2008-02-29, 07:26 PM
Those two dragons aren't missing, they've been replaced with Iron and Adamantine Dragons.

They are still down 2 Iconic dragons regardless of what other Metal is the new flavor of the month

Lappy9000
2008-02-29, 07:28 PM
I've spent so much dough on 3.5 that I'm not about to switch at the flip of a hat. More likely, I'll end up simply incorporating some particularly useful things from 4.0 onto my gaming table.

Rutee
2008-02-29, 07:30 PM
I've spent so much dough on 3.5 that I'm not about to switch at the flip of a hat. More likely, I'll end up simply incorporating some particularly useful things from 4.0 onto my gaming table.

This is why piracy is the correct answer. DnD books are far too small for my tastes.

Granted that my tastes have lead to my destroying my creative energy with reading material though.

Starsinger
2008-02-29, 07:34 PM
They are still down 2 Iconic dragons regardless of what other Metal is the new flavor of the month

Wait.. so they removed (pick 2) Copper/Brass/Bronze and replaced them with Iron and Adamantine? That's kinda cool.

Also.. can someone explain to me how that warlock (From the sheets) has a Wizard spell? By the way, those sheets have totally gotten me even more excited about 4E than I was before.

ShadowSiege
2008-02-29, 07:39 PM
By the way, those sheets have totally gotten me even more excited about 4E than I was before.

The new sheets remind me very much of the simplicity of the first official D&D character sheets. They look to be very... clean for lack of a better term. I like it.

Starsinger
2008-02-29, 07:48 PM
The new sheets remind me very much of the simplicity of the first official D&D character sheets. They look to be very... clean for lack of a better term. I like it.

Actually sheets are probably going to be more messy, I recall the simplicity of the D&D Gameday character stat cards.

AtomicKitKat
2008-02-29, 07:50 PM
Thus far, the only thing that has impressed me about 4e was the Dragon's full-attack actually bringing back some importance to facing.

Izar Goldbranch
2008-02-29, 08:34 PM
Wait.. so they removed (pick 2) Copper/Brass/Bronze and replaced them with Iron and Adamantine? That's kinda cool.

Also.. can someone explain to me how that warlock (From the sheets) has a Wizard spell? By the way, those sheets have totally gotten me even more excited about 4E than I was before.

They got rid of Brass and Bronze. They explained why in the Preview books. They felt the Copper/Brass/Bronze dragons were simply not distinct enough (from each other) and they didnt like that.

So they kept copper and replaced the other two with two metals that are important to D&D. One, Iron, is important everywhere. The other, Adamantine, is iconic to D&D. I dont have a problem with it.

Xefas
2008-02-29, 08:51 PM
I'd have probably gone with Platinum rather than Adamantine. Isn't Bahamut already a precedent for such a thing? Though, I suppose it might undermine the supremacy of the Gold Dragon.

Also, I miss my Mercury Dragon from 2nd edition :smallfrown:

Izar Goldbranch
2008-02-29, 09:03 PM
I'd have probably gone with Platinum rather than Adamantine. Isn't Bahamut already a precedent for such a thing? Though, I suppose it might undermine the supremacy of the Gold Dragon.

Also, I miss my Mercury Dragon from 2nd edition :smallfrown:

Platinum Dragons pretty much begin and end with Bahamut.

And, since they've pared down the Gods list, Bahamut is the Big Good God in 4e. A lot of Gods are gone. Hextor, Heironious, etc.

Kord is still there. Pelor too. Corellon, Moradin, Sehanine, Tiamat and Bahamut. Obad-Hai. Those are the ones I specifically remember from the preview books.

And they've removed a lot of the racial ties to deities. The example they gave is that if you play a dwarven wizard, he's as likely (if not more so) to worship Corellon as he is Moradin.

Jayngfet
2008-02-29, 09:25 PM
Those two dragons aren't missing, they've been replaced with Iron and Adamantine Dragons.

those were my 2nd and 3rd favorite dragons.

and if two kids dissapear, and two different kids arrive, the first two are still gone

Starsinger
2008-02-29, 09:29 PM
those were my 2nd and 3rd favorite dragons.

and if two kids dissapear, and two different kids arrive, the first two are still gone

I don't know what you mean. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOtherDarrin)

Bleen
2008-02-29, 09:39 PM
LATE TO THE PARTY. WHOOPS.

Anyway, addressing the OP, crunch-wise, I like what 4e is doing, and with my current mainstay DM and group, the adjustment will probably be pretty beneficial once we try it. (We've always complained that a lot of things take too much time, like handling skill checks, and even getting through a small combat takes too long for our tastes and can bog up the story)

Mechanically, it works for me.

From a design and fluff standpoint, though, I'm fairly sketchy. When I flip through my books, sometimes I feel like WoTC has a general idea but can't -quite- get a handle on what needs to be said and what doesn't. "The PCs are the central focus of the campaign"? What does that even mean, anyway? Isn't that like, a common accepted fact? Is there like, some DM who spends thirty minutes a session RPing out something miles away from the PC's that's totally irrelevant to them? And (as might be noticed on these boards), the meaning of that fact can get skewed in certain ways that a newbie might interpret differently. Sometimes, I cross my arms and go "Wizards, do you even know your own game?" when I read what they have to say on things.

Then again, that's not really a bash on 4e as it is WoTC in general, it feels, since they do that in 3.5e, and 3e, and heck, they've all been reasonably-playable.

Let's see...

Fluff sucks. I understand that it's just a generic backdrop, but at the same time, it kind of forms the general template of what one might use.

The races bore me. Not a travesty against god or anything, they're just kinda..meh. I'm fine with Tieflings, I'm fine with Dragonborn (mostly...), and I'm fine with Gnomes getting the ax. I'm glad that elves got their multiple personality disorder fixed. And back to Tieflings, they're one of the few fluffs I like, since they seem more prone to be haughty jerks than emo halfbreeds and that's fine with me. Then again, what do I know about Tieflings?

But, like I said. Our group favors homebrew settings anyway, so fluff won't matter.

Eh, I guess in summary, "WoTC is being WoTC, 4e looks decent so far, but I'm not leaping off the fence to go buy my books as soon as they come out just yet."

Also, sorry for interrupting dragon-chat eXtreme.

Rutee
2008-02-29, 09:48 PM
From a design and fluff standpoint, though, I'm fairly sketchy. When I flip through my books, sometimes I feel like WoTC has a general idea but can't -quite- get a handle on what needs to be said and what doesn't. "The PCs are the central focus of the campaign"? What does that even mean, anyway? Isn't that like, a common accepted fact? Is there like, some DM who spends thirty minutes a session RPing out something miles away from the PC's that's totally irrelevant to them? And (as might be noticed on these boards), the meaning of that fact can get skewed in certain ways that a newbie might interpret differently. Sometimes, I cross my arms and go "Wizards, do you even know your own game?" when I read what they have to say on things.

Given some of the vehement bile that has been spewed about that very statement, I must conclude that there are indeed DMs who narrate out events that happen far, far away and don't affect the group directly. There are people who took great offense to what is, yes, common sense..

[FLUX]
2008-02-29, 10:06 PM
Come on, Rutee, don't YOU want to hear about how awesome the GM's PCs/ fanfic/plot exposition are? I know I do.

[ / sarcasm ]

Also, dumb question, anyone know if Fharlaghn (butchered the spelling I know, the God of Roads and Wanderers) is still around? Doesn't really matter ultimately, just wondering.

ShadowSiege
2008-02-29, 10:19 PM
;4005969']Come on, Rutee, don't YOU want to hear about how awesome the GM's PCs/ fanfic/plot exposition are? I know I do.

[ / sarcasm ]

Also, dumb question, anyone know if Fharlaghn (butchered the spelling I know, the God of Roads and Wanderers) is still around? Doesn't really matter ultimately, just wondering.

Haha, I would hate such a game. I would probably use such information to track down said characters and either kill them, ruin the plot, kill the party, or all of the above in vindication for that sort of thing. I'm with you (FLUX & Rutee) that that it should be behind the scenes and moving according to the GMs wishes.

I have no recollection if Fharlaghn (I think FLUX spelled it right so I'm using it) is in. He was always a bit of a hanger-on kind of god that they seemed to have thrown in just to have a neutral god that is nature or magic themed and a travel god at the same time.

Dervag
2008-02-29, 10:26 PM
Also his name is a Gygaxian pun.

Xefas
2008-02-29, 10:34 PM
And, since they've pared down the Gods list, Bahamut is the Big Good God in 4e. A lot of Gods are gone. Hextor, Heironious, etc.

Pfft, Hextor is never gone. Like the mighty Metapod, he merely bides his time until the proper moment to reemerge, more powerful than e'er before!

Jayngfet
2008-02-29, 10:43 PM
another thing whats with dragon replacement? can't we get all four dragons, we have eleventy dozen or so kinds of elf and hundreds of things that look like elves, and they don't even get title billing...

Indon
2008-02-29, 10:58 PM
...so it's okay for an arcane spell, but not okay for a divine power-fuelled supernatural ability. It's "aggro!" when it's a divine ability, but it's, what, "control" when it's an arcane ability.

Tanks get taunts that generate aggro.

Debuffers get control abilities.

(DPS get to make mistakes :P)

Starsinger
2008-02-29, 10:59 PM
another thing whats with dragon replacement? can't we get all four dragons, we have eleventy dozen or so kinds of elf and hundreds of things that look like elves, and they don't even get title billing...

Because when you add two more metallic dragons, you add two more chromatic dragons. Now personally, I'd love purple and yellow dragons, but I guess they didn't want to add two more heads to Tiamat.

LibraryOgre
2008-02-29, 11:08 PM
The AICN review, Mike Shea's blog, and all* the various people who have talked about 4e (after playing it) seem to give generally positive commentary, if not outright showering praise upon the system.

I haven't been following the 4e news.

How many of the people releasing these glowing, gushing, reviews are WotC/Hasbro employees, and how many are independent reviewers?

'Cause, ya know, when someone who gets a paycheck from a company, or has a contractual relationship with them, talks up their product, it's a bit different from an independent reviewer doing so. And I say this as someone who does have a contractual relationship with a gaming company (Palladium; not an employee, but a freelancer with an in-place NDA and a couple pots on their stove).

Indon
2008-02-29, 11:14 PM
Because when you add two more metallic dragons, you add two more chromatic dragons. Now personally, I'd love purple and yellow dragons, but I guess they didn't want to add two more heads to Tiamat.

Green would be better than Purple, in my opinion.

Zincorium
2008-02-29, 11:17 PM
Green would be better than Purple, in my opinion.

:smallconfused:

Don't we already have those? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#greenDragon)

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 11:22 PM
'Cause, ya know, when someone who gets a paycheck from a company, or has a contractual relationship with them, talks up their product, it's a bit different from an independent reviewer doing so.
Being under an NDA so you can test their product doesn't mean you're no longer an "independent" reviewer. Unless there's a monetary stake involved, I'm going to take him at face value and assume he really likes 4th edition.

Bleen
2008-02-29, 11:27 PM
I've gotten to a point where I completely disregard what reviews have to say on anything, because it always seems like the opinions are well-funded rather than well-founded. Then again, I'm skeptical about everything.

And off to the side, what the heck would a purple dragon use as a breath weapon, anyway?

horseboy
2008-02-29, 11:29 PM
Because when you add two more metallic dragons, you add two more chromatic dragons. Now personally, I'd love purple and yellow dragons, but I guess they didn't want to add two more heads to Tiamat.Purple isn't a dragon breed, it's a half red/half blue dragon. But yeah, yellow would work.

Xefas
2008-02-29, 11:30 PM
Because when you add two more metallic dragons, you add two more chromatic dragons. Now personally, I'd love purple and yellow dragons, but I guess they didn't want to add two more heads to Tiamat.

Yellow overlaps too much with the Gold Dragon.

Flesh (Colored) Dragons for the win.

LibraryOgre
2008-02-29, 11:31 PM
Being under an NDA so you can test their product doesn't mean you're no longer an "independent" reviewer. Unless there's a monetary stake involved, I'm going to take him at face value and assume he really likes 4th edition.

True... but, again, I don't know these guys. What's their relationship with WotC?

Indon
2008-02-29, 11:32 PM
Don't we already have those? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#greenDragon)

Man, that's what I get for having parties that almost never encounter chromatic dragons.

Jayngfet
2008-02-29, 11:48 PM
Because when you add two more metallic dragons, you add two more chromatic dragons. Now personally, I'd love purple and yellow dragons, but I guess they didn't want to add two more heads to Tiamat.

fairly sure that some group uses a purple dragon because it isn't already a kind of dragon...


I was browsing through a phb in some store, I may buy it

Tam_OConnor
2008-03-01, 12:26 AM
Purple dragons? We've got that one from Cormyr, and we've got another one from Dragon magazine that breathed...don't have my copy in front of me...ah, right 'a conflagration of fire and lightning.' And the picture made it look like Puff (the Magic Dragon) had gotten a dye-job. Hehe. Fat dragon flying through the stormy sky. But I think we also had Yellow (sulfur) and Orange (sodium) dragons. It was a beautiful Chromatic spectrum, and Tiamet didn't even grow more heads. Can't recall what their fluff explanation was. Maybe that these were forgotten dragons, and that there was another dragon goddess, or an anspect of Tiamet, or something.

And we've already got Iron and Adamantine dragons. Well, we have steel dragons. Adamantine were LN planar dragons with the ability to summon rilmari (Fiend Folio) and Steel (Greyhawk dragons) were polymorphers. And I want my Mercury dragons too! Honestly, folks, they had a dragon flashlight! Reflective wings to catch and direct light, which then formed a searchlight. For a Dragon. Which could see in the dark. Still, awesome.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I like the crunch that I've seen, but the fluff makes me WANT TO TEAR OUT MY BRAINPAN AND FEED IT TO RAVENOUS HIPPO KAIJU! Ah well, Serenity RPG will always be there for me...

JadedDM
2008-03-01, 12:45 AM
The 2E MM had yellow and brown dragons, but neither were considered 'true' chromatic dragons. Just like mercury and steel dragons weren't considered 'true' metallics, either.


Serenity RPG will always be there for me...

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that they can't take the sky from you?

horseboy
2008-03-01, 12:49 AM
The 2E MM had yellow and brown dragons, but neither were considered 'true' chromatic dragons. Just like mercury and steel dragons weren't considered 'true' metallics, either.

Steel dragons, weren't those the ones with the skin condition?

Tam_OConnor
2008-03-01, 01:37 AM
Exactly. Unless they wheel in the Death Star. Then they take the sky, and the ground too. And tractor beam you in. And even if you blow the darn battlestation up, it still causes the Endor Holocaust.

Last I checked, Steels were LN types that spent all their time in humanoid form. Hence, 'Greyhawk dragon.' Silly urbanites. Nice casting abilities for a dragon, though.
[URL="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040328a"] (EDIT: And more proof that I don't know how to insert links)
Course, they updated it in one of last print issues of Dragon...

Ah, brown dragons. Because the deserts aren't full enough with all the blues and brasses. And possibly the Fang dragons.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-01, 01:40 AM
While certain improvements are welcome (balance/skills/etc.), character generation looks like crap. From what I'm seeing, there's not much customization, merely choosing from pre-made paths. While the simplicity is user-friendly, it doesn't offer enough room for me to make the billion and a half interesting character ideas I have. Making interesting and fun-to-play characters is my favorite part of DnD, and 4E just doesn't seem to have that.

Every RPG system ever works this way. Period. You have some number of options. The relative quality and diversity of choices is what is important, and we've seen no indication whatsoever it is less than in the current edition; indeed, it looks like there is much, much MORE diversity, not less. Characters have a lot MORE choices, not less. How many choices does a first level fighter get to make in 3.5 versus 4E? By the looks of it, the 4E fighter has many, many more choices.


The Healing Surge/No +CON to Hit Points thing DOES have me mildly concerned, but that's only because cheese builds will go towards doing one massive damage burst (and doing it first). At the same time, DMs can tell cheesers to bugger off, and that's no different from 3e.

I don't think that's really going to be an issue because I suspect you won't be able to one-shot things very often at higher levels simply because of the way damage scales. If it works as reviewed, then I suspect damage scaling will be linear, not exponential.


This is why piracy is the correct answer. DnD books are far too small for my tastes.

Granted that my tastes have lead to my destroying my creative energy with reading material though.

So don't play the game. Stealing their property is quite illegal, you know, and highly unethical.

Not to mention, I doubt the Giant would appreciate you using his playground to promote illegal activities.

JadedDM
2008-03-01, 02:20 AM
Ah, brown dragons. Because the deserts aren't full enough with all the blues and brasses. And possibly the Fang dragons.

Yep, and the yellows lived in the desert, too.

horseboy
2008-03-01, 02:25 AM
Yep, and the yellows lived in the desert, too.Didn't the mercury as well? No wonder deserts have so little life in them.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 02:35 AM
Despite all their lofty declarations that 4e is the bee's knees, they will be sadly deficient of the Walker in the Waste. Therefore it is dead to me.

No bards in core (alleged to be in a supplement). It is doubly dead to me.

If it is supposed to increase the enjoyment of the players why would you deny the bards? Seriously, why deny a whole class that has been a staple for 20+ years?

I keep thinking that 4e is just some gigantic homebrew and it shouldn't be lauded if it arbitrarily leaves out bards. Also, it would mean that the bard lovers like myself will have to not only buy the PHB for 4e, but also a supplement just so we can adequately play the class that by all rights SHOULD have been in the book to start with.

Seriously you guys, it's not like we're talking about more recent classes like Duskblade or even Warlock. We're talking about a class that has been a part of D&D for decades. To leave them out is not only insulting but shows just how little respect for the whole genre the creators have.

So it comes across as "Prestige classes are stupid. We are going to GIVE players classes for free! Gnomes are stupid. Now they are monsters. Oh, and no playing as monsters, that's stupid. Who would want to play as a monster anyway? Fighters need to be able to heal all damage in one night's rest, it's stupid that he can't in 3.x. Seriously, so what if he got gored by a minotaur, why can't he just walk it off after a slight nap? Oh, and bards, they are lame. No bards."

Maybe I'm wrong on the ban on playing as monsters, as I've not read all 70+ pages of sneak peeks, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is how it will be.

Short version:

No Walker in the Waste = damning.
No Bards = disgraceful.

Deepblue706
2008-03-01, 02:44 AM
I don't see how it's particularly different from the fighter's as-yet-undetailed-and-unnamed ability of "Attack me/stay in melee with me or I stab you" One is a martial source, the other is a divine, both let the target choose otherwise but makes them pay a price. As for powers that actually compel the target to attack a certain person, we haven't seen any non-rogue powers above 1st level, and those would presumably be a higher level power.

I didn't say that was what I believed to be the case - I'm only saying I hope that the game doesn't essentially become Guild Wars, in the respect that Things Happen Because It's In Your Tool-Bar And That's What Makes The Game Work. I'm not trying to say that previous editions have necessarily "gotten it right", but when I look to later editions, I expect to see improvement.

Personally, I see something so plain as the Divine Challenge Paladin ability to be absolutely tasteless. As time progresses, I am further convinced that WotC is taking the same approach with D&D as they took Magic: The Gathering - which is essentially a game where you get myriads of "cool" abilities with mind-bending synergy, which lack any explanation as to how they would actually work. I'm not asking for the physics behind a fireball - I just want to know why I get healed for hurling it at someone (don't clerics get an ability that heals you when you hurt?).

I'd much rather use something that makes intuitive sense and doesn't necessarily apply to specific situations and implemented solely in order to enforce balance with an iron fist. I want balance just as much as anyone else,
but I don't want abilities that decide how the game works with such obvious arbitrarity.

Are there other things like this? You mentioned a Fighter ability. If it's no different from the Divine Challenge, then take it that I see it as no better. If I failed to mention it, don't assume I necessarily think it's a viable alternative. I just might not have noticed it existed, or perhaps displaying all facets of a concept of which I gave only one example is simply too much work for someone as tired as me.

ColdBrew
2008-03-01, 02:55 AM
I'm not asking for the physics behind a fireball - I just want to know why I get healed for hurling it at someone (don't clerics get an ability that heals you when you hurt?).
Because the cleric channeling the divine power of a god says so. You're whining about how the abilities aren't backed up with logically consistent fluff. In a thread about how we've now seen some crunch. From quick play material designed to showcase the new system. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Deepblue706
2008-03-01, 03:09 AM
Because the cleric channeling the divine power of a god says so. You're whining about how the abilities aren't backed up with logically consistent fluff. In a thread about how we've now seen some crunch. From quick play material designed to showcase the new system. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

All I'm saying is that I think "says so" isn't very entertaining to me. I decided to post something about fluff in this "crunch" thread simply because it looks like, to me, that crunch is pretty much the only part of the equation, as I do not believe this kind of crunch can be supported by any entertaining fluff.

Is it really a problem if I speculate after considering WotC's trends and how they actually admitted MMORPGs were an influence to the creation process? Do you really feel like it's inappropriate for someone to post that they think that to have certain crunch, that fluff is so aversely affected to a point where the game is painful to play? You have not made me reconsider if whether or not what I have said should be discussed here - this is, after all, a thread about how crunch is influencing the game, which is a game that happens to have fluff value. Therefore, I don't think you're in the right to belittle me for having brought up how "that crunch factor eliminates aspects of the game that some people enjoy."

No, I don't have all the facts available to me - but, consider this: does a game that explicitly states that Wizards have the ability to, as a free action, run up a wall, fire 34 magic missiles, heal his allies for half the damage dealt, land on an adjacent foe, and have a fair chance of causing insanity on d13 enemies sound like a game with good crunch to you? How do you think it applies to he fluff? This is a highly extreme case of absurdity - bring it to smaller standards and you will see that, to some people, there are points where it is acceptable, and others where it is not, without even considering the real explanation behind the maneuver - because sometimes explanations are simply never good enough.

ColdBrew
2008-03-01, 03:20 AM
*sigh*

I can guarantee the actual fluff, found in the 4E PHB, will not be "cause he says so". Crunch is the only part of the equation you've seen because you haven't seen the whole equation. Everything has been boiled down to just the crunch needed to play the preview game, with a dab of fluff where they could fit it in.

I think the most likely explanation for your inability to imagine a good, fluffy justification for that ability is a simple lack of imagination on your part, more likely than such fluff being impossible anyway.

The answer, as always, is that it's Too Early To Judge. It will continue to be Too Early To Judge until the books are released and you can see the finished product. Anything before that is rampant speculation, and I absolutely will call you out when I think you're speaking far too authoritatively on a subject you cannot know.

Fuzzy_Juan
2008-03-01, 03:40 AM
Hmm...I hadn't seen the playtest sheets for the convention demo...neat. I do kinda like the idea of the 'save or suck/lose' spells allowing a save to get you out of the fire, or at least not to be rendered useless in a moment's notice. You gotta be hit with the effect, and then you must fail 1 or more saves which are always 50-50...In some ways, it makes save or suck kinda blow...but at the same time...kinda neat.

That eyebite is kinda evil...against someone with a piss poor will save...ick...and the frost ray...hah...kite anyone?

Rockphed
2008-03-01, 03:47 AM
No bards in core (alleged to be in a supplement). It is doubly dead to me.

This is a travesty! It isn't like Bards are hard to place. Just imagine their little chart of Character Types against Power Sources. Bards would fall under Arcane and Leader. If they are too lazy to produce one, we should break out the torches and Pitch-Forks and go storm WotC headquarters.

Other Egregious errors include the lack of Druids(Divine, Controller) and Monk(Divine?, Striker). I think all three have been around since First Edition, though I don't know about Monk.

Now, when it comes out, I intend to Mod a fighter into a Barbarian. That would utterly rock.

ShadowSiege
2008-03-01, 04:09 AM
I didn't say that was what I believed to be the case - I'm only saying I hope that the game doesn't essentially become Guild Wars, in the respect that Things Happen Because It's In Your Tool-Bar And That's What Makes The Game Work. I'm not trying to say that previous editions have necessarily "gotten it right", but when I look to later editions, I expect to see improvement.

Personally, I see something so plain as the Divine Challenge Paladin ability to be absolutely tasteless. As time progresses, I am further convinced that WotC is taking the same approach with D&D as they took Magic: The Gathering - which is essentially a game where you get myriads of "cool" abilities with mind-bending synergy, which lack any explanation as to how they would actually work. I'm not asking for the physics behind a fireball - I just want to know why I get healed for hurling it at someone (don't clerics get an ability that heals you when you hurt?).

As ColdBrew has said, they haven't necessarily provided the fluff for all of this. How about this? The Divine Challenge is a mark of the paladin's fervor and capacity to channel his divine power to protect his allies. As a weaker member of his order, the best he can do is cause minor harm to the enemy that dares ignore the paladin's challenge. As the paladin grows in power, the challenge becomes stronger until the enemy pays dearly for enraging the paladin by ignoring him and attacking his allies.

For the cleric hurting someone and healing his allies, something similar. (Read the following as though spoken by Brother Maynard from Monty Python and the Holy Grail) "And lo, Bobbette the Lowly Cleric didst smite her enemies, and Pelor smiled upon her and bolstered her and her allies, providing them vigor to finish their holiest of battles against the dire rat that they may construct the holiest of weapons, the dire rat flail that they would take on to smite greater enemies of the Shining One, such as That Brown Haired Rabbit over in the Slightly Shadier Copse of Oaks." I'm sure the official fluff will be better and less sillier than that.


Are there other things like this? You mentioned a Fighter ability. If it's no different from the Divine Challenge, then take it that I see it as no better. If I failed to mention it, don't assume I necessarily think it's a viable alternative. I just might not have noticed it existed, or perhaps displaying all facets of a concept of which I gave only one example is simply too much work for someone as tired as me.

The fighter ability was only briefly mentioned in passing in the Races and Class preview book. There's actually already a feat for it in PHB2 called Overwhelming Assault, though much more restricted in its use. If the designated enemy starts next to character (Cleetus), remains next Cleetus, and doesn't target Cleetus, Cleetus gets a +4 to hit that enemy. Something similar would be expected, and at a lower level (Overwhelming Assault required Cleetus to have a BAB of 15). Essentially fighters seem to be getting at a lower level and with fewer restrictions. The fluff would be something like, "You are a master of taking advantage of your opponents inattentiveness, striking more accurately and with more force than if your opponent were not fool enough to turn away from you."

JadedDM
2008-03-01, 10:54 AM
Other Egregious errors include the lack of Druids(Divine, Controller) and Monk(Divine?, Striker). I think all three have been around since First Edition, though I don't know about Monk.

Bards, Monks, and Druids were all in 1E, yes. (Monks were removed from 2E, but later re-added in 3E.)

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 11:03 AM
Isnt the warlord just a hybrid bard/marshal ... just... more effective than both?

Rutee
2008-03-01, 11:12 AM
To be fair, everything but casters is more effective now.

Actually, yeah, if I feel a yen to play a Bard, it probably /would/ be with Warlord. Of course, my definition of Epic Bard is as follows.. (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/epic-bard2.jpg) one can consider me atypical.

Deepblue706
2008-03-01, 11:27 AM
*sigh*

I can guarantee the actual fluff, found in the 4E PHB, will not be "cause he says so". Crunch is the only part of the equation you've seen because you haven't seen the whole equation. Everything has been boiled down to just the crunch needed to play the preview game, with a dab of fluff where they could fit it in.

I just acknowledged I didn't have the facts about the fluff - so you noting that I haven't seen it is redundant. I'm speculating that things will not turn out acceptable to me because WotC's previous works. Did you read the pathetic "review", also now found on this gaming forum? The writer explicitly notes how he didn't care about the lack of disparity between making both horizontal/vertical moves and diagonal ones. Now, that is a rather minute detail...You know what? I'll be sure to say that twice, so people don't mistake my stance. Now, that is a rather minute detail - but considering WotC's trends, and, how the reviewer seemed to adopt an idea not just for one instance, but throughout his review, that the game is now simpler but "hella awesome", or what have you, I really don't see why you can't accept this as a valid concern, even if it's just unlikely from your perspective.



I think the most likely explanation for your inability to imagine a good, fluffy justification for that ability is a simple lack of imagination on your part, more likely than such fluff being impossible anyway.

Well, that's one possibility - but when mechanics note specific things happen, and they play into already established details that have a large bearing on how fluff works, then sometimes it's not longer about the imagination of the individual. For instance, I do not think I have a poor imagination for failing to be able to call the Barbarian's Rage ability "Combat Focus" for another man without adjustments in the very mechanics, as it explicitly notes an Armor Class penalty.


The answer, as always, is that it's Too Early To Judge. It will continue to be Too Early To Judge until the books are released and you can see the finished product. Anything before that is rampant speculation, and I absolutely will call you out when I think you're speaking far too authoritatively on a subject you cannot know.

I didn't judge - I'm speculating. I said I was speculating. I drew a comparison with WotC's workings with Magic: The Gathering, and how D&D might go. I said "I'm only saying I hope that the game doesn't essentially become Guild Wars, in the respect that Things Happen Because It's In Your Tool-Bar And That's What Makes The Game Work."

An ability like Divine Challenge is straight from the MMO world, and I do not believe it's likely that it'll turn out good. Is that okay?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-01, 11:34 AM
Hm, checking out those character sheets now.

Simplified skills are an improvement. The fact that a first-level character gets as many as five tiny circumstantial bonuses is very much not an improvement. The plethora of short-term lasting effects with minor status effects is not an improvement, either. The game appears to require more in-combat bookkeeping than some wargames I could mention, has more different "types" of action (including "triggered" and "interrupt") than 3E, and seems to have been written with the intent of playing it by computer.

It certainly feels like a min-maxers dream, and based on the character sheets I believe that the claim that this is "easier" than 3rd edition is simply false.

Not being allowed to cast spells unless holding a wand is a stupid piece of fluff. What is this, Harry Potter?

I note a lengthy disclaimers on the "challenge" ability - if it takes five line of text to justify calling a power a "challenge", perhaps that's a clue that it needs a different name?

I note that clerics and paladins are no longer able to heal their allies; rather, they improve their allies' abilities to heal themselves. That's, well, weird.

While every character can use "basic attacks", there seems little incentive to ever do so (and indeed, the intro recommends to use powers instead). While the game is marketed as a "you can do this" kind of game, the result seems very much to be "you can't do this unless you have a power that allows it".

What I'm seeing so far looks like a decent battling game; I don't mind the complexity, and the only read bad points are numerous stupid bits of fluff that can be ignored; however, what I'm not seeing here is any particular incentive to play this instead of any of the dozen other RPGs I know. It's certainly not a "light and easy" game, but then, D&D usually isn't; on the other hand, if I want to play something with a lot of powers, I think I'd prefer something with powers that are actually cool, rather than "do X with a +Y bonus and a free Z" - Exalted comes to mind as a much better "power-based" game.

All in all, a firm "meh" from my side. It's certainly not bad but it's hardly impressive either.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 11:53 AM
This is a travesty! It isn't like Bards are hard to place. Just imagine their little chart of Character Types against Power Sources. Bards would fall under Arcane and Leader. If they are too lazy to produce one, we should break out the torches and Pitch-Forks and go storm WotC headquarters.

Other Egregious errors include the lack of Druids(Divine, Controller) and Monk(Divine?, Striker). I think all three have been around since First Edition, though I don't know about Monk.

Now, when it comes out, I intend to Mod a fighter into a Barbarian. That would utterly rock.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic with me or not. I get the feeling you are, but then you agree...

Anyway, the whole point is, if they are going to make a whole new system and leave out key aspects that have been around for decades, it should not be the job of the players to put them back in. Yeah, I know it is completely possible to make your own classes in any system, but usually you do it to add your own flavor, not because said class is completely gone.

Would it really have cost so much to add about 5 pages with the bard and druid and the rest? Probably not since these are going to sell for over 30 bucks a pop.

So since it wouldn't break the bank to have them in the book, we must ask why they aren't in it in the first place. Are they just lazy? Or are they so careless that they don't care what players play as?

And if the reason is because it didn't fit in with the world, I direct you to the movie Dragonheart. The lead was followed around by a bard/monk who would chronicle the exploits of the knight. Yeah, there is NO reason at all why a bard or a monk should be in a medieval setting at all..

It just offends me that the creators of 4e would be so reckless and leave out staples. If nothing else, this is the major reason why I feel it is leaving its roots.

Here would be an example. Let's say that I have an extensive DVD collection. Well, in a few years DVD will be phased out and Blu-ray will take its place. Blu-ray will have much higher resolution and I'll be able to count every pore on the Michael Caine's nose. It will have other benefits but its main draw will be, "It's prettier." Now, let's say that one day word comes down that there will be no horror movies coming to Blu-ray. Considering a very healthy portion of my collection is horror, I would naturally be upset. Some people don't like horror and avoid it like the plague and will wonder why I am complaining so much about a newer format that is killing a format that will enable me to enjoy my favorite genre of movies.

Not the best comparison, but hey, at least I tried. My point is that 4e has already slayed 3.x and I'll not have any sources of new stuff concerning the stuff I like in 3.x. Game shops already have stopped ordering 3.5 books because they are awaiting 4th edition. It's really crappy how this system that I will have to heavily houserule and probably have to create a class to fill my needs is forced on the consumers. I would at least like to see a poll or something where they asked the fans if they would like to see certain classes/races go away forever.

I really don't intend on buying 4e. And I encourage like-minded people not to either. The only thing that WotC will understand is if their wallets get hurt. If you MUST get your hands on the books, by all means, download it. Pirate this drivel. I strongly endorse the pirating 4e.

Just because something is new, that doesn't mean it is better. It just means it is new.

Rutee
2008-03-01, 11:58 AM
Now, see, as much as I advocate piracy, I don't advocate it for the core books. You buy those if you plan on playing for an extended period, or use a physical copy borrowed from a friend. If you don't support a specific aspect, boycott the part that pisses you off.

You know the books that get released that'll have Druids, Bards, and whatnot in it? Pirate /those/. That sends the single most clear message. "I approve of your system in general (Assuming you do), but putting important classes in other books/expanding the list of core books is a no-no"

PRedictably, I don't particularly care about those classes. I appreciate that they're iconic, but part of me just never dug *Barbarian", in particular, as a seperate class, I guess. "They're like Fighters.. but they get angry! Rawr!" Seems like it's better emulated as a selectable feat to grant the class feature, tbh.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 12:02 PM
Now, see, as much as I advocate piracy, I don't advocate it for the core books. You buy those if you plan on playing for an extended period, or use a physical copy borrowed from a friend. If you don't support a specific aspect, boycott the part that pisses you off.

You know the books that get released that'll have Druids, Bards, and whatnot in it? Pirate /those/. That sends the single most clear message. "I approve of your system in general (Assuming you do), but putting important classes in other books/expanding the list of core books is a no-no"

PRedictably, I don't particularly care about those classes. I appreciate that they're iconic, but part of me just never dug *Barbarian", in particular, as a seperate class, I guess. "They're like Fighters.. but they get angry! Rawr!" Seems like it's better emulated as a selectable feat to grant the class feature, tbh.

But the core is the part that I dislike. If I did pirate the books that had the bard and the other classes that are fan favorites, when WotC saw that they weren't making much of a profit, they would really kill off those classes, so I don't see how it would send a really clear message to WotC to pirate only the book that is trying to -fix- the F-ups made in core.

Deepblue706
2008-03-01, 12:10 PM
As ColdBrew has said, they haven't necessarily provided the fluff for all of this. How about this? The Divine Challenge is a mark of the paladin's fervor and capacity to channel his divine power to protect his allies. As a weaker member of his order, the best he can do is cause minor harm to the enemy that dares ignore the paladin's challenge. As the paladin grows in power, the challenge becomes stronger until the enemy pays dearly for enraging the paladin by ignoring him and attacking his allies.

I hope you're not offended when I say, I think the idea sounds terrible. But, once more, I acknowledged I didn't have all the facts - it's just I can't imagine good fluff for the ability. It might be a lacking of my own, but I'm also keeping the window open for "it just might be stupid". Of course, I do not mean that in a way to insult anyone who might think otherwise - that's just my way of saying it doesn't appeal to my interests.



For the cleric hurting someone and healing his allies, something similar. (Read the following as though spoken by Brother Maynard from Monty Python and the Holy Grail) "And lo, Bobbette the Lowly Cleric didst smite her enemies, and Pelor smiled upon her and bolstered her and her allies, providing them vigor to finish their holiest of battles against the dire rat that they may construct the holiest of weapons, the dire rat flail that they would take on to smite greater enemies of the Shining One, such as That Brown Haired Rabbit over in the Slightly Shadier Copse of Oaks." I'm sure the official fluff will be better and less sillier than that.

Actually, I never liked the fact that clerics were so dependent upon living deities in the first place - I doubt it's surprising, but I'll note that doesn't strike me as appealing, either.



The fighter ability was only briefly mentioned in passing in the Races and Class preview book. There's actually already a feat for it in PHB2 called Overwhelming Assault, though much more restricted in its use. If the designated enemy starts next to character (Cleetus), remains next Cleetus, and doesn't target Cleetus, Cleetus gets a +4 to hit that enemy. Something similar would be expected, and at a lower level (Overwhelming Assault required Cleetus to have a BAB of 15). Essentially fighters seem to be getting at a lower level and with fewer restrictions. The fluff would be something like, "You are a master of taking advantage of your opponents inattentiveness, striking more accurately and with more force than if your opponent were not fool enough to turn away from you."

Well, reading what you said about the crunch for that ability, I understood the fluff to follow that before actually reaching your in-quotes. That is because it makes intuitive sense to me.

Dealing damage through magical auras (arcane or divine) that automatically activate, per an encounter, and after an impromptu decision, when someone else is attacked does not make intuitive sense to me. This is currently not a concept I find pleasing. Maybe they'll establish something to convince me it's slightly less absurd than the crunch suggests (I do accept that possibility), I only fear their justification will be lacking.

Rutee
2008-03-01, 12:10 PM
Whenever you spend money, your wallet's vote is "The status quo is good". If you buy the seperate books that contain those iconic classes, you support the idea of putting those classes in the seperate books. I sincerely doubt they will kill off iconics, further (Though I wouldn't cry about the Barbarian meeting the dodo). Unless you meant you dislike 4e, period, not the fact that they're removing Iconic Thing X from it.

The main problem with voting with one's wallet on procedure (As you /claim/ to be doing with piracy) is that it's hard to get the exact message across, especially without a mass organization.

And honestly, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying your intent isn't to just get free books. I know that's mine, when I do so.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 12:15 PM
Wow, I'm glad more people don't think like demented...

"I hate that this model of car that I'm test driving doesn't have a sun roof. I'll just steal it."

"Ugh, this steak dinner didn't come with mashed potatoes, screw that, I'm not paying for it!"

Our economy would collapse faster than it already is.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 12:19 PM
I dislike 4e because it seems they are disregarding the "fans of the iconic" as you put it. I dislike 4e, because I, as a player for years, should not have to buy two books the PHB and whatever expansion to play a class I could simply look up in one book in the previous editions. The whole attitude of 4e is something that I dislike. I dislike certain fluff of 4e. Certain players see fluff as RAW and when I would conceivably change something about the fluff that I don't think would be beneficial to a campaign setting, I would have some player calling shenanigans. I dislike 4e, period.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 12:22 PM
Wow, I'm glad more people don't think like demented...

"I hate that this model of car that I'm test driving doesn't have a sun roof. I'll just steal it."

"Ugh, this steak dinner didn't come with mashed potatoes, screw that, I'm not paying for it!"

Our economy would collapse faster than it already is.

The customer is always right. What good is a product if the whole presentation pisses off your consumer base? Why should someone pay twice as much to play as a class they would have got by playing just one book?

I doubt our economy would collapse. Instead, it would be more consumer driven. OH NO! Do you know how convenient that would be?!

Rutee
2008-03-01, 12:23 PM
Actually, in terms of the Barbarian, there's one major problem with saying they're disregarding fans of the iconic. Specifically, that their only defining feature was WAAAAAAGH!!!!. Which could just as easily be made a potential Encounter power for a Fighter.

As to the rest, well, aren't Bards the least popular class overall, or one of them? Along with Monks? I mean, I haven't played DnD with that many different people, but only one person botherred with trying to play Monks, one other with Bard, compared to some of the staples. It strikes me as within bounds to pull an iconic out of the core book if its only purpose is to appease a small, cult following..

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 12:23 PM
"The customer is always right" does not mean "if you don't get what you want you steal it."

Rutee
2008-03-01, 12:26 PM
The customer is always right. What good is a product if the whole presentation pisses off your consumer base? Why should someone pay twice as much to play as a class they would have got by playing just one book?

Having worked in Service, the Customer is not always right; The customer is always pandered to. There's a very big difference.

And uh, I don't think they're pissing off their consumer base, honestly. They're pissing off a section of it, sure, but not all of it.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 12:29 PM
"The customer is always right" does not mean "if you don't get what you want you steal it."

If you recall, my first urging was to simply not buy it. And only if you MUST play 4e, should you pirate it. How else are we going to send a message that the fans are not happy.

@Rutee. Part of the reason why Bards and Monks are unpopular is because a large portion of people don't like playing a support class (Bard) while not being the best in battle themselves, and monks have been nerfed.

Instead of leaving these classes out completely, they should have tried to "fix" them with this illustrious 4e. But that seems to be the motto of 4e. "It doesn't fit in, throw it away." To me, it doesn't even seem like they made an effort to make it work.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-01, 12:31 PM
Having worked in Service, the Customer is not always right; The customer is always pandered to. There's a very big difference.

And uh, I don't think they're pissing off their consumer base, honestly. They're pissing off a section of it, sure, but not all of it.

Moreover, even the section of the consumer base that is pissed off about some things (say the 'totally healed overnight' mechanic) are by and large not going to be pissed off enough not to buy the product. I've been lumped a few times in the 4e haters club because of concerns I have about the new edition but I'm still going to be buying at least the core books.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 12:32 PM
Having worked in Service, the Customer is not always right; The customer is always pandered to. There's a very big difference.

And uh, I don't think they're pissing off their consumer base, honestly. They're pissing off a section of it, sure, but not all of it.

Perhaps I misspoke but still there are a number of people who are like me and don't see the appeal of moving to a new system for no other reason than it is new.

I work in a hospital. I can't imagine a more consumer driven industry. No matter how berating or abusive or gross or rude the patient is, you have to suck it up and smile. Sometimes you just want to hold a pillow over a rude patient's face until they stop fighting, but you can't because that is bad PR.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-01, 12:40 PM
Perhaps I misspoke but still there are a number of people who are like me and don't see the appeal of moving to a new system for no other reason than it is new.


This is different than pirating it. Please don't advocate stealing. If you don't want to move to the new system, don't move to the new system. Saying, I don't want to move to the new system and consequentially it's ok for me to steal access to the IP is a logical and ethical jump that really isn't justified.


Instead of leaving these classes out completely, they should have tried to "fix" them with this illustrious 4e. But that seems to be the motto of 4e. "It doesn't fit in, throw it away." To me, it doesn't even seem like they made an effort to make it work.

Can you patche me in to your hidden cameras at WotC? I'd really like to see the designers eating a sandwich and playing scrabble rather than making an effort...

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 12:53 PM
This is different than pirating it. Please don't advocate stealing. If you don't want to move to the new system, don't move to the new system. Saying, I don't want to move to the new system and consequentially it's ok for me to steal access to the IP is a logical and ethical jump that really isn't justified.



Can you patche me in to your hidden cameras at WotC? I'd really like to see the designers eating a sandwich and playing scrabble rather than making an effort...

My whole point was that 4e was being forced on the consumers. Game stores in my area have already stopped purchasing 3rd edition books and are anxiously awaiting 4th edition to come out. Aside from Amazon and eBay, there isn't a consistent source of 3rd edition material. And then what happens when I get all of that? It's a dead system now. WotC isn't going to keep up with supplements. It's effectively dead in the water by this new system that has made vast changes along the lines of character classes and race and not given any reasoning behind it other than "it doesn't fit." How can you not be offended by that elitist mentality? It's like saying that the previous versions that did have that race/class available were totally crap because they did have them in it.

So yeah, I still advocate pirating it. Because it is unfair that a new edition is not only forced on players but certain people like myself would have to pay upwards of 70 dollars just to play a class they could have played for a little over 30 dollars in the previous edition. Let's be honest here. The whole reason why WotC went to 4e in the first place is because they drained the well dry in terms of supplements. They ran out of ideas and they will continue to run out of ideas for 4e in the next 6 years. It's much simpler to pirate it and save your hard-earned cash on something that isn't going to die in another 8 years.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 12:59 PM
If you aren't paying for it, why should they care what you think?

Your dollar is just as valuable as anyone else, but by pirating it, you solve nothing. You only say that you want to play it but do not want to pay for it, invalidating your opinion.

Instead, if you want to be heard, you don't buy it and go to something else. Or keep playing 3.X. Just because you want to play a bard (which Warlord is just a beefed up bard, so I'm told) does not give you the right to steal it.

NOTHING gives you the right to steal it.

Rutee
2008-03-01, 12:59 PM
My whole point was that 4e was being forced on the consumers. Game stores in my area have already stopped purchasing 3rd edition books and are anxiously awaiting 4th edition to come out. Aside from Amazon and eBay, there isn't a consistent source of 3rd edition material. And then what happens when I get all of that? It's a dead system now. WotC isn't going to keep up with supplements. It's effectively dead in the water by this new system that has made vast changes along the lines of character classes and race and not given any reasoning behind it other than "it doesn't fit." How can you not be offended by that elitist mentality? It's like saying that the previous versions that did have that race/class available were totally crap because they did have them in it.
...It doesn't fit is an elitist saying now? People use that word without knowing what it means nowadays. Most of the rest of this is sour grapes. It's like saying they forced 3rd ed on the consumer. No, they stopped making new stuff. Did you need new stuff to play 3rd ed? Legitimate question


So yeah, I still advocate pirating it. Because it is unfair that a new edition is not only forced on players but certain people like myself would have to pay upwards of 70 dollars just to play a class they could have played for a little over 30 dollars in the previous edition. Let's be honest here. The whole reason why WotC went to 4e in the first place is because they drained the well dry in terms of supplements. They ran out of ideas and they will continue to run out of ideas for 4e in the next 6 years. It's much simpler to pirate it and save your hard-earned cash on something that isn't going to die in another 8 years.
I hate fellow pirates who claim high minded ideals. I really, really, do. Plus, look at the ludicrousness of your statement. "IT STOPS BEING USEFUL IN 8 YEARS! KILL IT! Cars do not have an estimated lifespan of 8 years, oftentimes. If you get fun out of the game for 8 years, that makes it infinitely more cost effective then, say, a movie. If you're going to rob people, be honest with people, including yourself. "I am too cheap to spend money on this game, and therefore, I will steal it" is so much less grating then "I HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK".

AKA_Bait
2008-03-01, 01:03 PM
My whole point was that 4e was being forced on the consumers. Game stores in my area have already stopped purchasing 3rd edition books and are anxiously awaiting 4th edition to come out. Aside from Amazon and eBay, there isn't a consistent source of 3rd edition material. And then what happens when I get all of that? It's a dead system now.

Kindly see my signature for one, of many, companies that will be continuing to support 3.5.


How can you not be offended by that elitist mentality? It's like saying that the previous versions that did have that race/class available were totally crap because they did have them in it.

I don't think it's an elitist mentality. They are putting out a product and have limited space in that product so they made decisions about what the most popular aspects were for the core books. Frankly, given the number of 'bardz suck' and 'monks suck' threads around I'm not surprised that they got supplanted by the Warlock.


So yeah, I still advocate pirating it. Because it is unfair that a new edition is not only forced on players but certain people like myself would have to pay upwards of 70 dollars just to play a class they could have played for a little over 30 dollars in the previous edition.

I'm sorry that you seem to think we are in a command economy.That you want to play a game, but not pay for it, is not justification to steal it. The fact that an aspect of the game will cost you more money, is not justification to steal it.


Let's be honest here. The whole reason why WotC went to 4e in the first place is because they drained the well dry in terms of supplements.

Disagree strongly. Hence the continued support of 3.5 by VP.


They ran out of ideas and they will continue to run out of ideas for 4e in the next 6 years. It's much simpler to pirate it and save your hard-earned cash on something that isn't going to die in another 8 years.

How about you just not read it instead? Or read it in Barnes and Noble? Or take it out of the library? There are pleny of ways to see it without stealing. Yeah, it's simpler to pirate it. Simpler is not the same as ethically correct.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 01:16 PM
...It doesn't fit is an elitist saying now? People use that word without knowing what it means nowadays. Most of the rest of this is sour grapes. It's like saying they forced 3rd ed on the consumer. No, they stopped making new stuff. Did you need new stuff to play 3rd ed? Legitimate question


I hate fellow pirates who claim high minded ideals. I really, really, do. Plus, look at the ludicrousness of your statement. "IT STOPS BEING USEFUL IN 8 YEARS! KILL IT! Cars do not have an estimated lifespan of 8 years, oftentimes. If you get fun out of the game for 8 years, that makes it infinitely more cost effective then, say, a movie. If you're going to rob people, be honest with people, including yourself. "I am too cheap to spend money on this game, and therefore, I will steal it" is so much less grating then "I HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK".

Currently my library is at 20 books or better. I know this is not all the 3rd edition books and I would like what I can get. Do you realize how hard it is to find some of the books online? And even then, sources like eBay aren't always 100 percent reliable. The thought of paying on eBay for some coffee-stained tome that used to be the supplement I was looking for isn't all that appealing to me.

Cars are a necessity unless you live in a huge city, like NYC. You need a car. You don't need a system that will change consistently and talk down to you. The day my Chevy HHR talks down to me is when I start complaining about it too. The whole mentality behind the change is what I disagree with. I don't like how they didn't come out and say, "Hey guys, we really tried to make these aspects work but they don't so we sadly had to leave them out." Instead it was "Gnomes are stupid. Bards are stupid." Or at least that was the impression I got.

I have yet to see one good reason why I should move from 3e to 4e in the first place. Heck, the fact that monsters exist only to be killed by the players makes it harken more to a video game. I would rather pay a monthly installment of a MMO than pay for a system that will insult my intelligence and playing style.

I endorse pirating in hopes that WotC will see that they need to realize that having arbitrary rule change for the sake of arbitrary rule change is really infuriating to someone who has had a certain playstyle for years. You people seem to forget that I at first said not to buy and if you must then pirate it. But the more you people are acting like I just raped your grandmother while pouring sugar in your gas tank for even advocating such actions, the more I endorse it. Change for the sake of change is bad.

Deepblue706
2008-03-01, 01:23 PM
I have yet to see one good reason why I should move from 3e to 4e in the first place. Heck, the fact that monsters exist only to be killed by the players makes it harken more to a video game. I would rather pay a monthly installment of a MMO than pay for a system that will insult my intelligence and playing style.

However, I don't think D&D has any basic "respawning" :smalltongue:

I sympathize, but I believe this attitude is merely to encourage new DMs to focus on their players, instead of something off-tangent, simply because this will help to ensure everyone involved has a good time. Really, I think the message they give is not supposed to be different from what many DMs have already done for previous versions - but rather, to explicitly denote that the DM's job is pay attention to his or her players, and support their needs as a priority.

Nothing in the system suggests to me that additional information about how monsters live cannot be adjusted - it's just that the default game for the first-timer should focus on the most basic of concepts, and then perhaps grow from there.

Rutee
2008-03-01, 01:31 PM
Currently my library is at 20 books or better. I know this is not all the 3rd edition books and I would like what I can get. Do you realize how hard it is to find some of the books online? And even then, sources like eBay aren't always 100 percent reliable. The thought of paying on eBay for some coffee-stained tome that used to be the supplement I was looking for isn't all that appealing to me.
That.. answers my question in a sideways fashion, I guess. Fair enough, if you lust for new material on a regular basis, that's purely preference.



Cars are a necessity unless you live in a huge city, like NYC. You need a car. You don't need a system that will change consistently and talk down to you. The day my Chevy HHR talks down to me is when I start complaining about it too. The whole mentality behind the change is what I disagree with. I don't like how they didn't come out and say, "Hey guys, we really tried to make these aspects work but they don't so we sadly had to leave them out." Instead it was "Gnomes are stupid. Bards are stupid." Or at least that was the impression I got.
Well, one of the more common opinions I've heard for a while, 4e or no, has been "Gnomes are stupid", but that notwithstanding, if you don't like their attitude.. 8 years is still a pretty respectable amount of time to support a system. I like 10 years, but round numbers and whatnot.



I have yet to see one good reason why I should move from 3e to 4e in the first place. Heck, the fact that monsters exist only to be killed by the players makes it harken more to a video game. I would rather pay a monthly installment of a MMO than pay for a system that will insult my intelligence and playing style.
RTFM. Specifically, the Monster Manual. Tell me with a straight face that they weren't already treating things that way. Or heck, find for me the extensive rules in the DMG that treat social encounters as an equally-viable-to-combat solution to a problem.



I endorse pirating in hopes that WotC will see that they need to realize that having arbitrary rule change for the sake of arbitrary rule change is really infuriating to someone who has had a certain playstyle for years. You people seem to forget that I at first said not to buy and if you must then pirate it. But the more you people are acting like I just raped your grandmother while pouring sugar in your gas tank for even advocating such actions, the more I endorse it. Change for the sake of change is bad.

Changing for the sake of change is bad, sure. 3rd ed DnD sucks, as far as I'm concerned. There, I said it; Changing from a bad system to a less bad (And maybe, for once, maybe even a good system) isn't 'arbitrary'. It's called "An Improvement". Needless to say, you disagree on both counts, but they evidently do not, on some level. There is also the "BOY HOWDY we like money" part too, to be sure.

And I have not once acted like you're raping my grandmother. You /are/, however, ticking me off by claiming some sort of right to the work of others. I'm not in the industry like AKA is, but I do still produce work (Slowly, since it's an amateur thing for me, not a professional one) that I'm proud of. I'd have to think that when it's complete, people will believe they have a right to it, even if I'd let them use it for free.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-01, 01:36 PM
I have yet to see one good reason why I should move from 3e to 4e in the first place.

So, don't then.


I endorse pirating in hopes that WotC will see that they need to realize that having arbitrary rule change for the sake of arbitrary rule change is really infuriating to someone who has had a certain playstyle for years.

Believe me when I tell you that not only are they not going to care and even if they did it isn't worth the stain on your soul.


But the more you people are acting like I just raped your grandmother while pouring sugar in your gas tank for even advocating such actions, the more I endorse it. Change for the sake of change is bad.

That's... very mature. For the record, I'm acting like you were stealing from me because you are advocating stealing IP from an industry I am part of a 3rd party company in. I don't want people getting the idea it's ok to steal WotC's ideas in part because it really isn't any different than stealing mine.

fireinthedust
2008-03-01, 01:38 PM
After reading these sheets (http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://picasaweb.google.com/gertiebarden/4eCharacterSheets), I'm feeling a bit nervous too, Mr. Friendly.

I *want* to believe 4ed will turn out great. Still, though, I really don't know what to make of it all.

Thanks, Deepblue!!! these sheets make me want to convert!

I'm in the category of players who doesn't have a 3.5 shelf but "a 3.5 closet", so that's a big issue with converting for me. I love thinking about rules, but 3.5 is too complex for me to DM. Heck, MnM is hard for me to DM, but that's because I'm lazy. (sigh)

I'm thinking there'll be different class abilities to choose from. Anyone remember Fax Celestis' Mantle-Paladin core class? basically you'd get new special abilities from a list of special abilities. Really good write up.
The 4e rules sound like they'll be like that, but every ability you'll pick from the list grows as you level up. Class and race abilities, I'm guessing.

and the separation of at will, per encounter and per day abilities is good. Frankly, that's the reason loads of people try to play warlocks on the forums ere: they're magical, but you don't run out of things to do. My guess is the 4e wizards will still have their spells, but also a blasty-thingy for when they run out.


Any word on conversion guidelines? That'd be keen.

horseboy
2008-03-01, 01:38 PM
Instead of leaving these classes out completely, they should have tried to "fix" them with this illustrious 4e. But that seems to be the motto of 4e. "It doesn't fit in, throw it away." To me, it doesn't even seem like they made an effort to make it work.I'm sorry, but no. I can't believe you're making me defend WotC. Look, Bards, have always been an added on or appendixed class. If WotC is competent with their whole 4th edition making then each class would have received at least a 6 month play test just to make sure that they're going to work and aren't broken in painfully obvious ways. Why should fighter fans have to wait another 6 months while they work on your pet class? What makes you so special that they've got to hold up everybody else's enjoyment to make you happy?
As to your local store not carrying it, well, welcome to being outside of mainstream! Some of us have been having to order print on demand books from places like Lulu.com for some time now. Sorry, you're not going to get sympathy from me on this one.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 02:06 PM
D&D shouldn't be "outside the mainstream". It's the largest roleplaying franchise out there. And the thought that supplements that were plentiful last year aren't this year is just outrageous. It's not like it's 2ed and they haven't been in print in 10+ years.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-01, 02:25 PM
My whole point was that 4e was being forced on the consumers. Game stores in my area have already stopped purchasing 3rd edition books and are anxiously awaiting 4th edition to come out. Aside from Amazon and eBay, there isn't a consistent source of 3rd edition material. And then what happens when I get all of that? It's a dead system now. WotC isn't going to keep up with supplements. It's effectively dead in the water by this new system that has made vast changes along the lines of character classes and race and not given any reasoning behind it other than "it doesn't fit." How can you not be offended by that elitist mentality? It's like saying that the previous versions that did have that race/class available were totally crap because they did have them in it.
I can not be offended by that because it isn't elitist. You are doing your absolute best to interpret things in a way that will let you be offended.

3.5 is not dead. People STILL play 2E, *how* many years later? People will definitely be playing 3.5 for quite some time.
I'm sorry you won't get to spend even more money on 3.5 splatbooks, but I find it impossible to believe you use all or most of the content in the ones you have. If you really like buying splatbooks, you can start buying all-new 4E splatbooks.

This fanboy-entitlement mentality is strange and foreign and need to stop, right now.


So yeah, I still advocate pirating it. Because it is unfair that a new edition is not only forced on players but certain people like myself would have to pay upwards of 70 dollars just to play a class they could have played for a little over 30 dollars in the previous edition.
If you play things other than bards, play some of those until the bard comes out.
If you never play anything other than bards, um, try it. Or play 3.5, where you apparently play nothing but bards (but buy all the non-bard-related books).
Or play 3.5 until Bards show up in the PHB 2.
It's unfair that a class you like isn't in the core book? Give me a break. 4E doesn't exist to cater to *your specific* preferences, but to overall preferences.


Let's be honest here. The whole reason why WotC went to 4e in the first place is because they drained the well dry in terms of supplements. They ran out of ideas and they will continue to run out of ideas for 4e in the next 6 years. It's much simpler to pirate it and save your hard-earned cash on something that isn't going to die in another 8 years.
Just how much value per dollar do you think you bloody well DESERVE out of D&D?! If you are paying 30 bucks for a PHB that lasts you EIGHT YEARS of gaming, that is AMAZING value, and it's only a whiny self-important sense of entitlement that could justify asking for more.
While we're at it, do you know of any other systems that last more than 8 years without major problems or an edition change?


Currently my library is at 20 books or better. I know this is not all the 3rd edition books and I would like what I can get. Do you realize how hard it is to find some of the books online? And even then, sources like eBay aren't always 100 percent reliable. The thought of paying on eBay for some coffee-stained tome that used to be the supplement I was looking for isn't all that appealing to me.
I've never had a problem with "coffee-stained" books on eBay. If you only have 20 books, you can keep buying a 3.5 book a month for quite some time (say, until 4E has bards).


Cars are a necessity unless you live in a huge city, like NYC. You need a car. You don't need a system that will change consistently and talk down to you. The day my Chevy HHR talks down to me is when I start complaining about it too. The whole mentality behind the change is what I disagree with. I don't like how they didn't come out and say, "Hey guys, we really tried to make these aspects work but they don't so we sadly had to leave them out." Instead it was "Gnomes are stupid. Bards are stupid." Or at least that was the impression I got.
Okay, let's face it--bards ARE stupid. You know, the thing where they go into dungeons and SING at monsters? Gnomes are pretty stupid, too.

But that's not what WotC said; they basically said they weren't nearly as popular, and thus wouldn't be core. Which is perfectly reasonable.


I have yet to see one good reason why I should move from 3e to 4e in the first place. Heck, the fact that monsters exist only to be killed by the players makes it harken more to a video game. I would rather pay a monthly installment of a MMO than pay for a system that will insult my intelligence and playing style.
Annnnnd the MMO comparison, the last resort of angry anti-4E rants. Monsters don't exist only to be killed even a single bit more than they did in 3.5. The game does NOT insult your intelligence or playing style--you're just doing your best to be offended.


I endorse pirating in hopes that WotC will see that they need to realize that having arbitrary rule change for the sake of arbitrary rule change is really infuriating to someone who has had a certain playstyle for years. You people seem to forget that I at first said not to buy and if you must then pirate it. But the more you people are acting like I just raped your grandmother while pouring sugar in your gas tank for even advocating such actions, the more I endorse it. Change for the sake of change is bad.
But these changes are not for the sake of change, they're for the sake of a much improved game overall.
From what we've seen, D&D will still play like D&D--only it'll be better at it. It should play, most of the time, the way 3.5 plays at its very best, when everyone's pretty well-balanced and the encounter is running quickly and everyone's making tactical decisions and so on.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 02:49 PM
Call of Cthulhu by Chaosium has lasted a while. The only thing that has changed really per se, is the settings. Same old system and it has lasted longer than 3rd edition. Surprise surprise, I found one.

You fail to see where I am coming from. I see a class that has been pretty much a staple. You see a a superfluous class that has no business in D&D. I see a half-hearted grab at my wallet when a class that used to be core is no longer. You see an optional book to play an optional class. It's two very different mentalities.

Believe it or not, bards can totally be a part of D&D because no where in the books does it say a party has to fight at all. OMG! How dare I imply you can have an RP game with little to no battles. That is simply a playstyle. Just as a bard is a playstyle. When you play a bard in 3e, you accept certain truths: you are going to suck in battle, you are going suck as a spell caster. You will however grant a nice bonus to attack rolls and you will be helpful in foiling the plot of the BBEG by your bardic knowledge. Bards are not meant to be battle-bots, which is why they don't fit in with the 4e mentality of "Kill the monsters!" It's a different playing style and not even to nod at a staple that has been there since the start is a disgrace.

Name me 3 things that have really improved with 4e. Three things that no matter how hard I try I cannot argue with. Maybe then I'll see it as an "improved" system otherwise it is simply new.

And RPGA is moving to the 4e standard. Good luck getting your points if you are going to continue to play 3e. It's all a racket.

ShadowSiege
2008-03-01, 02:59 PM
*snip*

You said pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Buy books from Amazon if you don't like eBay, Bards suck (and were originally found in an appendix of AD&D 1e's PHB), gnomes suck, the "4e = MMO" argument sucks, stop being so outraged that your ridiculous class wasn't included in core.

There is also no reason to be angry at WotC for not including Walker in the Waste in Core. It was a prestige class. It is one of hundreds, why should they pick it of all others? For that matter, is there any reason for them to pick any of them when prestige classes are getting axed? Sure, they can incorporate some PrC ideas into the classes paths, but Walker of the Waste was a very niche class, bringing very little to the table for such efforts.

horseboy
2008-03-01, 03:00 PM
D&D shouldn't be "outside the mainstream". It's the largest roleplaying franchise out there. And the thought that supplements that were plentiful last year aren't this year is just outrageous. It's not like it's 2ed and they haven't been in print in 10+ years.
You're not playing D&D. You're playing 3.5

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 03:06 PM
You said pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Buy books from Amazon if you don't like eBay, Bards suck (and were originally found in an appendix of AD&D 1e's PHB), gnomes suck, the "4e = MMO" argument sucks, stop being so outraged that your ridiculous class wasn't included in core.

There is also no reason to be angry at WotC for not including Walker in the Waste in Core. It was a prestige class. It is one of hundreds, why should they pick it of all others? For that matter, is there any reason for them to pick any of them when prestige classes are getting axed? Sure, they can incorporate some PrC ideas into the classes paths, but Walker of the Waste was a very niche class, bringing very little to the table for such efforts.
Well, I didn't really expect it to be in core, but they don't have PrCs at all, but instead Paragon Paths. So in a game where monsters are chunks of XP and you have a harder time dying and you can heal all damage overnight, you have a decidedly different game than what 3e is. No where have I read that a PC has to qualify to acquire a Paragon path, other than getting over level 10. It seems like it is given. PrCs give at least the illusion of specialization before a PC can join it.

And another thing, I do play other classes - it's pretty damn near impossible to be a WitW playing a bard after all.

JadedDM
2008-03-01, 03:07 PM
If you are paying 30 bucks for a PHB that lasts you EIGHT YEARS of gaming, that is AMAZING value, and it's only a whiny self-important sense of entitlement that could justify asking for more.

Funny, I paid $20 for my 2E PHB and it's lasted me THIRTEEN years and counting. I don't understand this philosophy that you can only play a game for so long before you have to stop and play something else, especially for such an open-ended game like D&D. How many big reboots has Monopoly undergone in the last 80 years? And yet people still play it.

Anyway, Rachel...calm down. Your last post is bordering on flaming. I understand DementedFellow's opinion is frustrating you, but there's no reason to get worked up over it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Indon
2008-03-01, 03:08 PM
I endorse pirating in hopes that WotC will see that they need to realize that having arbitrary rule change for the sake of arbitrary rule change is really infuriating to someone who has had a certain playstyle for years.

Personally, I would not actively advocate piracy in an online forum. But that's just me.

horseboy
2008-03-01, 03:16 PM
Believe it or not, bards can totally be a part of D&D because no where in the books does it say a party has to fight at all. OMG! How dare I imply you can have an RP game with little to no battles. That is simply a playstyle. Just as a bard is a playstyle. When you play a bard in 3e, you accept certain truths: you are going to suck in battle, you are going suck as a spell caster. You will however grant a nice bonus to attack rolls and you will be helpful in foiling the plot of the BBEG by your bardic knowledge. Bards are not meant to be battle-bots, which is why they don't fit in with the 4e mentality of "Kill the monsters!" It's a different playing style and not even to nod at a staple that has been there since the start is a disgrace.
ROTFLMAO! "4e is all about just killing the monster, unlike 3.5!" Oh, why do I never stop laughing at that joke?

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 03:24 PM
ROTFLMAO! "4e is all about just killing the monster, unlike 3.5!" Oh, why do I never stop laughing at that joke?
Well, in 3.5, you could deal with a monster in a lot of ways. You could use diplomacy, mind-affecting spells, stealth to sneak around it. Yeah, those totally kill the monster. :smallyuk:

In 4e, the monsters are just chunks of XP and since you have a harder time dying, why not try attacking the monster? Some of us actually like a story instead of a dungeon crawl. Maybe I'm spoiled in that I've had interesting campaigns in the past. If I want a dungeon crawl, I'll play a video game. Yes, a video game. It seems like we are looked down if we compare 4e to a video game, but what else is there to compare it to? What other game has an XP grind for no other reason to gain XP? I'm not saying this didn't happen in 3.x, but at least the core didn't say the center of the universe is the PCs.

Charity
2008-03-01, 03:24 PM
This 4e stuff has certainly bulked out my ignore list.
I assume you've all had a good look at these (http://picasaweb.google.com/gertiebarden/4eCharacterSheets)
I am actually looking forward to 4e, it looks closer to balanced at 1st level, thats a start eh :smallwink:

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-01, 03:26 PM
Call of Cthulhu by Chaosium has lasted a while. The only thing that has changed really per se, is the settings. Same old system and it has lasted longer than 3rd edition. Surprise surprise, I found one.
Okay, that's one. Where're the rest? You see my point: 8 years is actually well above the industry average, and you have absolutely no call getting upset that you only get eight years of value out of your thirty dollars.

...and now that I look CoC up, it's currently on either sixth edition (from 2004) or an anniversary edition (from 2006). 5th edition was in 1992, 5.5 was in 1998, the 20th Anniversary Edition was in 2001...
So much for that, I guess.


You fail to see where I am coming from. I see a class that has been pretty much a staple. You see a a superfluous class that has no business in D&D. I see a half-hearted grab at my wallet when a class that used to be core is no longer. You see an optional book to play an optional class. It's two very different mentalities.
Why does every class that was core in 3.5 need to be core in 4E? The Bard *is* a superfluous class--it's never fit into the party roles, it's never been anything but that wacky fifth wheel. Are bards honestly all you play?
I'm not sure how not including bards turns 4E into a "half-hearted money grab". They're including what they think will be good for the game.


Believe it or not, bards can totally be a part of D&D because no where in the books does it say a party has to fight at all. OMG! How dare I imply you can have an RP game with little to no battles. That is simply a playstyle.
Never do that again. How dare you condescend to me that way, like you're somehow special and a magically good roleplayer because you play D&D without combat gasp. I play games like Nobilis; rest assured, I can tell stories of combatless sessions and *far* more highbrow playstyles to meet and almost certainly exceed any of yours. You are not special for liking bards or for enjoying low-combat games.
You don't *have* to have combat every session of D&D. But D&D is, fundamentally, a combat focused game. That's why you get all the combat-focused spells and abilities (Inspire Courage gives +1 to what, again? Oh, right, attack and damage) that you do. D&D is about a group of adventurers, who fight things and if you're playing a game where combat rarely or never happens, well, more power to you, but D&D isn't very good at that.


Just as a bard is a playstyle. When you play a bard in 3e, you accept certain truths: you are going to suck in battle, you are going suck as a spell caster. You will however grant a nice bonus to attack rolls and you will be helpful in foiling the plot of the BBEG by your bardic knowledge. Bards are not meant to be battle-bots, which is why they don't fit in with the 4e mentality of "Kill the monsters!" It's a different playing style and not even to nod at a staple that has been there since the start is a disgrace.
Bards are not a "different playstyle". There are plenty of characters that can focus socially (and still be decent to good in combat--Bards can be made good in combat, too, while we're at it).
Playing a bard does NOT make you a better roleplayer. It still means when a fight starts, you stand around and SING.
It also doesn't do anything for you that my Unseen Seer or Beguiler can't do (socially-capable characters who are also combat-capable? Gasp).

Bard isn't a "playstyle". It's a class. You play it the way you do any other class. It's just that part of what you're good at is "social encounters", and part of what you're not so good at is "combat". In conclusion, get over yourself; the pretentious "it's a playstyle, you combat-monger!" crap is something I'd expect from a Vampire player, not a D&D (you know, the game that's about going into DUNGEONS and killing DRAGONS) player.

"The 4E mentality of kill the monsters"? Because the Bard isn't a core class? Are you KIDDING?
4E has more of a focus on NON-combat encounters than 3.X ever did, rules-wise. They're actually counting social encounters as encounters now, rather than using "ad hoc" rewards.
The Bard isn't included, not because 4E doesn't support social games, but because it's a niche and not-particularily popular fifth wheel.

It's not a "disgrace" that the bard isn't included, it's an obvious choice for getting cut (if they had room for more classes, the Druid, Barbarian, and Sorcerer would probably be in there, too.

Basically, 4E cut a class you like (but that the majority of people didn't), and now you're determined to hate everything about it and turn it into this strawman of a game where players juts kill monsters 24/7 and RP doesn't and can't happen.



Name me 3 things that have really improved with 4e. Three things that no matter how hard I try I cannot argue with. Maybe then I'll see it as an "improved" system otherwise it is simply new.
You can argue with anything--and since you obviously feel that you're entitled to WotC catering to YOU specifically, include the classes YOU like, and generally make the game exactly the way you want it (and when they don't, they're evil moneybags and deserve to have their intellectual property stolen), I'm guessing you will.

But here's some things that are improving with 4e:
-Fighters. Fighters are becoming awesome instead of sucky.
-Traps. 3.5 trap mechanics are TERRIBLE. They're disgustingly lousy. The rogue rolls a series of skill checks until she fails one (because statistically, she will fail one) and takes some damage or dies? Wow! 4E is improving this.
-The toning down of casters, who can no longer produce any effect under the sun, land no-save you-lose spells, fly from the lower levels, and otherwise drastically define the party's capabilities.
-The condensed skill list, meaning you don't need to waste skill points on minor skills. Why does a Rogue have to pay twice just so he can sneak?
-Game balance. With everyone on the at-will/per-encounter/per-day system, classes are going to be FAR easier to balance. If something is too good, it's going to be a *specific power*, which can then be errataed or just casually removed from your game, rather than an *entire class* and a quarter of the spells on its spell list.
-The lack of gnomes in the PHB. Gnomes are awful monstrosities, and every single one of them deserves to die a horrible death.
-Martial characters not taking a back seat. Four out of eight of the 4E core classes are entirely martial, rather than 3/11 in 3.X. You can even, pretty much, make a fully-functional party with the roles covered without any spellcasters, now (you'll have a Striker Ranger instead of a Controller Wizard, but Rangers seem pretty controller-y for strikers, and with the nerfing of control abilities and their durations in 4E, I'm guessing you can survive just fine without a wizard).


And RPGA is moving to the 4e standard. Good luck getting your points if you are going to continue to play 3e. It's all a racket.
???
Who cares about RPGA "points"? And how does the official WotC gaming thingy moving to the latest edition of the game constitute a racket? How could they do anything *else*?

Artanis
2008-03-01, 03:34 PM
Well, in 3.5, you could deal with a monster in a lot of ways. You could use diplomacy, mind-affecting spells, stealth to sneak around it. Yeah, those totally kill the monster. :smallyuk:
4e has more rules for non-stabbity encounters. Have you not seen where they explain that there's more space devoted to social interaction than just a blurb about how one skill works? Have you not seen the description of an entirely skill-based encounter in which there is action but no combat?



In 4e, the monsters are just chunks of XP and since you have a harder time dying, why not try attacking the monster? Some of us actually like a story instead of a dungeon crawl. Maybe I'm spoiled in that I've had interesting campaigns in the past. If I want a dungeon crawl, I'll play a video game. Yes, a video game. It seems like we are looked down if we compare 4e to a video game, but what else is there to compare it to? What other game has an XP grind for no other reason to gain XP? I'm not saying this didn't happen in 3.x, but at least the core didn't say the center of the universe is the PCs.
What other game has an XP grind? Try every other RPG in existence, if you go by the definition you seem to be using.

What about 4e keeps you from making a story? Is it the expanded social encounter rules? Is it the increased capacity for using social-based skills, as opposed to 3e's "pump everything into spellcraft/know:arcane/concentration and let the Diplomancer cheese his way through three seconds of talking"? Is it the ability to have BBEGs that can actually use tactics, rather than being gang-raped so quickly he never gets a single action, which would've consisted of "I attack" anyways?

Yeah, being able to talk my way out of a fight instead of being forced to stabbify that town guard questioning me sounds sooooooo much like an XP grind :smallamused:

ShadowSiege
2008-03-01, 03:36 PM
Believe it or not, bards can totally be a part of D&D because no where in the books does it say a party has to fight at all. OMG! How dare I imply you can have an RP game with little to no battles. That is simply a playstyle. Just as a bard is a playstyle. When you play a bard in 3e, you accept certain truths: you are going to suck in battle, you are going suck as a spell caster. You will however grant a nice bonus to attack rolls and you will be helpful in foiling the plot of the BBEG by your bardic knowledge. Bards are not meant to be battle-bots, which is why they don't fit in with the 4e mentality of "Kill the monsters!" It's a different playing style and not even to nod at a staple that has been there since the start is a disgrace.

Name me 3 things that have really improved with 4e. Three things that no matter how hard I try I cannot argue with. Maybe then I'll see it as an "improved" system otherwise it is simply new.

So you're saying the 4e designers should have spent time and effort trying to get the books to press to change the bard from something like a cross between a sentient wondrous item, a book, and a diplomat? They were busy building a whole new gaming system, complete with social encounter rules so maybe the bard (when they release it) would be more useful in that light as well as maybe being useful in combat. And again, the bard wasn't a staple in 1e, it was an add-on like psionics.

More than three things that have improved with 4e: casting; combat; social encounters, puzzles, and quests have rewards again; skills; elven subraces; cosmology; class balance.


So in a game where monsters are chunks of XP and you have a harder time dying and you can heal all damage overnight, you have a decidedly different game than what 3e is.

Unless you're running a low/no magic game, most damage will be healed overnight anyway by the cleric. No change there. Monsters have always been chunks of XP with more info thrown in so that if you want them to be more than just that, you can weave them into the story, giving them motivations beyond "they're trying to kill me and take my stuff." Which is usually what happens anyway.

Chromatic dragons are killed because they pose a threat to the PC's towns and countryside and will brook no deal to just leave people alone. Mind flayers and aboleths are killed because they are incredibly alien. They view other races as inferior and worthy only of being slaves/dinner. They are a pest to these aberrations that are infesting the areas that they desire to rule once again. Devils are fought because they seek to undermine the balance of the cosmos to sway it in their favor. Demons are fought because they are a malign, destructive force in the cosmos. Gryphons are fought because they're trying to eat your damn horse and you paid 75gp for it.

Humanoids are killed because they pose a threat to the PCs and won't be talked down. Metallic dragons are killed because the party is evil and wants to take their stuff or the dragon has become a bit too zealous and poses a threat and all other options have been exhausted.

Fluffy woodland creatures are killed that they may be eaten and made into clothing that pisses off PETA. Wolves are killed when they present a threat to the person or to livestock. Bluefin tuna are nearing collapse because they taste really, really good and people pay damn good money for them.


No where have I read that a PC has to qualify to acquire a Paragon path, other than getting over level 10. It seems like it is given. PrCs give at least the illusion of specialization before a PC can join it.

Except we haven't read anything about the paragon paths than what you have mentioned. They may indeed require that a PC has a certain skill set to qualify for it, or at least certain feats and powers.

Rutee
2008-03-01, 03:42 PM
Bard isn't a "playstyle". It's a class. You play it the way you do any other class. It's just that part of what you're good at is "social encounters", and part of what you're not so good at is "combat". In conclusion, get over yourself; the pretentious "it's a playstyle, you combat-monger!" crap is something I'd except from a Vampire player, not a D&D (you know, the game that's about going into DUNGEONS and killing DRAGONS) player.
I have nothing to add to that, because you summed up what I'd have said quite well on your own, but if you'd humor me for a moment.. was that "Accept" Or "Expect"? Either allows for amusement, I'm just curious which flavor it was intended as :smallbiggrin:

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-01, 03:43 PM
Funny, I paid $20 for my 2E PHB and it's lasted me THIRTEEN years and counting. I don't understand this philosophy that you can only play a game for so long before you have to stop and play something else, especially for such an open-ended game like D&D. How many big reboots has Monopoly undergone in the last 80 years? And yet people still play it.
Yeah, but the downside of that is that you're playing 2E. How're the racial level caps, the 10% XP bonus for having a high enough stat to actually be effective, and the System Shock rules treating you? :P
(I'm sure you're enjoying it, but you'd have to pay me money to get me to use that horrifically-designed, mechanically uninteresting ruleset.)

My point wasn't that you have to stop--it's that 8 years is NOT a short time between edition changes, and is definitely above industry average. It's pretty dang near the top, in fact!
I was also reacting to the ridiculousness of someone claiming they're being ripped off because their edition only lasted eight years.


Anyway, Rachel...calm down. Your last post is bordering on flaming. I understand DementedFellow's opinion is frustrating you, but there's no reason to get worked up over it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, not to being a condescending jerk.
I'll try to keep cooler.



Well, in 3.5, you could deal with a monster in a lot of ways. You could use diplomacy, mind-affecting spells, stealth to sneak around it. Yeah, those totally kill the monster. :smallyuk:
And in 4E, you can't sneak around it or use diplomacy or stealth or powers that let you get past it... why?

3.5 assumed that you'd be fighting. All the time. Four times a day every adventuring day. Maybe you've heard of things like "random encounter tables"? How about the way 95% of class abilities are all about combat?
Heck, how about the fact that it's just an evolution from a tactical wargame?


In 4e, the monsters are just chunks of XP and since you have a harder time dying, why not try attacking the monster? Some of us actually like a story instead of a dungeon crawl.
And a "story" means you never fight anything? I find that hard to believe. In any case, if you like stories that involve little to no combat, why on earth are you using D&D to run them? D&D is the game with the class that has absolutely no other abilities beyond "fight things". It's even called a "Fighter".
How are monsters "just chunks of XP" now compared to before? Is it because they have fixed XP values rather than CRs that you use to *determine* the fixed XP values? What on earth is the difference there?

"Since you have a harder time dying, why not try attacking the monster"? Because you're roleplaying, maybe?
You know what game I heard "screw talking/sneaking/whatever, we can take it! I attack!" in all the time? 3.5.

You are pretending that somehow, 4E is going to be a combat-focused hackfest and 3.5 wasn't. Actually, they're about equally combat-focused, and if you want to play a combat-light game of 4E where you sneak past monsters and negotiate with your enemies, absolutely nothing will stop you.
And you won't have to deal with DC 25 Diplomacy checks turning someone who wants to kill you into someone who's totally indifferent about you.


Maybe I'm spoiled in that I've had interesting campaigns in the past. If I want a dungeon crawl, I'll play a video game. Yes, a video game. It seems like we are looked down if we compare 4e to a video game, but what else is there to compare it to? What other game has an XP grind for no other reason to gain XP?
You're looked down on because it's a bad, trite, inane comparison. What other game has an XP grind just to gain XP? HOW ABOUT 3.5?, or every other RPG out there that has XP?
You're somehow interpreting fixed XP values for monsters as OMG GRIND, but CR-based XP values for monsters as not? That's got to take some mental gymnastics.


I'm not saying this didn't happen in 3.x, but at least the core didn't say the center of the universe is the PCs.
This is yet another one of those eye-rollingly dismissive arguments.
You know something? The PCs are the focus of the *game*, not the universe. Why? Because they're the ones playing it. The PCs were ALREADY the focus of your campaign. What were you focusing on while you were playing these interesting campaigns--the player characters and what they're doing, or what the NPCs or monsters are doing 500 miles away? I'm guessing you actually played the game and had it focus on what the PCs were doing, while the DM decided what happens 500 miles away on his own.

You need to take a good, honest look at your positions and realize that you're actively trying to assume the worst about 4E. There's no other way to justify saying that 4E is a hackfest, while 3.5 was all about catering to "interesting stories" and non-combat problem-solving methods. I can barely type that without cracking up.


Edit: I meant "expect". Other post fixed.

ShadowSiege
2008-03-01, 03:44 PM
Well, in 3.5, you could deal with a monster in a lot of ways. You could use diplomacy, mind-affecting spells, stealth to sneak around it. Yeah, those totally kill the monster. :smallyuk:

Those options aren't necessarily out of the picture.


In 4e, the monsters are just chunks of XP and since you have a harder time dying, why not try attacking the monster?

Because the monster can hand your ass to you on a silver platter? Just because it is there doesn't mean you can/should/will kill it. Death is permanent in heroic, difficult to overcome in paragon, and though a speedbump in epic, the monster can TPK the party and then trap their souls or something, making death quite final. The speedbump relies on the characters overcoming the encounter. If everyone is dead, the monster wins and then eats their rich, tasty souls.


Some of us actually like a story instead of a dungeon crawl. Maybe I'm spoiled in that I've had interesting campaigns in the past. If I want a dungeon crawl, I'll play a video game. Yes, a video game. It seems like we are looked down if we compare 4e to a video game, but what else is there to compare it to? What other game has an XP grind for no other reason to gain XP? I'm not saying this didn't happen in 3.x, but at least the core didn't say the center of the universe is the PCs.

For the most part, any killing in a campaign is related to the story. Dungeon crawls tend to be unsatisfactory without a reason for doing them. I have no idea where you got the notion of an XP grind. The DM controls the rate of XP in any game, and the characters advance at the DMs whim. And 4e doesn't say PCs are the center of the universe, it says they're the center OF THE CAMPAIGN. They're the lead actors on the stage in the play.

Indon
2008-03-01, 03:49 PM
The Bard *is* a superfluous class--it's never fit into the party roles, it's never been anything but that wacky fifth wheel.

I think his problem is that the classes which don't fit into the strict ability groupings are going to be axed, or hacked at until they fit one (they'll probably release an arcane leader as the "Bard", if you ask me).

Some people prefer versatility and variety in their system over standardization and balance, and it's clear Wizards is choosing the latter. I think y'all are being very angry about a simple fact which seems to me to be just mostly sad.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 03:53 PM
Nowhere did I say one playstyle is better than the other, or even imply that I was a better roleplayer. I merely said you and I have different styles.

Bards can do more than sing. Fascinate is a very nice ability that can cause a lot of doors to open.

How about practicing what you preach. I've been more than civil around here. Next time look at yourself in the mirror before you start telling people to Never do that again.

I imagine I'm not the only one who misses bards. After all they made it through 3 editions, over a couple decades, I am willing to bet if they were the huge chunk of fail you so loudly proclaim them to be, they wouldn't have made it to second edition.

As for your reasons,

-Fighters are sucky if you make them sucky.
-Something tells me if traps were effective in 3.x, you would complain that they are too effective.
-If you are having trouble with a spellcaster stealing the show, then you have a problem gamer, not a problem game.
-Condensed skill lists are alright. (point for you)
-Game balance? Silly me, I always thought that when you have the typical group: the tank, the heal-bot, the skill monkey (and possibly the batman), that was balanced. I mean everyone is provided a function and feels that he or she is participating. So what's the use in having 3 character who can do the same things and heal themselves over a night's rest? Why bother playing other classes if X class can give you everything you want?
-Gnomes don't get much love. There isn't much incentive to play a gnome. To make them a monster though is kinda crappy. Since there won't be any racial adjustments to ability scores, why not include gnomes?
-A ranger? You know you talk about bards so harshly, but I don't think I've ever seen a ranger in my gaming group. Difference of playing styles? Oh noes! not again!

Artanis
2008-03-01, 03:55 PM
Some people prefer versatility and variety in their system over standardization and balance, and it's clear Wizards is choosing the latter. I think y'all are being very angry about a simple fact which seems to me to be just mostly sad.
It's sorta that, and it's sorta the exact opposite.

They're acknowledging that, whether they like it or not, classes are going to fill a certain role. Hell, that was part of the original design of D&D a hundred years ago: Fighter, Theif, Wizard, Cleric. They're accepting what's already the case and designing in such a way as to account for that...which means that yes, each class will largely be designed for a certain role.

BUT!

They're adding a LOT of versatility to each class, enough versatility to fulfill at least one other role (though not as well as classes with that role as their primary, of course), if not more.

Take the Fighter. He's a Defender. But he "defends" the party by making it very, very painful for a monster who decides to attack somebody else. And when you have enough damage output to make a monster decide you're more dangerous than the Rogue stabbing him in the kidneys...that's a hell of a lot of damage, plenty for a decent enough Striker.

Or take the Wizard. The Wizard is officially a Controller. But just look at the character sheets released at DnD XP: plenty of his spells are ways to dish out pain. Ray of Frost, Magic Missile, etc. The Wizard can make a decent Striker by forgoing the save-or-suck spells and just making with the nuking.

horseboy
2008-03-01, 03:55 PM
*Clap* I especially love this line:

In conclusion, get over yourself; the pretentious "it's a playstyle, you combat-monger!" crap is something I'd except from a Vampire player, not a D&D (you know, the game that's about going into DUNGEONS and killing DRAGONS) player.

Rutee
2008-03-01, 04:00 PM
Indeed. Personally, I never got why people focus on or off combat in a singular sense. Isn't it better to just go with whatever's more appropriate to the story, which can and will vary based on situation? 'Course, I like having both, and having my cake and eating it too, in this regard

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 04:08 PM
For all the people who have criticized my posts, I have one question for you. Would you rather I came in and said, "I'm not playing 4e. It is horrible." then never posted again.

I gave you my reasons. Granted you all disagree. My reasons are about flavor. I like what I have going on right now and I don't exactly see what is so broken about 3.5. It is a system that has lasted a while. Maybe one day you all will realize that there is little more going on than, "Gentlemen, we are out of ideas for supplements. We need to retool the game system so we can sell the same supplements over and over to masses."

There were quite a bit of supplements for 2e, and then 3e came out soon followed many supplements along the same lines. Complete whatever seems to be a theme, in 2e, we have titles such as Complete Wizards Handbook, Complete Thief's Handbook and so on. We have books in 3e like Complete Arcane and Complete Scoundrel. At least meet me half-way and admit that money could be a deciding factor in retooling the system.

I also have a question. Why is it totally okay to ban half-templates but then have a half-dragon type classes in the core? Doesn't anyone see that as hypocritical?

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-01, 04:12 PM
I think his problem is that the classes which don't fit into the strict ability groupings are going to be axed, or hacked at until they fit one (they'll probably release an arcane leader as the "Bard", if you ask me).

Some people prefer versatility and variety in their system over standardization and balance, and it's clear Wizards is choosing the latter. I think y'all are being very angry about a simple fact which seems to me to be just mostly sad.
I don't think that's his problem.
Arcane Leader fits the Bard concept perfectly, incidentally.

Wizards isn't "choosing" the later, because there's still plenty of versatility and variety in the system.


Nowhere did I say one playstyle is better than the other, or even imply that I was a better roleplayer. I merely said you and I have different styles.
And you said it in a terribly condescending way that implies "I'm a ROLEplayer, you're a ROLLplayer" or some other such trite saying.

"OMG! How dare I imply you can have an RP game with little to no battles,"


Bards can do more than sing. Fascinate is a very nice ability that can cause a lot of doors to open.
And to use Fascinate, they have to--you guessed it--sing at the monsters.
Or possibly play their lute.


How about practicing what you preach. I've been more than civil around here. Next time look at yourself in the mirror before you start telling people to Never do that again.
Condescension isn't civil. I'm well aware that you can have combat-light games, thank you; I do NOT need you informing me of the fact like it's something that's new to me. That's why you should never do that again.


I imagine I'm not the only one who misses bards. After all they made it through 3 editions, over a couple decades, I am willing to bet if they were the huge chunk of fail you so loudly proclaim them to be, they wouldn't have made it to second edition.
It sings at monsters in dungeons; that makes it a fundamentally silly class. But's also not being removed from the game, it just doesn't get to be in the PHB. Because there are other people who miss bards... there's just not that many of them.


As for your reasons,

-Fighters are sucky if you make them sucky.
-Something tells me if traps were effective in 3.x, you would complain that they are too effective.
Traps being to effective isn't good game design, no, but that's not my problem here.

Also, no, Fighters aren't sucky if you make them sucky. They're sucky by default. A core fighter is fine at low levels and then stops being able to even *engage melee monsters in melee*. A noncore fighter has to rely on one of several specific, cheesy builds or suffer the same fate... and is still outclassed. Also, they can't do anything other than fight, at all. (Because, you know, that's what D&D is fundamentally about.)
Fighters being Awesome instead of Crap is a MAJOR asset of 4E. Maybe you never play Fighters, so you don't know what it's like to play a straight Fighter and suck, but believe me, it's a major problem.
(And no, the problem isn't that I don't know how to build them, so don't even go there.)


-If you are having trouble with a spellcaster stealing the show, then you have a problem gamer, not a problem game.
This is ridiculous. If the spellcasters were nerfing themselves to the Fighter's level, the party would die.
Also, nerfing yourself isn't fun. I shouldn't have to consistently do the dumb thing just so the Fighter's player shouldn't feel bad--the Fighter should be awesome in his own right.


-Condensed skill lists are alright. (point for you)
-Game balance? Silly me, I always thought that when you have the typical group: the tank, the heal-bot, the skill monkey (and possibly the batman), that was balanced. I mean everyone is provided a function and feels that he or she is participating. So what's the use in having 3 character who can do the same things and heal themselves over a night's rest? Why bother playing other classes if X class can give you everything you want?
So, if you have a set of characters played in ONE, EXACT, RIGID, INFLEXIBLE WAY, the game is balanced (at some levels)? Brilliant. Yeah, I guess game balance isn't a problem at all.
And if we have a Monk and a Druid in the same group, there's no chance of the Druid making the Monk feel useless, I'm sure.

You know what? Heal-botting sucks. The Fighter shouldn't need a dedicated healer to stand behind him and cure away, and it's no fun being that healer. This is the reason they made 3.5 clerics and druids so good.

Do NOT pretend that 3.5 is balanced. Setting aside the infinite wealth/power/Titan loops present in the core books alone, the classes are at drastically different power levels. And this is OK because you can achieve some small semblance of balance by having the cleric do nothing but heal and the wizard do nothing but blast? Please.


-Gnomes don't get much love. There isn't much incentive to play a gnome. To make them a monster though is kinda crappy. Since there won't be any racial adjustments to ability scores, why not include gnomes?
Wh--what? there will be racial adjustments to ability scores (and gnomes' adjustments were fine; EVERYONE needs CON).
Gnomes are in the Monster Manual rather than the PHB because they have absolutely no consistent flavor and they're rather unpopular.


-A ranger? You know you talk about bards so harshly, but I don't think I've ever seen a ranger in my gaming group. Difference of playing styles? Oh noes! not again!
The ranger doesn't sing at his enemies. What on earth does "difference of playstyle" have to do with the point I was making, which is that all-martial, no-spellcaster campaigns will be possible in 4E while they really aren't in 3.5?

Artanis
2008-03-01, 04:16 PM
For all the people who have criticized my posts, I have one question for you. Would you rather I came in and said, "I'm not playing 4e. It is horrible." then never posted again.
Considering that the reasons you've stated thus far are largely based on flatly, explicitly, provably false information, yes. Yes I would.


I gave you my reasons. Granted you all disagree. My reasons are about flavor. I like what I have going on right now and I don't exactly see what is so broken about 3.5. It is a system that has lasted a while. Maybe one day you all will realize that there is little more going on than, "Gentlemen, we are out of ideas for supplements. We need to retool the game system so we can sell the same supplements over and over to masses."

There were quite a bit of supplements for 2e, and then 3e came out soon followed many supplements along the same lines. Complete whatever seems to be a theme, in 2e, we have titles such as Complete Wizards Handbook, Complete Thief's Handbook and so on. We have books in 3e like Complete Arcane and Complete Scoundrel. At least meet me half-way and admit that money could be a deciding factor in retooling the system.
This is the first post I've seen from you that gives a reason that is not based on complete ignorance.

If you like 3.5, that's great. It's a reason I can respect, and in fact may decide that I hold myself if I see the actual, final-release rules for 4e and don't like what I see. If you think 3.5 isn't broke and doesn't need fixing, I respect that. If you're having fun with 3.5 and don't see any reason to change, then I respect that.

When you start lying about how 3.5 isn't broken but 4e is, THAT is when I take exception.


I also have a question. Why is it totally okay to ban half-templates but then have a half-dragon type classes in the core? Doesn't anyone see that as hypocritical?
Mind linking me to where they're going to have half-dragon-type classes in Core? The only classes I see are Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Wizard, Warlock, Cleric, and Warlord. Last I checked, being a Rogue didn't give you wings and scales.

Zincorium
2008-03-01, 04:18 PM
I also have a question. Why is it totally okay to ban half-templates but then have a half-dragon type classes in the core? Doesn't anyone see that as hypocritical?

Er. What now? Are you talking about the removal of half-orcs (half-elves are back in last I checked) in exchange for the dragonborn? Who are not half breeds at all? Because that would be a major leap of logic from what you actually said.


Lastly, for everyone that says they hate fourth edition, 99% of the people I've ever heard say they will never play a particular gaming system (usually a new edition) wound up embracing it whole-heartedly a few months down the line. I'm not saying you're wrong, those of you who don't like it, you may very well be right, but it'd be a unique situation from where I'm standing.

Indon
2008-03-01, 04:21 PM
It's sorta that, and it's sorta the exact opposite.


I disagree. I'd say it's sorta that, and it's sorta that they want to encourage the perception of versatility and variety in their newly much less versatile system.


They're acknowledging that, whether they like it or not, classes are going to fill a certain role. Hell, that was part of the original design of D&D a hundred years ago: Fighter, Theif, Wizard, Cleric.
Those roles were hitting things, disarming traps, throwing fireballs, and healing. Those are pretty loose archetypes. 4'th edition is building its' archetype system off of years of experience by people playing games in which roles have become progressively more regimented.

So now, instead of 'swings a weapon, does sneaky things, casts spells, and heals people', we have The Tank, The DPS, The Buffer, and The Crowd Controller (The Healer is deemed as being too boring for play, and so the game is built to make it into a nonrole). Rather than roles that dictate a fraction of a character's abilities, roles now dictate all abilities.


They're adding a LOT of versatility to each class, enough versatility to fulfill at least one other role (though not as well as classes with that role as their primary, of course), if not more.

So all this does is compensate for some of the lost ground.

"Yes, we've restricted all classes into four mechanical options, and we've modified the game to completely remove the existence of other otherwise possible character options. But any given class can specialize to do a different one than the one we tell you, isn't our system versatile?" - the answer is no, not really. But, it's not as bad as it could be - off-specs might not be viable at all.

Edit:


I also have a question. Why is it totally okay to ban half-templates but then have a half-dragon type classes in the core? Doesn't anyone see that as hypocritical?

No. I doubt the game supports anything like templates anymore.

Edit again:


I don't think that's his problem.
Arcane Leader fits the Bard concept perfectly, incidentally.

Except that the Bard has never been a buff-specialist. The Bard has always been a generalist. An Arcane Leader class called "Bard" will be a replacement in name, and some flavor, but will not be a jack-of-all-trades.

The Bard is dead. Long live the Bard. Heh.

DementedFellow
2008-03-01, 04:21 PM
You know what? Forget it. I was wrong. I'm sure 4e will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. It will cure cancer and it will make the dead rise. I came to this forum because I wanted help with 3.5, not to be involved in circular debates over the merits of a system that isn't even out yet. I give, you guys. There's no use arguing. I'll just say I'm dissatisfied and I'll leave. Have fun.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-01, 04:22 PM
For all the people who have criticized my posts, I have one question for you. Would you rather I came in and said, "I'm not playing 4e. It is horrible." then never posted again.
I'd rather you not have posted that pile of baseless strawman arguments at all, but failing that, you need to start looking at the responses rather than ignoring them, and not making statements as totally baseless and ridiculous as "4E is all about killing monsters for XP, whereas 3.5 supports alternative methods", which is what some of what you've said has amounted to. (As it's been pointed out to you, 4E is actually BETTTER for handling things without combat.)


I gave you my reasons. Granted you all disagree. My reasons are about flavor. I like what I have going on right now and I don't exactly see what is so broken about 3.5. It is a system that has lasted a while.
And it's a system with a crapton of problems. Seriously--it has infinite wealth/power loops in the core books! That's something a DM can just say no to, obviously, but it should tell you something about the balance of the game.
It's a sytem that has lasted a while, and with a whole ton of problems.


Maybe one day you all will realize that there is little more going on than, "Gentlemen, we are out of ideas for supplements. We need to retool the game system so we can sell the same supplements over and over to masses."
Ah, right. We're all morons who can't tell that we're being conned, and you're the enlightened one.
See, THIS is the kind of condescending crap that makes people criticize your posts.

Actually, you're wrong, because THEY'RE DESIGNING 4E TO BE A GOOD GAME. A better one, IMO, than 3.5 is, just like 3.x was better than 2E.

Even if you were right, they'd still need to make 4E good in order to make money off of it. And everything we've seen so far indicates that they have.


There were quite a bit of supplements for 2e, and then 3e came out soon followed many supplements along the same lines. Complete whatever seems to be a theme, in 2e, we have titles such as Complete Wizards Handbook, Complete Thief's Handbook and so on. We have books in 3e like Complete Arcane and Complete Scoundrel. At least meet me half-way and admit that money could be a deciding factor in retooling the system.
Money is a factor, sure. It's not the only factor, or even the biggest factor (they could have kept on making money from 3.5 for some time, judging by the people crying about how they wanted to buy more splatbooks). It's also irrelevant to whether the new system will be BETTER--which they have to make it be, if they want to make money off of it (and all signs point to it being better).


I also have a question. Why is it totally okay to ban half-templates but then have a half-dragon type classes in the core? Doesn't anyone see that as hypocritical?
They didn't "ban half-templates", templates don't exist as far as we know, and good riddance.
Core has the Half-Elf.
Dragonborn are not half-dragons. They are their own, vaguely draconic race. Nothing hypocritical there.

horseboy
2008-03-01, 04:23 PM
I gave you my reasons. Granted you all disagree. My reasons are about flavor. I like what I have going on right now and I don't exactly see what is so broken about 3.5.
It may be true, but no man in his senses
Would ever credit it; yet possible
It seems to him, for, lacking in defenses,
To what is plain, but made invisible,
The king is blind (or with his sight dispenses),
Since what is not, love's power makes credible.
Thus he believes her for, as all men do,
He gives asscent to what he hopes is true.

Canto 1, verse 56
I'm sorry, but 3.5 was so badly broken i couldn't play it sober without it pissing me off. They really do need to retool it, and they need to make money so they can stay in business. That aspect of 4th is a win/win for everybody. If you're going to hate on it hate it for the right reasons, not just because it's new.


Hmm, maybe Matt and Jaded and some of the rest of us should start a grognards self help group.

Scintillatus
2008-03-01, 04:31 PM
Guys, guys.

How can you call the Bard dumb, or goofy? What is a cooler thought than a murderous Skald screaming bloody murder as he charges in? The tribal war-drummer? Heralds mounted on horseback at the forefront of cavalry?

Seriously, Bards are cool. And it DOES suck that they're not in the PHB1. But since the game will have less classes overall, with a greater sense of flavor for each one - I don't mind that it'll be in the PHB2. I consider that "core", too, just not first year core.

Plus, I have plenty of ideas for the eight classes we're getting this year.

Zincorium
2008-03-01, 04:33 PM
What is a cooler thought than a murderous Skald screaming bloody murder as he charges in? The tribal war-drummer? Heralds mounted on horseback at the forefront of cavalry?

One word: Warlord.

Bleen
2008-03-01, 04:36 PM
I'd rather you not have posted that pile of baseless strawman arguments at all, but failing that, you need to start looking at the responses rather than ignoring them, and not making statements as totally baseless and ridiculous as "4E is all about killing monsters for XP, whereas 3.5 supports alternative methods", which is what some of what you've said has amounted to. (As it's been pointed out to you, 4E is actually BETTTER for handling things without combat.)


Hey, don't hate on 3.5! It had totally balanced and functional noncombat mechanics! Like Diplomacy![/sarcasm]

Scintillatus
2008-03-01, 04:36 PM
Yeah, that's why I don't like Warlords. By making them the master of rallying calls, putting them in heavy armour and then making Bards "masters of illusion" (i.e. beguilers) they've made it a bit of a pain in the bum for me to have a nimble AND inspiring leader. But instead of going "zomg 4e ruins my... one bard character" I'll just remake him as a Rogue, and say he moves much like he's dancing.

Not exactly ideal, but I prefer a few stumbling blocks regarding pre-existing characters to impossibly confusing rulesets and extraordinarily goofy simulationist relics.

Indon
2008-03-01, 04:37 PM
One word: Warlord.

Who mostly replaces the Marshal, really. The Bard was just versatile enough to be able to fulfill a number of different roles.

Also, I'd _completely_ missed there being a new page of posts when I edited my last post. That's what I get for making the last post on the page. Now, do I leave my edits to possibly be missed or repost them and possibly be annoying? Man...

Rutee
2008-03-01, 04:40 PM
Bards.. pretty much handled crowd control and buffs, didn't they? I'd probably go with the Warlord for one, and just beat things to death with an Axe.

"It's an EB-0! 1962 edition!"

But no, seriously, I'd say that the Warlord's a fine replacement in general, even if I wasn't going to play a 'Bard' as one..

Scintillatus
2008-03-01, 04:44 PM
Meh. I don't see why a Bard couldn't have fulfilled the Warlord's role, with a lessened reliance on crowd control - that domain can be held quite easily by a Wizard, Beguiler, Sorceror, whatever.

Bard-as-Leader would have made Bards appropriately badass, gone perfectly with the cinematic style that's being implemented, and let them actually keep "Feather Me Yon Oaf" as a class ability name.

But it is solely a complaint about personal preference, and I am not going to let it do anything more than make me retool my Tiefling Exotic Dancer as a Rogue.

ShadowSiege
2008-03-01, 04:57 PM
So now, instead of 'swings a weapon, does sneaky things, casts spells, and heals people', we have The Tank, The DPS, The Buffer, and The Crowd Controller (The Healer is deemed as being too boring for play, and so the game is built to make it into a nonrole). Rather than roles that dictate a fraction of a character's abilities, roles now dictate all abilities.

They're not restricting the classes by classifying them. They're simply saying, "Here is what this class is good at." Fighters have been about hitting stuff and getting hit since always. Just because they're not classified as a defender doesn't change that at all. Evidence has been presented that the classes are still able to fulfill a different role, though in a different manner than classes that are classified as that role.

Indon
2008-03-01, 05:07 PM
They're simply saying, "Here is what this class is good at."

Wizards is building classes around roles - not using roles as descriptors for capabilities. They described classes last version.

This version, the Fighter is going to get aggro-control abilities - because it is a Tank. Many of the Wizard's damaging spells are going to have status side-effects - because it is a CC class. And so on.

Artanis
2008-03-01, 05:19 PM
This version, the Fighter is going to get aggro-control abilities - because it is a Tank.
Only if you define "aggro control" as "hitting something really hard". Because that's how a 4e Fighter keeps things hitting him: by hitting them so incredibly hard that it would be stupid NOT to concentrate on the Fighter.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 05:49 PM
Well, and they get a taunt like ability that everyone not hitting him gets -2 to attack rolls.

Artanis
2008-03-01, 05:52 PM
Well, and they get a taunt like ability that everyone not hitting him gets -2 to attack rolls.
But does it force them to attack the Fighter? No. While it makes it a good idea to attack the fighter, they don't have to do so. Thus, it's not aggro control.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 05:53 PM
Touche' :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2008-03-01, 05:56 PM
But does it force them to attack the Fighter? No. While it makes it a good idea to attack the fighter, they don't have to do so. Thus, it's not aggro control.

Here's a weird one though... how does the creature affected know he's supposed to be attacking the fighter now? Does he need ranks in Knowledge (Exploits) or something?

Artanis
2008-03-01, 06:12 PM
Here's a weird one though... how does the creature affected know he's supposed to be attacking the fighter now? Does he need ranks in Knowledge (Exploits) or something?
*shrug* We'll see. We have no way of knowing one way or the other whether or not the explanations given are plausible.

Scintillatus
2008-03-01, 06:16 PM
Here's a weird one though... how does the creature affected know he's supposed to be attacking the fighter now? Does he need ranks in Knowledge (Exploits) or something?

He feels the big burly bloke with the ruddy great sword turning him into modern art at a startling rate, and decides to do something about it. :smallamused:

JadedDM
2008-03-01, 07:00 PM
Yeah, but the downside of that is that you're playing 2E. How're the racial level caps, the 10% XP bonus for having a high enough stat to actually be effective, and the System Shock rules treating you? :P
(I'm sure you're enjoying it, but you'd have to pay me money to get me to use that horrifically-designed, mechanically uninteresting ruleset.)

I dropped the racial level caps (we called them 'level limits' by the way) when I realized that I've never run a game that made it past level 8 (and most level limits were set around 12-15). As for everything else, it works just super for us, thanks for asking. And we don't have to buy any new books (ever) and when 4E comes out, we can keep playing as always. No need to end the game and start over again. :smallcool:

Matthew
2008-03-01, 07:28 PM
I'm sorry, but 3.5 was so badly broken i couldn't play it sober without it pissing me off. They really do need to retool it, and they need to make money so they can stay in business. That aspect of 4th is a win/win for everybody. If you're going to hate on it hate it for the right reasons, not just because it's new.

Hmm, maybe Matt and Jaded and some of the rest of us should start a grognards self help group.

Hah, hah. "How I learned to live with edition change."

Zeful
2008-03-01, 09:47 PM
If you recall, my first urging was to simply not buy it. And only if you MUST play 4e, should you pirate it. How else are we going to send a message that the fans are not happy.

@Rutee. Part of the reason why Bards and Monks are unpopular is because a large portion of people don't like playing a support class (Bard) while not being the best in battle themselves, and monks have been nerfed.

Instead of leaving these classes out completely, they should have tried to "fix" them with this illustrious 4e. But that seems to be the motto of 4e. "It doesn't fit in, throw it away." To me, it doesn't even seem like they made an effort to make it work.

You do know there are better than two-hundred and fifty base classes? You do know that most of them may well be impossible to even create in 4e (duskblade and hexblade to be specific (they cross power sources)) without multiclassing? The design team was told to pick 8 because the new class design took up so much more space than previous editions. I want you, in two months to create a broad set of powers for 30 levels of three classes, that encourage a specific style of play without shoehorning player options. If you can do that, then you have every right to complain. Until then, STOP WHINING!! (this is directed to everyone who thinks that WOtC cut a class, any class, for reasons other than time/priority/ constraints or page count)

If they kept all of the eleven of the classes so to pander to the who whine the loudest then the entire edition could actually be worse than 3.5 (what with pun-pun, uberchargers and other cheese). The PHb will be roughly the same size as the current one. So it's freaking impossible, with the page limit to add the twenty plus* pages of class crunch, powers for all levels, and class related feats. And that's just for one class. To add the nearly one-hundred pages needed for equal support for the bard, barbarian, monk, druid and sorcerer would cost roughly 150,000 U.S. Dollars (a mostly large random number), most of that going into the paychecks of the people figuring out the math for the classes. You want to foot the bill? Fine, me I'll wait and buy the book if I really need it.

*My math for class page totals is roughly 5 at-will, 5 per-encounter, and 3-per day abilities per level for thrity levels (390 total class powers) (the last paladin power in the smite article was a level 27 power which is beyond the 25 levels of power assumption). If you fit roughly 20 powers per page you have 19.5 pages of powers alone and based on the rouge article, maybe two pages for the class and a half page of class feats there are approximently 22 pages per class that need to be added.

Yahzi
2008-03-01, 11:26 PM
Given some of the vehement bile that has been spewed about that very statement, I must conclude that there are indeed DMs who narrate out events that happen far, far away and don't affect the group directly..
That's not really fair.

It's fine to make the PCs the central focus of the campaign. What we were complaining about was making the PCs the central focus of the laws of physics.

Do you see the difference?

horseboy
2008-03-02, 12:17 AM
That's not really fair.

It's fine to make the PCs the central focus of the campaign. What we were complaining about was making the PCs the central focus of the laws of physics.

Do you see the difference?The same "laws of physics" in prior editions that said it was okay for a PC to fall from the stars, bounce twice then pick themselves up, dust themselves off and go smack a troll? (Thank you Spelljammer)
Edit:
Hah, hah. "How I learned to live with edition change."

I was thinking along the lines of:
1) We admit we are powerless over an edition change. There is nothing we can do to stop it from coming to fruition.
2) We believe that a power greater than ourselves can stop WotC from screwing up.
3) Make a decision to turn our will and our minds to enjoying the edition we prefer.
4) Make a searching and fearless gaming inventory of our chosen edition.
5) Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our editions wrongs.
6) We're entirely ready to have the community remove the flaws we perceive in our edition.
7) Humbly work together to remove said short comings.
8) Make a list of all posters we wrong in our outbursts of flaming.
9) Make direct amends to the people on your list.
10) Continue to make inventory of the grievances of others to see if they are the root causes of the problems in my edition of choice.
11) Work together with the people who enjoy our edition to spread the joy we hold.
12) Realize the everybody has different things they like in a system, and no matter how obviously superior my edition is, some people will just not like it.

All in good fun, of course.:smallamused:

Deepblue706
2008-03-02, 12:42 AM
One word: Warlord.

Guys, guys - a thought occurs.

Exactly how badass is a Level 1 Warlord? 'Cause, I'm thinking - not so much. Since, you know...level 1, and all :smallbiggrin:

Still tho, I prefer them to Bards.

However, I still can't get over Gnomes. I love Gnomes! They build robots, zeppelins, have funny hats, save foxes from traps in the woods, steal underpants...

They might not be consistent, but what's not to love? THAT should be their niche - always keeping people on their toes.

LibraryOgre
2008-03-02, 12:43 AM
The same "laws of physics" in prior editions that said it was okay for a PC to fall from the stars, bounce twice then pick themselves up, dust themselves off and go smack a troll? (Thank you Spelljammer)

To be fair, everyone with sufficient HP could've done that in Spelljammer. We never claimed they were particularly good physics, but they were consistent. :smallsmile:

horseboy
2008-03-02, 12:47 AM
To be fair, everyone with sufficient HP could've done that in Spelljammer. We never claimed they were particularly good physics, but they were consistent. :smallsmile:
True, but that was also back before all NPC's had to have a level, so someone who wasn't plot significant wouldn't have had the HP to have done that.

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 01:02 AM
Hey, not really into the debate just kinda pointing some stuff out. Read entire post before responding



Well i for one am shocked, simple shocked at this. It goes against all logic. It is profoundly disturbing what one will read these days. How could people possibly disagree with these changes. How could you even comprehend such things as WOTC not doing what is best for you. Have WOTC ever let you down before. When 3E was around people were saying absurd things about WOTC changes then too and 3E wound up being the perfect and totally balanced game it is today right? So 4E is what we call "epically balanced" in terms of crunch. In fact, everything is epic in this edition, from fighting, healing, sleeping, moving, dying, every thing is epic and therefore better. Honestly, i personally can't understand how these 4E downers can't understand, WOTC knows what is best for you, you need to accept that
I mean look at this


Just because something is new, that doesn't mean it is better. It just means it is new.
what kind of idea is this?



Most of the anti-4e stuff I've seen so far has followed a very simple pattern; "how dare you make the game more fun for people other than me".
It seems to me that most of the anti-4E people have this totally absurd and wacky idea that 4E should support more than one play style for some reason, instead of making everything absolute. I mean, if you don't agree with what WOTC is saying about how you play the game, then you must be playing the game wrong. Your cheating, you failed, you've upset the balanced. Honestly, some people can't get their head around that concept
That's not really fair.


It's fine to make the PCs the central focus of the campaign. What we were complaining about was making the PCs the central focus of the laws of physics.

Do you see the difference?
The difference is that WOTC says one is correct. So they must be right. you need to learn the rules Yahzi


Given some of the vehement bile that has been spewed about that very statement, I must conclude that there are indeed DMs who narrate out events that happen far, far away and don't affect the group directly. There are people who took great offense to what is, yes, common sense..
I totally agree Rutee, those bile spewing people, with their ideas such of verisimilitude. Don't they understand the first rule of Role Playing Games, i want everything to work out for me in every single way.


I just don't understand this attitude, regardless of who it's from. Resting for X hours has restored all your party's capabilities since the beginning of time. How is it suddenly different and terrible when...resting for X hours restores all your party's capabilities?
yes he has worked from the beginning of time, i recall in Final Fantasy that resting in an inn restored all of your health and even brought you back from the dead. True in 3E you only restored a little health by resting, but remember people, that is like reality. And we can't have that.

As i said before

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.



Yes, beacuse, as far as I know, arcane spell is quite standard "mind-rape" spell, and DC is god-like power intervening to force some goblin/something inteligent to attack one folk instead of other - potentialy attack anything at all.

I could unterstand if it was forcing only evil outsiders or some generaly unholy beings to attack.
Oh what is this. Another one of those silly ideas that magic should follow rules. Here let me explain it to you, if WOTC says it works, it works, and if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. All you need to know, they know best



Haha, I would hate such a game. I would probably use such information to track down said characters and either kill them, ruin the plot, kill the party, or all of the above in vindication for that sort of thing. I'm with you (FLUX & Rutee) that that it should be behind the scenes and moving according to the GMs wishes.
From what i've heard, such games that aren't PC centric are in fact filled with absurd idea that the world should act realistically. They even preach absurd ideas such as
1. A non centralized plot. They sometimes have the audacity to assume that in game the world exist outside the main plot
2. Make the world react realistically to the PCs. These ideas are simple absurd


Every RPG system ever works this way. Period. You have some number of options. The relative quality and diversity of choices is what is important, and we've seen no indication whatsoever it is less than in the current edition; indeed, it looks like there is much, much MORE diversity, not less. Characters have a lot MORE choices, not less. How many choices does a first level fighter get to make in 3.5 versus 4E? By the looks of it, the 4E fighter has many, many more choices
1. See people this is why you can't argue with the logical pro 4E people, they are so right, they don't even need to provide evidence, he said that every RPG works like that, he must be right
2. And yes, fighters do have more choices, 4E even do us a favor and take away the ability to plan our fighters abilities ahead of time


No bards in core (alleged to be in a supplement). It is doubly dead to me.
Hey, bards sing, we can't have singing people in the core books, it will taint the epicness, the same way gnomes do

Dementedfellow, what you need to understand is that these changes that are being made are being made for your own good. WOTC understand what is need to make a good game, they have preview books to prove it. So logically, they should be the ones who deiced what is best for you, after all, they have a fancy company. So try to understand, it may seem painful now, but later when 'everyone' says 4E is the best system in the history of ever, you will understand that WOTC is doing what is best for you. Don't you trust WOTC?


I can guarantee the actual fluff, found in the 4E PHB, will not be "cause he says so". Crunch is the only part of the equation you've seen because you haven't seen the whole equation. Everything has been boiled down to just the crunch needed to play the preview game, with a dab of fluff where they could fit it in.
We already had two fluff filled preview books



Wow, I'm glad more people don't think like demented...
seconded, i mean people might expected WOTC to do silly things like you know, protest against WOTC decisions. or wonder why something that wasn't broken got taken out?



Instead of leaving these classes out completely, they should have tried to "fix" them with this illustrious 4e. But that seems to be the motto of 4e. "It doesn't fit in, throw it away." To me, it doesn't even seem like they made an effort to make it work.
Dementedfellow, that would only work if WOTC acknowledge that they might have not balances their game properly. And WOTC never makes mistakes remember:smallamused: that would also require WOTC to understand how to play their own game

Can you patche me in to your hidden cameras at WotC? I'd really like to see the designers eating a sandwich and playing scrabble rather than making an effort...
People on these boards have fixed them up already


As to the rest, well, aren't Bards the least popular class overall, or one of them? Along with Monks? I mean, I haven't played DnD with that many different people, but only one person botherred with trying to play Monks, one other with Bard, compared to some of the staples. It strikes me as within bounds to pull an iconic out of the core book if its only purpose is to appease a small, cult following..
Bards and gnomes are stereotyped as the least pouplar, Bards weren't useless the way Monks were.

Believe me when I tell you that not only are they not going to care and even if they did it isn't worth the stain on your soul.
Yeah they would, it would taste bad when they consumed it


Thanks, Deepblue!!! these sheets make me want to convert!
The sheets hold power, they have the power

3.5 is not dead. People STILL play 2E, *how* many years later? People will definitely be playing 3.5 for quite some time.
Do they publish 2E material?


I've never had a problem with "coffee-stained" books on eBay. If you only have 20 books, you can keep buying a 3.5 book a month for quite some time (say, until 4E has bards).
Missing pages, faded ink, on fire?


Okay, let's face it--bards ARE stupid. You know, the thing where they go into dungeons and SING at monsters? Gnomes are pretty stupid, too.
That is right, yet again proving your point both by saying it in CAPS and by not allowing room for argument. Gnomes and bards are stupid because you say so. now some people might call that arrogance, but i call that debating. Some people might call that pretentious, but i call that truthful. Some people might say that is totally incorrect, and point out the advantages to bards and gnomes mechanically or say that such an option is based upon absolutely nothing when there is plenty to be done with both of those, and comment on the fact your simply rehashing a stereotype. But i admire your ability to argue without even supporting your points, good for you


But that's not what WotC said; they basically said they weren't nearly as popular, and thus wouldn't be core. Which is perfectly reasonable.
See, WOTC knows what is best, have they ever let us down before?

Annnnnd the MMO comparison, the last resort of angry anti-4E rants. Monsters don't exist only to be killed even a single bit more than they did in 3.5. The game does NOT insult your intelligence or playing style--you're just doing your best to be offended.
There was a thread on MMO comparisons and it was pretty interesting to say the least.



But these changes are not for the sake of change, they're for the sake of a much improved game overall.
From what we've seen, D&D will still play like D&D--only it'll be better at it. It should play, most of the time, the way 3.5 plays at its very best, when everyone's pretty well-balanced and the encounter is running quickly and everyone's making tactical decisions and so on.
See this? This is taking one play style and saying this is the "best, true, only" way to play the game. Pretty much what WOTC is doing, and we should realize their greater understanding and support them all the way


It seems like we are looked down if we compare 4e to a video game, but what else is there to compare it to?
Hey you made a video game comparison . YOU MUST BE WRONG

Get with hte program


This 4e stuff has certainly bulked out my ignore list.
I assume you've all had a good look at these
I am actually looking forward to 4e, it looks closer to balanced at 1st level, thats a start eh
Charity's ideal is that "If they disagree, ignore them." But moving on, remember kids, simple=better according to WOTC. New=Better as well


Never do that again. How dare you condescend to me that way, like you're somehow special and a magically good roleplayer because you play D&D without combat gasp. I play games like Nobilis; rest assured, I can tell stories of combatless sessions and *far* more highbrow playstyles to meet and almost certainly exceed any of yours. You are not special for liking bards or for enjoying low-combat games.
You don't *have* to have combat every session of D&D. But D&D is, fundamentally, a combat focused game. That's why you get all the combat-focused spells and abilities (Inspire Courage gives +1 to what, again? Oh, right, attack and damage) that you do. D&D is about a group of adventurers, who fight things and if you're playing a game where combat rarely or never happens, well, more power to you, but D&D isn't very good at that.
Ignoring the total offense here, and not joking, Bards aren't that bad of a class really.


Because the monster can hand your ass to you on a silver platter? Just because it is there doesn't mean you can/should/will kill it. Death is permanent in heroic, difficult to overcome in paragon, and though a speedbump in epic, the monster can TPK the party and then trap their souls or something, making death quite final. The speedbump relies on the characters overcoming the encounter. If everyone is dead, the monster wins and then eats their rich, tasty souls.
ah, the people can die. how could this be. It ruins everything

Condescension isn't civil. I'm well aware that you can have combat-light games, thank you; I do NOT need you informing me of the fact like it's something that's new to me. That's why you should never do that again.
You say that and then do this?

It sings at monsters in dungeons; that makes it a fundamentally silly class. But's also not being removed from the game, it just doesn't get to be in the PHB. Because there are other people who miss bards... there's just not that many of them.
Interesting


Alright, sarcasm aside, I am still waiting for more crunch to really make a final option.


"Since you have a harder time dying, why not try attacking the monster"? Because you're roleplaying, maybe?
Roleplaying do nothing to counter PC centric attitudes without verisimilitude. Hence the problems with 3E and from what we've seen 4E


Actually, you're wrong, because THEY'RE DESIGNING 4E TO BE A GOOD GAME. A better one, IMO, than 3.5 is, just like 3.x was better than 2E.
Based on only one play style however.

Hey, don't hate on 3.5! It had totally balanced and functional noncombat mechanics! Like Diplomacy![/sarcasm]

It is totally balanced, just like clerics and wizards

Joking aside, i don't agree with Dementedfellow on stealing, but i understanding and agree with most of his reasons. Personally, i'd just no get the books, (I am) but i wouldn't resort to stealing to get your message across. You should let them know what you think however in a legal way.
And Dementedfellow, 3E is infamously broken and unbalanced. I still don't like 4E so far but still, we can hope. Through hoseboy's list has a point
from
EE

Bleen
2008-03-02, 02:05 AM
See this? This is taking one play style and saying this is the "best, true, only" way to play the game. Pretty much what WOTC is doing, and we should realize their greater understanding and support them all the way

This might scare you, but.
There is more than one RPG system in existence.A lot of them cater not only to certain themes, but certain playstyles. Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it can't work for someone else.

Basically, if you don't like the playstyle 4e is looking for, you might be more interested in another kind of system. If WoTC doesn't cater to your playstyle, so what? I've seen systems that were meant to emulate fight scenes from action movies with tons of mooks, systems that revolve around Anime themes, and systems where you roll to decide the circumfrence of your character's..er, nevermind. Let's just pretend that system never existed.

Anyway, my point being, the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons might not be for you, and I generally consider it a good design decision to make up your mind on what the system should 'feel' like rather than be schizophrenic and try to cater to every player at the same time.

So, hey. Don't like what's in 4e? Don't play it. In fact, go out and check out some other systems. You may even find one that does what you want it to do in 3.5e even better.

Indon
2008-03-02, 03:10 AM
But does it force them to attack the Fighter? No. While it makes it a good idea to attack the fighter, they don't have to do so. Thus, it's not aggro control.

I've had taunts in video games that only increase the chance for a mob to attack me (Specifically, WoW, Hunter pet Growl and Warlock Voidwalker Torment) - it's still a taunt, just not as good as the taunts that are guaranteed to work. It is most definitely aggro control. Admittedly, it is more clever than brute-forcing aggro, but I imagine Wizards knew no such ability would fly in D&D.

As for 'hits really hard', one of the what, four Fighter abilities is clearly an aggro-control ability? They may be able to off-spec Striker a bit, but they're clearly a tank, much like the Paladin may be able to spec a bit into the Leader role while they're tanking.

ShadowSiege
2008-03-02, 03:19 AM
From what i've heard, such games that aren't PC centric are in fact filled with absurd idea that the world should act realistically. They even preach absurd ideas such as
1. A non centralized plot. They sometimes have the audacity to assume that in game the world exist outside the main plot
2. Make the world react realistically to the PCs. These ideas are simple absurd

And I was saying that I would hate a game where the GM took the time out of playtime to describe a scene that the PCs aren't present to witness or have had the chance to hear about. It's one thing to have the plot move at a predetermined rate, with or without the PCs involving themselves in it, or to have events going on outside what the PCs are doing. If the characters inquire about the political goings on, the harvest, how Alan the Blacksmith's business is doing or how the war against The Country Where People Wear Silly Hats is going, good, hopefully as a DM you'll be prepared to answer them. But to force it upon them is something I find distasteful.


ah, the people can die. how could this be. It ruins everything

I have never said the PCs should have god mode on. I maintain the stance that death in D&D should be the result of poor planning, stupidity, and/or plot instead of "whoops, that goblin crit you at level 1 for 3x max damage. Reroll."

EE, your strawman argument that WotC is insisting that everything in 4e be "epic" is absurd. At epic and perhaps paragon levels, yes, things will be getting above and beyond earth shattering, but the general theme seems to be that the PCs and other adventurers are the agents of change, be it on a local, regional, continental, worldwide or even larger scale. Being an agent of change does not equate to being "epic", but rather being extraordinary. As for dragons at 1st level, apparently the people at WotC wanted to let people fight them if they so chose. Fighting a dragon at 1st level is not going to be epic, but it will be difficult and it will be fun. That is what the game is about: fun.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-02, 04:32 AM
I note that clerics and paladins are no longer able to heal their allies; rather, they improve their allies' abilities to heal themselves. That's, well, weird.

This is actually somewhat common; I've seen many, many magical heal-style effects which drain the recipient more than they drain the caster, and given that they're per-encounter abilities it makes all the more sense (because if they were unlimited, you'd always start battles at full HP and never run out).


While every character can use "basic attacks", there seems little incentive to ever do so (and indeed, the intro recommends to use powers instead). While the game is marketed as a "you can do this" kind of game, the result seems very much to be "you can't do this unless you have a power that allows it".

This is actually really, really wrong. Its actually "you can do these things", whereas before you couldn't because, quite simply, the mechanics didn't exist or sucked. These are MUCH more interesting. Adding in options is a good thing; me sitting there and swinging with a full attack is quite boring compared to jumping over their head and stabbing them OR driving them back against the wall OR spinning in a whirlwind of steel to hit all people nearby OR driving a sword through their chest OR just plain old whacking at them.


Would it really have cost so much to add about 5 pages with the bard and druid and the rest? Probably not since these are going to sell for over 30 bucks a pop.

I think you're missing a number of important points, here, perhaps because you just don't want to understand them.

1) Each class probably is about 20-25 pages of rules thanks to their abilities. Assuming 4 abilities per page, 8 abilities per level per class, that's a total of 18 pages of abilities right there, and I wouldn't say that is an unreasonable assumption in terms of abilities/level. That's quite a bit.
2) The amount of playtesting per class is about equal; while there is some playtesting which is just setting down the rules, a lot of the playtesting is going to be balancing abilities against one another and against other classes. Thus, each class is probably 10% more playtesting they have to do - quite a bit, and it probably increases exponentially (adding 10 classes would be probably +200% playtesting).
3) The classes are unnecessary. Whine all you want, but really, you only need (and in reality, probably only WANT) so many classes. Especially if there is a good bit of diversity in what the classes allow you to do, adding extra classes may actually be undesirable because it is harder on the players. 8 core classes is probably fine; I've played versions of D&D with something on the order of 6 classes before, and it was fun, so 8 classes is fine, especially given they have more to do. The more classes there are, the more you have issues with not having enough area for yourself, the more possibility there is for imbalance, and the more possibility there are for strictly worse classes.
4) There's no particular reason to go for bard, druid, and monk over various other fun classes.

You do realize that assassin was, at one point, a core class? That monk wasn't even in 2nd edition? That rangers have changed from being double-weapon fighters to archers in an edition? That bards have never really had much of a niche, and that warlords seem somewhat similar in what they do to bards?

3rd edition had barbarians, bards, rangers, rogues, druids, clerics, wizards, sorcerers, fighters, paladins, and monks. 4e has 8 classes. But really, if you look at it, fighters, barbarians, rangers, and paladins are all fairly similar in 3rd edition (though rangers became more rogueish in 3.5), monks really kind of sucked (and aren't very western midievalish - monks as in monks existed, but D&D monks are not friar tuck or that monk who follows around the protagonist of dragonheart but Shaolin monks - the monk who followed around the protagonist in dragonheart was more of a commoner, or maybe a ranger), and while bards went away they were replaced by warlords, which are slightly less rediculous and which seem to fulfil a similar role.

If you look at how they split up what roles the classes have, you'll see they covered most of their bases. You can add various other things, but these are what is really necessary. Heck, they could have gone with -4- classes; they went with more to add in more variety.

Fundamentally, it was probably an issue of the rulebook being long enough already (20 pages per class * 8 classes = 160 pages right there), them wanting to get the product out on time, and them knowing they can just put the other classes in expansions anyway.

This isn't laziness, this is business. The 8 classes are enough and are fun, and that's all they needed - it to be balanced, fun, entertaining, and diverse enough that each player can play a number of very distinct characters with just the core rules. I'd say there's probably at least 16 fundamentally different characters core, which is probably enough for players - sure, there's a lot more than that in the details, but there are at least 16 major possible archetypes (if not more), and that's enough to keep players entertained for a good while. If the product is good enough, you don't really need to add more to it, especially if it will drive up the costs even more.

FAKE EDIT: Reading a post later in the thread they pointed out that there are now 30 levels, and given that there are at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities, I think they were right in saying that there are probably actually 13-15 abilities per level, and even assuming the entries are shorter (which I somehow doubt they will be; I suspect that 4-5 abilities per page is about right) it is still a ton of pages per class.


Not the best comparison, but hey, at least I tried. My point is that 4e has already slayed 3.x and I'll not have any sources of new stuff concerning the stuff I like in 3.x. Game shops already have stopped ordering 3.5 books because they are awaiting 4th edition. It's really crappy how this system that I will have to heavily houserule and probably have to create a class to fill my needs is forced on the consumers. I would at least like to see a poll or something where they asked the fans if they would like to see certain classes/races go away forever.

Here's a hint: they aren't ever going to include every single little possible thing in the core books. Ever. Your complaints are unfounded. They aren't "forcing" the product on you; you have the option not to buy it. You will buy it because it is better than 3.5. And they aren't going to hold a stupid poll; polls don't work well at all. Consumers are morons; WotC actually does know better than the fanbase in terms of what is necessary to include for the game to be fun.

Your complaint that they're removing incidental classes which really aren't all that important and which have a lot of potential to cause problems is meh. They aren't important and they will show up eventually.

This is like complaining they don't have some random horror movie out yet on Blu-Ray; the demand for it may well be lower and they'll get around to it eventually if there is money to be made, but it isn't a high priority. Time is not infinite, nor is money. You have to understand that.


I really don't intend on buying 4e. And I encourage like-minded people not to either. The only thing that WotC will understand is if their wallets get hurt. If you MUST get your hands on the books, by all means, download it. Pirate this drivel. I strongly endorse the pirating 4e.

Translation: I promote illegal activities and stealing from a company because they didn't cater to my individual needs.


You know the books that get released that'll have Druids, Bards, and whatnot in it? Pirate /those/. That sends the single most clear message. "I approve of your system in general (Assuming you do), but putting important classes in other books/expanding the list of core books is a no-no"

Actually, you're absolutely, unequivicably WRONG. Here are the messages it sends:

1) You should stop making RPGs. Splatbooks are what keeps a gaming system alive. This is reality. If you pirate splatbooks, you're stealing from the company and stealing from the other people who play the game, and ultimately trying to drive the game that you love so much out of business.
2) You don't think they're important at all, so you don't want to pay for them. Therefore, in the future, they shouldn't print that material at all, because clearly you're unwilling to pay for it.

Oh, and 3) You're a 13 year old kid who deserves to be sued and no one should feel sympathy for you.


I dislike 4e because it seems they are disregarding the "fans of the iconic" as you put it. I dislike 4e, because I, as a player for years, should not have to buy two books the PHB and whatever expansion to play a class I could simply look up in one book in the previous editions. The whole attitude of 4e is something that I dislike. I dislike certain fluff of 4e. Certain players see fluff as RAW and when I would conceivably change something about the fluff that I don't think would be beneficial to a campaign setting, I would have some player calling shenanigans. I dislike 4e, period.

Translation: I like to complain. Seriously, every RPG in the history of ever has some amount of fluff in its rules. Deal with it. And they simply aren't going to include every minor individual archetype because then the book would be a thousand pages thick and cost a hundred and fifty dollars.


The customer is always right. What good is a product if the whole presentation pisses off your consumer base? Why should someone pay twice as much to play as a class they would have got by playing just one book?

Translation: I'm either unemployed or don't understand economics (or perhaps both).

The customer is NOT always right. Period. Anyone with a simple understanding of economics understands that. A customer wants everything to be free, instantly accessible, and cater to their every arbitrary whim. No company is insane enough to truly believe the customer is always right; the reason that capitalism is the best system we've ever come up with is because it balances supply and demand.

And it is quite evident the product does NOT piss off the consumer base. It is evident it pisses off very few people. Most of the whining is the "I don't want to buy a new edition" along with the "change is always bad" group, as well as the "I'm a whiny geek who will whine about everything and everything, even if I like it". Listening to messageboards is a sure route to DOOM, because 90% of what is on messageboards is drivel.


I doubt our economy would collapse. Instead, it would be more consumer driven. OH NO! Do you know how convenient that would be?!

Actually, he's absolutely correct; if you had your way, the economy WOULD collapse.


If you recall, my first urging was to simply not buy it. And only if you MUST play 4e, should you pirate it. How else are we going to send a message that the fans are not happy.

There is no MUST; this is what you're failing to comprehend. You're trying to justify your illegal activities.

Reality: You don't have to play 4th edition. Period. If you don't like 4th edition, don't play it.

It is clear, however, that you LIKE 4th edition; you just want to steal it. Ergo you're trying to justify your theivery. If you didn't like it, didn't want it, you wouldn't steal it. Clearly you do want it, otherwise you wouldn't steal it. There is no MUST to playing 4th edition; it is a purely recreational activity.


Instead of leaving these classes out completely, they should have tried to "fix" them with this illustrious 4e. But that seems to be the motto of 4e. "It doesn't fit in, throw it away." To me, it doesn't even seem like they made an effort to make it work.

Wrong again. They certainly worked on them, and are currently working on them; what they did was set what they NEEDED to release (8 classes) and did them, and now they're working on the less important stuff (all the rest of the classes).


Perhaps I misspoke but still there are a number of people who are like me and don't see the appeal of moving to a new system for no other reason than it is new.

Wrong yet again. People are moving from 3.x because 3.x is NOT as good as 4e is. 3.x is a giant mess, doesn't work very well.


I work in a hospital. I can't imagine a more consumer driven industry. No matter how berating or abusive or gross or rude the patient is, you have to suck it up and smile. Sometimes you just want to hold a pillow over a rude patient's face until they stop fighting, but you can't because that is bad PR.

Actually, its hard to imagine a less consumer-controlled one. You have two options, really: get health care, or die. You go with getting health care. That's why health care is so expensive; that's not what the customer wants, but it is what you want, as someone who works for the hospital, as that's what pays your salary.


My whole point was that 4e was being forced on the consumers. Game stores in my area have already stopped purchasing 3rd edition books and are anxiously awaiting 4th edition to come out. Aside from Amazon and eBay, there isn't a consistent source of 3rd edition material. And then what happens when I get all of that? It's a dead system now. WotC isn't going to keep up with supplements. It's effectively dead in the water by this new system that has made vast changes along the lines of character classes and race and not given any reasoning behind it other than "it doesn't fit." How can you not be offended by that elitist mentality? It's like saying that the previous versions that did have that race/class available were totally crap because they did have them in it.

It isn't being FORCED on the consumers; you're under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to purchase fourth edition materials. Yes, it will be harder to get your hands on 3.5 edition stuff, but you can have bought all of the 3.5 edition stuff, and frankly, the system was already dead when they came out with the environmental books; once you've done the complete X for all the major archetypes, a book for each monster type, an expansion PHB and DMG (and MM), and a book for each of the major environments, the system is dead. There's just nothing left to do. ToB and ToM are fundamentally an entirely different system stapled on to a 3.5 core; 3.5 isn't a very good system to begin with, but it has been splatted out and the books trying to correct for the issues with it have to work fundamentally differently.

There's no point in trying to fix 3.5 when you can make a better system from the ground up, which is exactly what they did. Splatbooks are what continues to rake in revenue for the company; in 8 years, I expect 5th edition to come out because it has to, because at some point they run out of splatbooks people want to buy, AND they'll have found all the flaws with the current system. If they actually DID make a perfect system (which will probably happen eventually) they will be screwed because at some point they'll have nowhere else to really go with it; they can keep selling the core books and splatbooks slowly, but once you've hit the peak, there's nowhere to go. If a new system was actually WORSE than a previous one, people would reject it en masse. But this edition isn't worse than 3.5; it is clearly better.

Your complaints are founded in ignorance; your entire argument is an argument which ignores the realities of economics and the gaming industry. 4th edition is better than 3.5. The changes are not because "it doesn't fit"; that's what you WANT to believe because you simply cannot accept the reality that everything WON'T be in the book and perhaps that a lot of what you think you value is ultimately completely unnecessary to the core of a system.


So yeah, I still advocate pirating it. Because it is unfair that a new edition is not only forced on players but certain people like myself would have to pay upwards of 70 dollars just to play a class they could have played for a little over 30 dollars in the previous edition. Let's be honest here. The whole reason why WotC went to 4e in the first place is because they drained the well dry in terms of supplements. They ran out of ideas and they will continue to run out of ideas for 4e in the next 6 years. It's much simpler to pirate it and save your hard-earned cash on something that isn't going to die in another 8 years.

See, here's where you are again trying to justify your theivery, and yet again you fail.

You see, what you're saying is you should be able to steal a LUXURY ITEM. You do NOT have to play D&D. D&D is a game. It is for fun. It isn't health care, it isn't food, it is ultimately something we do for fun. If you aren't willing to pay for it, then obviously it isn't fun enough for you, but if you WANT to play it, but are stealing it, then it shows you're simply evil - you want it, but you aren't willing to pay people for their work, so instead you steal it.

How would you like it if I stole your paycheck from the hospital? Not much, would you? How much would you like it if you had to do your work for free? You wouldn't.

What you're advocating is wrong.

Clearly, you want 4th edition. Pay for it. If you think it is inferior to 3.5, stick with 3.5. You don't NEED a new splatbook to come out every month to enjoy playing a game. If you didn't want 4th edition, you wouldn't pirate it.

Incidentally, people like you are the reason books are so expensive these days; pirates who steal it don't pay for it, after all, and the rest of us have to pay for you instead.


I have yet to see one good reason why I should move from 3e to 4e in the first place. Heck, the fact that monsters exist only to be killed by the players makes it harken more to a video game. I would rather pay a monthly installment of a MMO than pay for a system that will insult my intelligence and playing style.

The purpose of all evil in storytelling is to overcome it. You play D&D, you should understand that, yet clearly, you don't. THAT is what it means; the purpose of monsters in D&D is to be overcome. That is why they exist.

The reason to move from 3e to 4e is because 3e sucks. It is poorly balanced, many of the classes are boring, many of the classes are broken, the skill system doesn't work right, and there are huge numbers of various flaws, broken combinations, and inherent issues with the system. 4e looks a lot more balanced and a lot more fun to play because the options are more interesting and EVERY class has lots of options as to what they can do every single round.


D&D shouldn't be "outside the mainstream". It's the largest roleplaying franchise out there. And the thought that supplements that were plentiful last year aren't this year is just outrageous. It's not like it's 2ed and they haven't been in print in 10+ years.

The reason for the scarcity is actually in part again theivery; when people pirate books rather than purchase them, then the stores are likely to stock less of them because older books are being pirated more often than not. You never order all that much of a splatbook anyway, which is why it is hard to find out of print splatbooks but relatively easy to find out of print core books. I have managed to purchase a large library of Alternity books over the years on the cheap BECAUSE it was never very popular and went out of print, and I'm glad for it in the sense it is easy to for me to acquire said books. Yes, it is harder for me to run campaigns, but I've still done it.


Call of Cthulhu by Chaosium has lasted a while. The only thing that has changed really per se, is the settings. Same old system and it has lasted longer than 3rd edition. Surprise surprise, I found one.

How many people play those games, though? And how much money does Chaosium make? And how hard is it to get CoC books?

The answer is, of course: not many, not much, and a pain in the rear. I've never seen a Call of Cthulu book for sale in any hobby shop, ever. I've been in a ton of hobby shops, and have never seen one. Now, it may be that I've never noticed it, but if that's the case, then it is a box game - that is to say, its a game where the books are in a box in the corner of the shop that no one ever looks at and the cashier has no idea what is there.


Believe it or not, bards can totally be a part of D&D because no where in the books does it say a party has to fight at all. OMG! How dare I imply you can have an RP game with little to no battles. That is simply a playstyle. Just as a bard is a playstyle. When you play a bard in 3e, you accept certain truths: you are going to suck in battle, you are going suck as a spell caster. You will however grant a nice bonus to attack rolls and you will be helpful in foiling the plot of the BBEG by your bardic knowledge. Bards are not meant to be battle-bots, which is why they don't fit in with the 4e mentality of "Kill the monsters!" It's a different playing style and not even to nod at a staple that has been there since the start is a disgrace.

I dunno, I mean, the cover says "Dungeons & Dragons", I don't see a lot of singing and diplomacy involved, there :P Seriously, D&D is a horrid system for out of combat stuff; it is, by far and away, the worst system I've ever played in terms of making stuff outside of combat awesome. It doesn't handle it very well. D&D is a very combat-centric system; if you aren't spending at least half of your time in combat, then you probably should use a better system for it.

There's nothing in 3.5 which says "kill the monsters" more than the PHB. How much of the PHB is combat oriented? How much is non-combat oriented?


Well, I didn't really expect it to be in core, but they don't have PrCs at all, but instead Paragon Paths. So in a game where monsters are chunks of XP and you have a harder time dying and you can heal all damage overnight, you have a decidedly different game than what 3e is. No where have I read that a PC has to qualify to acquire a Paragon path, other than getting over level 10. It seems like it is given. PrCs give at least the illusion of specialization before a PC can join it.

Obviously you've never played any edition other than 3.x. No PrCs? Seriously?

PrCs are a horrible, horrible idea. They cause all sorts of ugly problems and every class (with a few exceptions, which are mostly splatbook classes) have a PrC which is strictly better than class levels. Some have a dozen or more such PrCs.

Paragon paths are likely to be a lot better because their goal isn't to be special and better than the base classes but to add interesting options to higher-level play; you can customize what abilities you have more, and rather than the guy who doesn't go into a PrC getting shafted, everyone is going their own merry little way with roughly equivalently powered paths, rather than one guy sticking with sucky core class levels while another one gains the ability to control shadows and eat people's souls.


Well, in 3.5, you could deal with a monster in a lot of ways. You could use diplomacy, mind-affecting spells, stealth to sneak around it. Yeah, those totally kill the monster.

And in fourth edition, there still are interaction skill (though, hopefully, they are MUCH less broken than 3.5e's horribly broken diplomacy skill), there are mind-affecting spells (sleep is 100% in, and there are probably others like charm person), and stealth is certainly a skill which is still around. Therefore, your argument is completely, totally, and utterly WRONG.


In 4e, the monsters are just chunks of XP and since you have a harder time dying, why not try attacking the monster? Some of us actually like a story instead of a dungeon crawl. Maybe I'm spoiled in that I've had interesting campaigns in the past. If I want a dungeon crawl, I'll play a video game. Yes, a video game. It seems like we are looked down if we compare 4e to a video game, but what else is there to compare it to? What other game has an XP grind for no other reason to gain XP? I'm not saying this didn't happen in 3.x, but at least the core didn't say the center of the universe is the PCs.

Actually it does, just in not so many words. The last edition to say that PCs weren't the center of the universe was second edition, which largely implied the opposite.


Why does every class that was core in 3.5 need to be core in 4E? The Bard *is* a superfluous class--it's never fit into the party roles, it's never been anything but that wacky fifth wheel. Are bards honestly all you play?
I'm not sure how not including bards turns 4E into a "half-hearted money grab". They're including what they think will be good for the game.

Actually, they DO have a party role; they're buffers. Looking at 4e, it looks like "Warlords" are their replacement, and perhaps they are less silly in nature.


-The lack of gnomes in the PHB. Gnomes are awful monstrosities, and every single one of them deserves to die a horrible death.

I actually like gnomes a lot; I've always felt they were a somewhat important part of D&D because they differentiated it. They're kind of kooky and a little odd, but I enjoy a bit of kookiness in my fantasy games.


-Martial characters not taking a back seat. Four out of eight of the 4E core classes are entirely martial, rather than 3/11 in 3.X. You can even, pretty much, make a fully-functional party with the roles covered without any spellcasters, now (you'll have a Striker Ranger instead of a Controller Wizard, but Rangers seem pretty controller-y for strikers, and with the nerfing of control abilities and their durations in 4E, I'm guessing you can survive just fine without a wizard).

I don't think this is really a change, to be honest. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, rogues, rangers, and monks make up 6/11 of the classes in 3.x. Sure, paladins and rangers have minor spell abilities, but they aren't "really" divine classes or spellcasters at all; they operate primarily as martial characters with a bit of kicker on them.

The real thing they're improving is the OPTIONS a martial character has. All of the aforementioned classes really don't have many options in 3.x combat; full attack, attack, or charge is basically it, with the odd rogue tumbling around to get a flanking bonus. Now they're a lot like Warblades, which one of my friends have described as "he makes an attack roll, and then he makes three skill checks and things happen". It is a BLAST to play a warblade because they have so many fun things they can do in combat, and it looks like 4th edition took that to heart and gave all the classes a lot of options at all times.


What other game has an XP grind? Try every other RPG in existence, if you go by the definition you seem to be using.

There are RPGs which aren't XP grinds; GURPS, to my knowledge, doesn't award points for killing things, and I don't think World of Darkness does either (though to be ENTIRELY fair, it does let vampires drain higher whatevered vampires). And Alternity, my favorite RPG system, doesn't actually award achievement points (their equivalent of XP) for anything at all; its mostly just you gain some for playing. I generally put it at some base number, then added to it if they accomplished various things and/or roleplayed well (so people would get 2-5 points/session).

That said, it depends on the mentality of the game, as well as what it values. Alternity really didn't value anything in particular other than doing stuff, so its achievement point system was very vague with the guideline of "give them 1-3 achievement points for the average, standard-length session".


How about practicing what you preach. I've been more than civil around here. Next time look at yourself in the mirror before you start telling people to Never do that again.

Uh, I'm pretty sure you were busy endorsing illegal activities; that's far, far more serious than calling someone a jerk online.


I imagine I'm not the only one who misses bards. After all they made it through 3 editions, over a couple decades, I am willing to bet if they were the huge chunk of fail you so loudly proclaim them to be, they wouldn't have made it to second edition.

I'm not; what made it from first edition to second edition seemed to be fairly arbitrary to me, really. Obviously rangers, paladins, wizards, clerics, and rogues were all popular, and lots of people probably played fighters, but how many people played a lot of the obstensibly core classes there?


-Something tells me if traps were effective in 3.x, you would complain that they are too effective.

No, what the problem with traps is is that, by and large, they aren't fun. The only thing that makes for a fun trap is if the DM comes up with something very clever that the character has to disable, but the actual disabling isn't much fun at all; its just a straight up roll and eventually they'll either succeed or set off the trap and get hit by the giant flaming spikes.

I put a DC 25 trap into a dungeon. The rogue has +10 to disable device. They may as well flip a coin; heads, they set off the trap, tails they disable it.


-If you are having trouble with a spellcaster stealing the show, then you have a problem gamer, not a problem game.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the system.

The problem with 3.5 is that spellcasters are far and away massively more powerful than every other class in existance. They aren't stealing the show, they're doing what is logical and what is likely to succeed. The fact that they can solve all the issues all on their own under the rules of the system is a problem.


-Game balance? Silly me, I always thought that when you have the typical group: the tank, the heal-bot, the skill monkey (and possibly the batman), that was balanced. I mean everyone is provided a function and feels that he or she is participating. So what's the use in having 3 character who can do the same things and heal themselves over a night's rest? Why bother playing other classes if X class can give you everything you want?

The problem is that in 3.5, the healbot is better at fighting than the tank and has spells that can cover for half the skill monkey's abilities, and the wizard can act as a striker, out of combat guy, and a skill monkey; you've got two characters who can do all four jobs by themselves (and arguably, with summons the caster can even do what the "healbot" can do).

Not to mention playing some of those roles is MUCH more fun than playing others; tanks don't have many options at all in 3.5, whereas the "healbot" and the wizard have tons of options. The skill monkey and the tank have to do the same things over and over again.


-A ranger? You know you talk about bards so harshly, but I don't think I've ever seen a ranger in my gaming group. Difference of playing styles? Oh noes! not again!

Rangers are pretty common, overall; bards are the rarest of the core classes (well, either them or monks). They're also very common NPCs; I can't remember the last time I had an NPC bard or monk of any importance in any game I've DMed or played in.


For all the people who have criticized my posts, I have one question for you. Would you rather I came in and said, "I'm not playing 4e. It is horrible." then never posted again.

Normally, no. After seeing the content of your posts, however, I'd actually say yes.


You know what? Heal-botting sucks. The Fighter shouldn't need a dedicated healer to stand behind him and cure away, and it's no fun being that healer. This is the reason they made 3.5 clerics and druids so good.

Indeed, though really, I never thought that clerics or druids were bad in the first place.


yes he has worked from the beginning of time, i recall in Final Fantasy that resting in an inn restored all of your health and even brought you back from the dead. True in 3E you only restored a little health by resting, but remember people, that is like reality. And we can't have that.

The reason is quite simple, really: anything else is stupid. In reality, resting for the night has always completely cured a D&D party thanks to clerics and wands of CLW and various other similar shenanigans. Sorry, but they're simply making it so people don't even try to roll 20d8 over and over again to figure out how many spells they spend healing on something which is just a waste of time because they can completely heal everyone anyway.

Fundamentally it is a time saving acknowledgement of reality, and that is a good thing.


1. See people this is why you can't argue with the logical pro 4E people, they are so right, they don't even need to provide evidence, he said that every RPG works like that, he must be right
2. And yes, fighters do have more choices, 4E even do us a favor and take away the ability to plan our fighters abilities ahead of time

You do realize that point 1 is actually paradoxical, don't you? You just basically bashed on them without providing any evidence whatsoever for your point. Really, it just sounds like you've lost the argument and don't want to admit it.

And indeed, evidence was provided; what we've seen. Indeed, your statement is horribly wrong in that the portion of text you quoted to support your argument -actually contains evidence-. This is the second thread I've seen you in where you quote some segment of text and then proceed not to read it (or not to understand it).

And your second argument is simply wrong, and indeed self-contradictory. You have more options, why CAN'T you plan ahead? You give no evidence to support your random assertion.


Dementedfellow, what you need to understand is that these changes that are being made are being made for your own good. WOTC understand what is need to make a good game, they have preview books to prove it. So logically, they should be the ones who deiced what is best for you, after all, they have a fancy company. So try to understand, it may seem painful now, but later when 'everyone' says 4E is the best system in the history of ever, you will understand that WOTC is doing what is best for you. Don't you trust WOTC?

They do know better than you do, you know. First off, they don't advocate criminal activity, and second, they do make all their money by selling wildly successful games. How many people have bought D&D books and Magic cards? Millions upon millions. You've never done anything even remotely as successful.

Making a good, fun game for a lot of people is hard; there's a reason WotC is so much more successful than other gaming companies. It is because they DO know how to make a fun game, something you clearly don't understand how to do.

Its not a matter of trusting WotC; what we've seen confirms that it is a better system than 3.5, and what we've figured out about the system implies it is MASSIVELY better than 3.5.


We already had two fluff filled preview books

Ones you were foolish enough to purchase. Seriously, I avoided those books like the plague because they had "ripoff" printed on their front covers; I care little about their fluffbooks, hence why I own none.


seconded, i mean people might expected WOTC to do silly things like you know, protest against WOTC decisions. or wonder why something that wasn't broken got taken out?

You, like he, don't understand business, economics, or it seems many things like "game balance", "time and effort", and "playtesting". These are important for making a good game. Your whining is quite illogical, especially given the amount of options all the classes have.


Dementedfellow, that would only work if WOTC acknowledge that they might have not balances their game properly. And WOTC never makes mistakes remember

The only people saying WOTC never makes mistakes are people like you; people who are trying to construct straw man arguments. And do you know what a straw man argument is? Worthless. What kind of person makes worthless, illogical, meaningless arguments?

Exactly.

WotC isn't perfect, but 4e is much better than 3.5. YOU claim they aren't perfect, and then cling to the horribly flawed 3.5 rather than even being willing to THINK about switching over to an obviously better system.


Bards and gnomes are stereotyped as the least pouplar, Bards weren't useless the way Monks were.

Yes they were; I don't think a real campaign can survive diplomacy cheese.


That is right, yet again proving your point both by saying it in CAPS and by not allowing room for argument. Gnomes and bards are stupid because you say so. now some people might call that arrogance, but i call that debating. Some people might call that pretentious, but i call that truthful. Some people might say that is totally incorrect, and point out the advantages to bards and gnomes mechanically or say that such an option is based upon absolutely nothing when there is plenty to be done with both of those, and comment on the fact your simply rehashing a stereotype. But i admire your ability to argue without even supporting your points, good for you

The concept of going into a dungeon to sing at monsters is, in fact, stupid. The fact that it is funny is its major saving grace, but when you think about it, the very premise is quite silly. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the reality is that some things are more important than others, and apparently people enjoy seriousness a great deal in D&D; not to the exclusion of all else, but a class which is, on the face of it, a joke is probably not appropriate for the core books. Not to mention that bards, of all the classes, have the least in the way of fantasy backing; while people with magical voices are actually pretty common in fantasy, they are not at all bardlike generally; indeed, the only real "bard-like" character I can think of offhand is the pied-piper.

Gnomes are unpopular and replacing them with something far cooler/more popular is entirely logical; they'd be stupid to do otherwise.


See, WOTC knows what is best, have they ever let us down before?

If they aren't popular (and empirical evidence indicates they are not) then it is the correct business decision for them; given they are a multimillion dollar business and you're just some random guy posting on some boards, who am I going to think has more business sense? I'm going to go with the company that makes lots of money whose products YOU buy on a regular basis despite your whining.


There was a thread on MMO comparisons and it was pretty interesting to say the least.

Indeed, it basically boiled down to a few people saying "4th edition is too much like a MMO!" and the rest of us pointing out that, in fact, all MMOs are in fact D&D without DMs, so it is impossible to make D&D more like a MMO without removing the DM. Some of you just didn't want to hear it.

In the end, the complaints I see basically boil down to "I don't want to spend money on 4th edition", "I'm scared of change", "I don't understand game design", and "My idiosyncrhatic preferences weren't catered to."

If you don't want to spend money on 4th edition, then don't play it and keep playing 3.5. Clearly, if you want to STEAL 4th edition, you want it; just buy it, it isn't that much money and you won't end up going to jail or getting sued or fined.

If you're scared of change, you're screwed; change is an inherent part of the world, and if things never change, they can't ever get better. And the world, and most things, are very far from perfect.

If you don't understand game design, try playing what people call "well designed" and "poorly designed" games and try to understand the differences between them, and what makes for a good and bad game.

And if your preferences weren't catered to, go look for a game which does cater to it. If none exists, then make one yourself. Obviously you either are an untapped market or (more likely) simply not a big enough market to be worth pandering to.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-02, 04:53 AM
This is actually really, really wrong. Its actually "you can do these things", whereas before you couldn't because, quite simply, the mechanics didn't exist or sucked.

That's really the point. You can now "do these things" only if you have the power/feat/exploit that allows you to. Whereas every prior edition had rules for disarming, pinning, leaping over people, etc, as well as allowing for simple circumstance bonuses.

Okay, so that might not work if you have a bad DM. But guess what? 4E won't be fun either with a bad DM.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-02, 05:14 AM
That's really the point. You can now "do these things" only if you have the power/feat/exploit that allows you to. Whereas every prior edition had rules for disarming, pinning, leaping over people, etc, as well as allowing for simple circumstance bonuses.

Okay, so that might not work if you have a bad DM. But guess what? 4E won't be fun either with a bad DM.

No, the point is that now you can do those things whereas previously you couldn't.

A good example is the Warblade from 3.5. One potential maneuver you have is called "Sudden Leap"; as a swift action, you can jump. This has enormous tactical consequences and allows me to pull off all sorts of fun shenanigans in combat. I simply couldn't do that before, and now I can. "Death From Above" is similarly fun, as are many other maneuvers from that book.

While you've always been able to do some of those things (though not all of them, and they didn't always work very well at all), in reality without mechanics to support them it is entirely arbitrary and likely to be inconsistant and not work very well. With mechanics to support them it will work a LOT better.

Sure, you'll still have to wing it when someone swings on a chandelier, but there are plenty of other, more common situations wherein you now WON'T have to wing it and actually have more combat options. When the game is balanced with you having these options in mind, it works a lot better and those options are a lot better precisely because they're balanced and interesting. If the game designers think about them and build in mechanics for them, they're going to be fun.

You won't need a special ability to grapple in 4th edition any more than you needed it in third, I suspect, nor to do some other common combat things. But really, how often did people use some of the options, such as trip, disarm, bull rush, ect. when they didn't have the feat? Not very. I suspect you'll still be able to do these things without special skills to do them, but when you have skills to support them suddenly they become real, viable combat options which add spice to combat.

Matthew
2008-03-02, 06:15 AM
I was thinking along the lines of:
1) We admit we are powerless over an edition change. There is nothing we can do to stop it from coming to fruition.
2) We believe that a power greater than ourselves can stop WotC from screwing up.
3) Make a decision to turn our will and our minds to enjoying the edition we prefer.
4) Make a searching and fearless gaming inventory of our chosen edition.
5) Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our editions wrongs.
6) We're entirely ready to have the community remove the flaws we perceive in our edition.
7) Humbly work together to remove said short comings.
8) Make a list of all posters we wrong in our outbursts of flaming.
9) Make direct amends to the people on your list.
10) Continue to make inventory of the grievances of others to see if they are the root causes of the problems in my edition of choice.
11) Work together with the people who enjoy our edition to spread the joy we hold.
12) Realize the everybody has different things they like in a system, and no matter how obviously superior my edition is, some people will just not like it.

All in good fun, of course.:smallamused:

Hee, hee. I particularly liked the last step, very important.



Do they publish 2E material?

Several AD&D compatable products were published last year and a number are in the line up this year. It's quite an interesting time for simulacrum games.



*stuff*

I think you really need to establish why you think it is better to have specific rules governing particular actions than having an open or general task resolution system before you attempt to make this argument, otherwise you are constantly going to have the rug pulled from underneath you by people who just don't agree.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-02, 06:16 AM
No, the point is that now you can do those things whereas previously you couldn't.

False.

Says so on enworld - you will no longer be able to trip or disarm people, unless you have a specific power that allows you to.

So 4E is really not a "you can" game, but a "you can't" game, as in "you can't do anything unless it is explicitly stated in your character's build that you can".

Kurald Galain
2008-03-02, 06:29 AM
Fundamentally, it was probably an issue of the rulebook being long enough already (20 pages per class * 8 classes = 160 pages right there), them wanting to get the product out on time, and them knowing they can just put the other classes in expansions anyway.

Interestingly, this one is also false.

According to interviews with WOTC, the bard was one of the first classes that was completely developed and tested. So whatever the reason for leaving it out was, it's obviously not that "they couldn't get it done on time".

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-02, 07:11 AM
False.

Says so on enworld - you will no longer be able to trip or disarm people, unless you have a specific power that allows you to.

So 4E is really not a "you can" game, but a "you can't" game, as in "you can't do anything unless it is explicitly stated in your character's build that you can".

That's silly. First off, the number of times I've seen someone without Improved X try to do X to someone is 0, where X = any of the odd abilities but grapple. Not once have I seen someone try to make an overrun, disarm, bull rush, or trip attempt without the relevant ability, and to be honest, I can't remember the last time I saw anyone do any of those things. All I've seen are things without improved grapple try to grapple things.

And second, that's in direct contradiction with what we've heard from people who've actually played, adjucating stuff like tipping over a table. So you certainly CAN do some such things; which ones you can and can't do is irrelevant.

Also, clearly, there are some things (such as charging) which remain in the game, so its more a question of "What stayed in the core combat rules and what got shuffled off to powers".

And, in any event, I don't think it is a particularly big deal - when you tell people you can trip, disarm, overrun, ect. in 3rd edition, they roll their eyes and never do it. If you give someone a character sheet where it says they have the power to disarm people, they will actually use it. This may SEEM odd to you, but it is the way things actually work at game tables, especially with newbies.


I think you really need to establish why you think it is better to have specific rules governing particular actions than having an open or general task resolution system before you attempt to make this argument, otherwise you are constantly going to have the rug pulled from underneath you by people who just don't agree.

Well, people who just don't agree are never going to be convinced, especially the small but vocal whiny contingent of people who, quite frankly, just want to whine; they don't have any real complaints, they just want to create drama and be heard. These are the people who will be playing 4e in a year and talking about how horrible 3.5 was, but they'll still be whining about this or that. It is their nature.

But as for the actual reasonable people, I'm going to say that the reason that actual rules are better is for the reason I delineated above - if you just vaguely say "Whatever," people WON'T do whatever. But if you say "this power lets you sweep their legs out from under them and stab them while they're down", and its a power on their character sheet, they'll be doing it a lot more often. Same with disarming. If there was a "swinging on chandeliers" power, there'd be a character dangling from every single chandelier available.

There's also the reason of "so it actually works under the system."


Interestingly, this one is also false.

According to interviews with WOTC, the bard was one of the first classes that was completely developed and tested. So whatever the reason for leaving it out was, it's obviously not that "they couldn't get it done on time".

Well, there's lots of good possibilities then:

1) It sucks. Highly probable.
2) It is inconsistant with the tone of the game. Also highly probable.
3) Its role in the party was not distinct enough from the other developed classes to be worth keeping.
4) It evolved into something else entirely.
5) It wasn't all that interesting.
6) It wasn't worth the space. Probably the most probable at all.
7) IT is more of an expansion type class in the first place. Also true and a possible side-reason, but not the primary one.

And "couldn't get it done on time" was only one listed possibility; I personally suspect the reason there are 8 classes is because of the length of the rulebook. Consider each class has twenty or more pages devoted to just it and you realize that you're already at 160+ pages. The book cannot be much more than 300 pages (they were probably aiming for about 300) so 8 classes is entirely logical. You want to present the strongest 8 classes in the core rulebook; I suspect they had 12 or so finished classes when the finalized the 8 they wanted in the core rules. And by strongest, I don't mean "strongest in terms of power level", but rather "strongest as in the most coherent, interesting, and diverse, fulfilling all the major roles and allowing for interesting character building" (though having the 8 strongest in the core books is not a bad idea, either, necessarily). Bards are a very weak class in terms of being coherent and interesting; they're silly on the face of it and a bit incoherent with the rest of the world, so logically you'd want the more solid classes in core.

By my math, at 20 pages per class, and the other sections of the rulebook being about as long (and this is saying the entire spells section, along with the enormous spells list, would be entirely gone), you're looking at 160 pages of classes and 130 pages of other stuff; that's already 290 pages right there. At 25 pages a class, you'd be at 330 pages, which is the top end for possible length. So cutting down to the 8 best classes for length reasons seems entirely reasonable, and the likliest reason there are exactly 8 classes - the math works out that way.

Rutee
2008-03-02, 07:16 AM
But as for the actual reasonable people, I'm going to say that the reason that actual rules are better is for the reason I delineated above - if you just vaguely say "Whatever," people WON'T do whatever. But if you say "this power lets you sweep their legs out from under them and stab them while they're down", and its a power on their character sheet, they'll be doing it a lot more often. Same with disarming. If there was a "swinging on chandeliers" power, there'd be a character dangling from every single chandelier available.

That's not necessarily true. Some people will, allowed to in the system or not. I'll certainly grant that /most/ people won't though.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 07:20 AM
Call of Cthulhu by Chaosium has lasted a while. The only thing that has changed really per se, is the settings. Same old system and it has lasted longer than 3rd edition. Surprise surprise, I found one.

Cthulhu is on approximately its seventh editon by now IIRC, not including D20.


You fail to see where I am coming from. I see a class that has been pretty much a staple. You see a a superfluous class that has no business in D&D. I see a half-hearted grab at my wallet when a class that used to be core is no longer. You see an optional book to play an optional class. It's two very different mentalities.

I sometimes wonder how people imagine RPG designers spend their time. The common perception seems to be that there are all these rules concepts all nicely written up, carefully presented, playtested, checked, balanced and illustrated, just lying around somewhere, and then they get together and say "so, out of all this material that we have just lying around, which presumably got there by magic, what shall we put in the core rulebook and what shall we leave out? I know, let's leave these things out, despite our already having them all completely ready for publication, just to screw the fans."


Believe it or not, bards can totally be a part of D&D because no where in the books does it say a party has to fight at all. OMG! How dare I imply you can have an RP game with little to no battles. That is simply a playstyle. Just as a bard is a playstyle. When you play a bard in 3e, you accept certain truths: you are going to suck in battle, you are going suck as a spell caster. You will however grant a nice bonus to attack rolls and you will be helpful in foiling the plot of the BBEG by your bardic knowledge. Bards are not meant to be battle-bots, which is why they don't fit in with the 4e mentality of "Kill the monsters!" It's a different playing style and not even to nod at a staple that has been there since the start is a disgrace.

I know everybody else has already jumped on this but I really, really want to know.

What exactly do you define as "little to no battles"? I ask this because every few months I find myself having a conversation that goes like this:

Me: D&D is a combat based game.
Some Guy On The Internet: No it isn't! Our D&D game has hardly any combat at all.
Me: Really? What do you mean by hardly any combat at all?
SGOTI: I mean hardly any, like virtually none.
Me: Could you be more specific.
SGOTI: Most sessions, we have, like, one or two combats maximum. The rest is totally roleplaying.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-02, 07:24 AM
That's silly. First off, the number of times I've seen someone without Improved X try to do X to someone is 0, where X = any of the odd abilities but grapple.

If I may hazard a guess, that is probably because you haven't played any roleplaying games other than D&D 3.5 for a long time. Where 4E flat out disallows such actions unless you have the power, 3E has long gotten into the habit of discouraging such actions unless you have the feat.

I'm not just talking about D&D here, mind you. I have a dozen different RPGs on my shelf, and more available from friends or the internet if I want to. That's a heck of a lot more material for comparing 4E to. While what I've seen of 4E so far is quite good, none of it gives me an incentive to play that instead of some other RPG; except if I want a somewhat more complex version of the boardgame, Descent: Journeys in the Dark.

Interestingly, one of the complaints people have about 1E/2E D&D is that "you can't sneak unless you're a rogue" - 4E does the exact same thing, in that "you can't disarm unless you're an Xth-level fighter with the Y power".

Matthew
2008-03-02, 07:27 AM
Well, people who just don't agree are never going to be convinced, especially the small but vocal whiny contingent of people who, quite frankly, just want to whine; they don't have any real complaints, they just want to create drama and be heard. These are the people who will be playing 4e in a year and talking about how horrible 3.5 was, but they'll still be whining about this or that. It is their nature.

Okay, let's try and keep the level of discourse at a reasonable level. Slandering, venting or whatever is just as bad as what you're describing. I strongly advise you to just ignore such people, unless you actually like being involved in exchanges of that nature, which I assume you do not, given the criticism you're levelling against such people.



But as for the actual reasonable people, I'm going to say that the reason that actual rules are better is for the reason I delineated above - if you just vaguely say "Whatever," people WON'T do whatever. But if you say "this power lets you sweep their legs out from under them and stab them while they're down", and its a power on their character sheet, they'll be doing it a lot more often. Same with disarming. If there was a "swinging on chandeliers" power, there'd be a character dangling from every single chandelier available.

There's also the reason of "so it actually works under the system."

Bear in mind we're not talking about 'actual rules', but specific rules. If you vaguely say "whatever", then I imagine you will have problems. If, on the other hand, a player asks "can I do X" and the DM replies "yes" then I don't really see the problem.

I think that the very positive aspect you see in having powers available described and used more regularly is what I find boring about complex rule systems. In the end, everybody chooses the same narrow group of powerful combinations and stays within that confined area.

Rutee
2008-03-02, 07:28 AM
I sometimes wonder how people imagine RPG designers spend their time. The common perception seems to be that there are all these rules concepts all nicely written up, carefully presented, playtested, checked, balanced and illustrated, just lying around somewhere, and then they get together and say "so, out of all this material that we have just lying around, which presumably got there by magic, what shall we put in the core rulebook and what shall we leave out? I know, let's leave these things out, despite our already having them all completely ready for publication, just to screw the fans."

I don't know how the professionals do it, but I usually channel dead crazy people to give me inspiration on how the rulesets work for a few hours, then slam out some fluff at the last minute and say "Whatever" to the crunch..:smallbiggrin:

In seriousness, I do want to know the common perception. I can't claim I know how it feels for a professional, but it's a lot of freaking work, and I wonder what people who haven't done it think it's like.


If I may hazard a guess, that is probably because you haven't played any roleplaying games other than D&D 3.5 for a long time. Where 4E flat out disallows such actions unless you have the power, 3E has long gotten into the habit of discouraging such actions unless you have the feat.
Given that the RPG in discussion is DnD, and 4e vs. 3.X, is it relevant what other RPGs allow when you're not applying a blanket statement to DnD?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-02, 07:29 AM
What exactly do you define as "little to no battles"? I ask this because every few months I find myself having a conversation that goes like this:

That sounds familiar.

I think an interesting metric would be "how much time, on average, passes between two of your dice rolls".

In a combat-heavy game, this may well be measured in seconds, or possibly single minutes.

In a roleplaying-heavy game, the answer may well be that you make a die roll once or twice per session, or even that you spend several sessions without rolling any dice.



Given that the RPG in discussion is DnD, and 4e vs. 3.X, is it relevant what other RPGs allow when you're not applying a blanket statement to DnD?
For people who are wondering whether they want to buy 4E D&D, it is certainly relevant how it compares to other RPGs, not just its previous edition. "You can't do anything except the things explicitly stated on your character sheet", while a mild exaggeration, is certainly useful information for people in deciding what to play.

Rutee
2008-03-02, 07:32 AM
In a roleplaying-heavy game, the answer may well be that you make a die roll once or twice per session, or even that you spend several sessions without rolling any dice.

You could actually be making rolls all the time in a roleplaying-heavy game that involves more then just character interaction. Or even a roleplaying heavy game that involves heavy character interaction.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 07:33 AM
Given that the RPG in discussion is DnD, and 4e vs. 3.X, is it relevant what other RPGs allow when you're not applying a blanket statement to DnD?

Perhaps it's because I'm smug, and like to play the "I've played more RPGs than you" card, but I do think it's worth mentioning. The discussion at hand here is: does requiring a specific ability in order to perform a particular action encourage people to perform that action, or discourage it?

3.5 is actually a bad basis for comparison, because the system *allowed* people to perform manoeuvres that they didn't have the feat for, but made them ineffective. Other games just run using a standardized system and don't assume that you need to learn "disarming" as a separate skill.

Of course those games often have problems of their own, like individual moves being badly balanced against each other (in Greg Stolze's REIGN, disarming is brutally effective and has pretty much no defense, for example).

Matthew
2008-03-02, 07:34 AM
That sounds familiar.

I think an interesting metric would be "how much time, on average, passes between two of your dice rolls".

In a combat-heavy game, this may well be measured in seconds, or possibly single minutes.

In a roleplaying-heavy game, the answer may well be that you make a die roll once or twice per session, or even that you spend several sessions without rolling any dice.

Heh. Last AD&D campaign I ran there were strings of sessions with less than a dozen die rolls. On the other hand, there were strings of combat intense sessions with hundreds of die rolls. My experience was that some players enjoyed one type of session more than others and some enjoyed the mix.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-02, 07:39 AM
My current Nobilis game hasn't had a dice roll yet. ;)

Rutee
2008-03-02, 07:40 AM
Perhaps it's because I'm smug, and like to play the "I've played more RPGs than you" card, but I do think it's worth mentioning. The discussion at hand here is: does requiring a specific ability in order to perform a particular action encourage people to perform that action, or discourage it?

3.5 is actually a bad basis for comparison, because the system *allowed* people to perform manoeuvres that they didn't have the feat for, but made them ineffective. Other games just run using a standardized system and don't assume that you need to learn "disarming" as a separate skill.

Of course those games often have problems of their own, like individual moves being badly balanced against each other (in Greg Stolze's REIGN, disarming is brutally effective and has pretty much no defense, for example).

I need to order REIGN at some point. I loved a lot of the concept work. Regardless, I suppose I'm blurring the two seperate discussions, but it seems like people are trying to establish that the way 4e is handling something is bad, based on other RPGs, then say "A-HA! 3.5e is obviously better!" when, as you pointed out, 3.5, in effect, works similarly, due to needing a particular Feat/Class Feature/Etc to do something /effectively/.

Also, I hate you Rachel. I feel entirely gypped about not getting to play Nobilis after me and like 4 other people went through boatloads of self-excitement about the game and the GM effectively wussed out of it.

STOP TAUNTING ME WITH YOUR BORGSTROMANCY YOU EVIL TEMPTRESS :E

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 07:49 AM
My current Nobilis game hasn't had a dice roll yet. ;)

Dammit, I was about to make the same joke about Amber.

Oslecamo
2008-03-02, 07:56 AM
D&D before 4e and videogame RPG's have been 2 completely diferent things for a loonnnggg time.

The main diference is that D&D allowed me to do whatever I wanted.
If I wanted to attack the shopkeer, I could. And the shopkeeper would have stats.

If I wanted to breack down a wall, I could. There were even rules to opening holes in reality. In core.

If I was the wizard, that didn't stop me from using heavy armor whitout feats.

If I was a rogue I could dual wield pretty much anything and deal sneack attack damage with it. Now that's what a rogue is all about. Turning anything capable of hurting in a deadly weapon. And I was rewarded for finding ways to get extra attacks.

And then, if you say casters are overpowered, I have one 2 words:

Magic items. They actually balance the game. If the wizard wants to be a jerk and make some bizzarre spell combination, just give the villain a candle of invocation, and let the summoned solar teach the wizard a lesson or two about humility.

Players had to think about the consequences of their acts.

But in 4e, it indeed feels like Wow. A unbuffed wizard can jump in the frontline and laugh as the enemies of his level simply can't kill him in a single turn because he has so many HP.

This totally kills any feel of heroism for me. You need to throw an enemy around 3 level bigger than the party to actually have a chance to kill someone, in this case the solo lv4 dragon.

Where is the glory in killing enemies wich have no real chance to defeat you?

Not to mention, now enemies die automatically when downed. What hapened to trying to catch enemy alives for interogation?

I understand that they may want to simplify things, but this is ridiculous.
I actually started playing D&D because I liked the complexity of the rules. If I searched enough in the core books, I could do pretty much anything.

But now, the fighter is born with a heavy armor glued to his body and either a big weapon or a medium weapon and a shield glued to his hands. Wee.....

Starsinger
2008-03-02, 07:59 AM
There are things I've read, which normally I'd take the time to go out and quote and stuff, but I'm not going to, instead I'm just going to address a few points.

Someone (I believe it was Ms. Lorelei) mentioned something about only playing bards. Now, in context if I remember correctly, she was asking if someone else always did. But she had a very good point, if you do only play bards, now is the time to branch out! For example, in 3e I play almost exclusively sorcerers. After looking at those character sheet things I however, was very excited to play a Wizard or a Warlock, hardly that surprising, since I liked my Sorcerers to be blasty. I was pleasantly surprised however, to want to play a Cleric, a feeling I've never had in 3.5. I also, and if anyone I play with or that knows me hears this, they might have a heart attack, was considering playing a martial character.


Someone else mentioned combat-free/light 3.5. To which I ask, why? The 3.5 rules for non-combat aren't that great. There are other systems out there which handle it better. Likewise, what about people who have no relevant use outside of combat other than roleplay? Like poor Fighters, unless you need a mountain climbed, or a pool swam. Likewise, many Fighters (especially in point buy) have poor-ish mental stats, which means chances are, roleplaying them isn't either fun, or you have disparity between mental stats of the character and how its being played.


I also am amused by the audacity of people who come here and advocate piracy. The Giant, who pays the bills that keep this place running, is a game designer. Every pirated copy of Dungeonscape hurt the Giant. Every copy of it that wasn't sold in stores, because someone went out and downloaded it instead, told Wizards of the Coast "Dungeonscape wasn't that good/popular... we should be wary about asking those people to design stuff for us in the future." And really, it's not just about the Giant. Game designers are people too, people with families. When you pirate books, you hurt people who have wives, husbands, parents, children, friends... living, breathing people like you. Piracy doesn't just hurt Wizards of the Coast, infact it doesn't necessarily hurt them at all. They can still make money off of Magic the Gathering, novels, Starwars Minis, D&D Minis, licensing bad D&D movies or videogames, etc. So all Piracy can really do to them, is cause them to pull a Black Industries (or is it Libraries?) and stop making RPG books.

And lastly, Demented, noone is saying you should go away and never post here again (actually, some people said to the contrary, but I'm sure deep down its because you were annoying them and not how they would really feel if you guys were getting along instead of fighting/arguing). You said you came here for help with 3.5, and while a part of that may be expressing displeasure with fourth edition, continuing doing so doesn't actually do anything to get you help for 3.5, nor does it do anything to stop people who are dead set on fourth edition from buying it anyways. It may temporarily stop those who are unsure, but lets face it they can get it from the library or flip through the books leisurely at Borders before they make a decision. I also recommend you do the following, as you might find out you like it. Sure it won't have, atleast right away, things you've expressed an interest in from 3.5, but you may like it on its own merits.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 07:59 AM
Where is the glory in killing enemies wich have no real chance to defeat you?


Same place it's always been.

CR appropriate encounter for a level 1 party of of four fully armed, fully equipped adventurers includes:

1 Orc.
3 Goblins.
6 rats.

Not exactly the stuff of legend, is it? Oh yeah, we heroically ganged up on this orc and hacked it to death.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 08:09 AM
I need to order REIGN at some point. I loved a lot of the concept work.

Our REIGN game is wrapping up tomorrow, it's been pretty cool. There's some rough edges, and the magic is depressingly blasty (one of our PCs decided to pick up some Wings of Words magic, because she was playing a scholar and the flavour text billed it as the cerebral, communicative magic. In practice she just got he ability to shoot lightning out her mouth).


Regardless, I suppose I'm blurring the two seperate discussions, but it seems like people are trying to establish that the way 4e is handling something is bad, based on other RPGs, then say "A-HA! 3.5e is obviously better!" when, as you pointed out, 3.5, in effect, works similarly, due to needing a particular Feat/Class Feature/Etc to do something /effectively/.

It's still another step in the "anything not permitted is forbidden" direction, which I think was the point. On the other hand, it's probably better to pick one or the other than to shilly-shally in the middle.


Also, I hate you Rachel. I feel entirely gypped about not getting to play Nobilis after me and like 4 other people went through boatloads of self-excitement about the game and the GM effectively wussed out of it.

STOP TAUNTING ME WITH YOUR BORGSTROMANCY YOU EVIL TEMPTRESS :E

I was always kind of nonplussed by Nobilis, and unsually (as far as I can tell) it's because I found it too concrete and specific.

It really bugged me that if I was playing the Lord of Wolves (say) that I got the power to create a wolf out of thin air before I got the power to actually make one do anything. The whole "Preservation/Creation/Destruction/Change" thing annoyed me, chiefly because "Change" was basically the description for 90% of the effects I could ever imagine wanting.

Scintillatus
2008-03-02, 09:18 AM
Arguments, Distilled:

"I am entitled to this game, as a participant in the prior game."

False. Theft is theft. You never have justification to steal a luxury item. Whether sharing falls under this definition is something for the courts to argue about, but saying "I'm going to take this from the internet because I don't want to pay" is an admission of wrong-doing, and quite clearly morally wrong.

"The developers must answer to my whims and wants."

False. The developers are developing a game for their primary consumer base; the roleplayer. Those people who want to create an interactive world within which other people participate, or those participants who want to enjoy an interactive world. Collective storytellers. Improv actors with dice rolls.

These are the people WotC sell to, not simulationists. Not people who wish to play a particular variant of a variant of a variant. The fact that one prior system was accidentally in your favour does not make the next version guaranteed to carry the same relics of prior editions.

"The game is being dumbed down/It is being made into an MMO/CRPG"

False. Having played damn near 90% of the MMOs on the market, and most of the Western-style CRPGs, I laugh at these accusations heartily. Combat has been proven to involve more unconventional maneuvers and combat mat-based tactics. Social encounters are being given appropriate rewards and stats (finally). The Sacred Cows of MMOs (weak first-level characters, combat based around immobilisation, characters competing for roles) are being shot at an alarming rate.

"Statistical penalties are a good thing, and create more diversity."

Tieflings (+2 Dex, +2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma) are worse at being Warlocks than Aasimar (+2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma). The end.

"Leaving Bards (and other classes) out of the PHB proves that they're just trying to bend us over a barrel made out of gold and paper money"

False. They've said they want to balance the hybrid characters especially carefully, and are waiting for the standard classes to be explored before they release. Which is a horrendous decision in my opinion, but I have no reason to doubt that they're making that horrendous decision.

"Less classes means less iconic characterisation."

With a stunning 175 base classes and 782 Prestige Classes (P.S. Not counting non-official stuff. We're talking thousands here.), players (and DMs alike) are inundated with dozens of copycat classes with the most minor of rules changes, effective characters impossible without multiple classes.

Make me an effective Swashbuckler in 3.5, and you will likely recommend only four levels in the named class, with additional Fighter, Dervish etc levels built in.

Make me an effective Swashbuckler in 4e and you roll a Rogue, maybe give him Fighter Training, give him Charisma and Dexterity based powers. The end.

"They're milking money out of us with this D&D insider thing! It's got a subscription fee, oh god!"

So does your TV. Your internet. Your cellphone. Your gym. Your Netflix account, your book club membership, your magazine subscriptions; pretty much anything these days is some kind of subscription. You are not being made to use this optional extra. For paying the fee (which is cheaper than an MMO fee, I might add), you gain two magazine subscriptions, errata updates, and a damned useful online tool that makes online gaming much easier.

Selling miniatures and not making it a once-purchase open-source program is kind of a pain in the ass... But they're a corp, and they are out for money.

"I don't want to upgrade!"

If you don't want to upgrade, don't. If you don't like something, vote with your feet - don't buy it. You're not obligated to upgrade, and they're not obligated to change their product to make you upgrade. Play 3e. With nearly a thousand classes, do you really need additional supplements? As has been said previously - there are people still playing first and second editions, they don't seem to worry about upgrading.

You are NOT being forced to play this game. There is no way you can say this with a straight face. It will become difficult to purchase books, it will become a collector's market, yes; but this is what it has been and always will be like. Unless you are grousing at WotC about 1e and 2e not being updated with regularity, you are a hypocrite.

"Complaints about aggro/Band-aids heal everything/A short nap = Hospital visit"

Aggro/Threat: Name for the mathematical calculations that control monster action in them that vidyagames. Also the name for getting it, losing it, maintaining it, etc. Behind a videogame: Complex mathematics. Behind the roleplaying game: DM fiat. The end, pretty much. If the DM had to do the maths behind Threat I'd never play 4e in a million years. Instead we have neat flavor-appropriate taunt powers that kind of existed anyway.

Stupid healing stuff: has always existed, will always exist; natural conceit of the story-oriented game rather than the simulation-oriented game. Too bad, cover it up with a nice bit of storytelling. Durkon prays for healing, for example. Bandages and potions are used, non-combat restorative items are used (not everything can be drunk in a fight), spells are exhausted. Spontaneous conversion might still be in, you know.

Conclusion: You are bitching for the sake of bitching. You want to review 4e? Wait until it's out. You don't want to upgrade? Don't. You think changes to a rulesystem are goofy? Play the old one/houserule/don't use those rules. You are looking for reasons to complain, whereas I am looking for ways to fix my complaints. For the record? Neither my favorite Race or Class is featured in the PHB. I hate dragons (dragon characters, I mean) with a fervent passion. I dislike the "pay me for monsters that are in the MM anyway" thing. I love PBP but hate faffing about in photoshop to make maps every minute.

Too bad for me. I'll just have to improvise. I've got simpler homebrew rules, a pen and a notepad. I think I'm good.

TL;DR

"...Someone other than me is having fun, oh god!"

Oh noes.

And taking a leaf out of the book of Catfolk (my favorite race), I've said my piece and I am finished arguing these points. If you bring some new information to my attention, I'll discuss it, but I'm tired of arguing against circular logic is good because circular logic is good because circular logic is good because circular logic is good.

BARDS ARE STILL COOL. ;_;

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 09:29 AM
This might scare you, but.
There is more than one RPG system in existence.

Nooo, it can't be true, the madness, it burns my mind.


A lot of them cater not only to certain themes, but certain playstyles. Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it can't work for someone else.

Basically, if you don't like the playstyle 4e is looking for, you might be more interested in another kind of system. If WoTC doesn't cater to your playstyle, so what? I've seen systems that were meant to emulate fight scenes from action movies with tons of mooks, systems that revolve around Anime themes, and systems where you roll to decide the circumfrence of your character's..er, nevermind. Let's just pretend that system never existed.
1. Here is the thing, most of those other settings were made specifically for that style. Exalted plays in a certain way, but from the get-go it has always been aimed for one play style. The whole super epic style. D&D didn't have that, D&D had plenty of other styles and in fact, I mean look at how Tippy plays 3E. What WOTC is doing is "fixing that which isn't broken" instead of appealing to other play styles. They are basically telling the old fans of the editions that "this is the way 4E is going to be played, lets set it down in stone, if you don't like, well sucks for you".

Basically now 4E reminds me of general video games, 300, House of Flying Daggers and Kenshin at best in terms of general feel. And that upsets me. It should appeal to different styles
2. That system is like Uwe Boll and F.A.T.A.L., we simple pretend it never happened




Anyway, my point being, the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons might not be for you, and I generally consider it a good design decision to make up your mind on what the system should 'feel' like rather than be schizophrenic and try to cater to every player at the same time.

Sure, but they should based that on their previous audience.



So, hey. Don't like what's in 4e? Don't play it. In fact, go out and check out some other systems. You may even find one that does what you want it to do in 3.5e even better.

Well i play a homebrewed 3E because it is really broken, but generally i wanted a new edition, because 3E needed to be fixed, not pulling a Black Knight on Vermisitude

I see your point, i will be playing my own homebrew, but that doesn't change the nature of my complaints
from
EE

Muyten
2008-03-02, 09:45 AM
Sure, but they should based that on their previous audience.


Hmm, as part of the previous audience I can say that they are at least catering to me. There is no way in the Abyss that they can make everyone happy at once but they do in fact seem to be basing 4E on how the previous audience mostly played (just because you don't play that way doesn't make it less so).

Also of course they want to appeal to new consumers as well not just the ones who played 3E or previous editions. From their point of view it might be just about making money but from my point of view it's about getting new players interested in the hobby.

Fhaolan
2008-03-02, 11:07 AM
(Again, this might seem like a random post. It isn't, but there are too many posts this is in reply to, and it's more of a generic reply rather than a specific one.)

I like bards. I don't particularly like 3.x Bards, but I do like, and play, bards, skalds, ollaves, griots, etc. Probably because I grew up on stories of Taliesen and Bragi Boddason.

Of course the bards I grew up with didn't sing at monsters. Well, okay, maybe once or twice to charm them, but that's it. More like they would tell stories to get bands of soldiers all hyped up before battle, much like what that guy was doing at the end of 300. The job of bard was the excuse for them to wander around the countryside with impunity, a justification for them not being hung by the King/Chieftan/whatever for sedition, and a way to pay for food and lodging.

And that's the kind of bard I like to play. Which means I almost never play a Bard. I play a Rogue, or a Swashbuckler, or an Illusionist, or more obsucrely a Ranger, sometimes multiclassed with each other.

I understand the concept of the 3.x Bard, using music to cast spells. It's a fairly common trope in fiction. The most blatant being the Soprano Sorceress (L.E. Modesitt Jr), and the extremely camp Spellsinger (Alan Dean Foster). And it's something that's been used a lot in modern Neo-paganism. I just don't like the way it's implemented in 3.x. I view 'music as magic' as being one more methodology of magic, much like 'symbols as magic', 'rituals as magic', 'alchemy as magic', etc.

And to top it off, I don't like playing epic heroes much. I like the slightly crazy ones, and the 'live by wits alone' ones, and the 'down and dirty' ones. The ones who are heroes because there's no-one else. No shiny armor, no dancing on flying spears, no lightining from the eyes and fireballs out the ass. Am I going to be able to play these characters in 4th edition? I'm not sure yet. There seems to be a lot of 'PC are demigods, by definition' kind of hype going around, but then very similar hype happened for 3rd edition and I am still able to play those characters in that system... providing the DM and spellcaster players tone it down a bit and don't get too excited. :smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 11:08 AM
And I was saying that I would hate a game where the GM took the time out of playtime to describe a scene that the PCs aren't present to witness or have had the chance to hear about. It's one thing to have the plot move at a predetermined rate, with or without the PCs involving themselves in it, or to have events going on outside what the PCs are doing. If the characters inquire about the political goings on, the harvest, how Alan the Blacksmith's business is doing or how the war against The Country Where People Wear Silly Hats is going, good, hopefully as a DM you'll be prepared to answer them. But to force it upon them is something I find distasteful.

Well a good DM wouldn't take playtime out, he'd just make it happen. Here i'll do an example

The PCs are in the Country where People Where Silly Hats. Now the Government is a fascist military. who plan to preform a genocide upon all gnome bot to obtain their goods and to have them act as a scapegoat for all of hte nations problems, generally encouraging a radical nationalist feeling in the country which will then be used to invade he near by nations where people where funny shoes. Now if the PCs ask people, they will describe a general hatred of gnomes ("Damn Bastards, them with their lack of place in a party") or support of the goverment. Now if the PC don't do anything that would interferer with htat, the Government will go ahread with their plan, only to be surprised attacked by the nation where people where funny pants. The PCs can interfere with this of course, but that isn't the issue. The real issue is that the PCs are in a world that isn't static, that moves and changes based on things other than their actions. Thing should be explained by reason




I have never said the PCs should have god mode on. I maintain the stance that death in D&D should be the result of poor planning, stupidity, and/or plot instead of "whoops, that goblin crit you at level 1 for 3x max damage. Reroll."
Why? When you pull a critical, you do lots of damage. Is there some sort of in game law that green-skins are physically unable to pull off good attacks? IF the PCs are going to enter combat, one of the general assumptions is that you have a risk of dying. Hence why it is combat.




EE, your strawman argument that WotC is insisting that everything in 4e be "epic" is absurd. At epic and perhaps paragon levels, yes, things will be getting above and beyond earth shattering, but the general theme seems to be that the PCs and other adventurers are the agents of change, be it on a local, regional, continental, worldwide or even larger scale. Being an agent of change does not equate to being "epic", but rather being extraordinary. As for dragons at 1st level, apparently the people at WotC wanted to let people fight them if they so chose. Fighting a dragon at 1st level is not going to be epic, but it will be difficult and it will be fun. That is what the game is about: fun.
1. Narrow definition of fun as per normal
2. No i'm not talking about them being agents of change, it is the way they are handling the game so far. Everything is epic suppose to be epic, the PCs seem to be intended to be the video game, Kratos/300/Leon style heros who are super cool and epic from the start. The intention seems that they are always special and unique as well as as being super and heroic in the uber unstoppable fighter sort of way.



The reason is quite simple, really: anything else is stupid. In reality, resting for the night has always completely cured a D&D party thanks to clerics and wands of CLW and various other similar shenanigans. Sorry, but they're simply making it so people don't even try to roll 20d8 over and over again to figure out how many spells they spend healing on something which is just a waste of time because they can completely heal everyone anyway.

Fundamentally it is a time saving acknowledgement of reality, and that is a good thing.
You understanding of these games seems vague at best. Look up the rest rules in 3E, you'll learn amazing things.



You do realize that point 1 is actually paradoxical, don't you? You just basically bashed on them without providing any evidence whatsoever for your point. Really, it just sounds like you've lost the argument and don't want to admit it.

And indeed, evidence was provided; what we've seen. Indeed, your statement is horribly wrong in that the portion of text you quoted to support your argument -actually contains evidence-. This is the second thread I've seen you in where you quote some segment of text and then proceed not to read it (or not to understand it).

Your the one making the claim, your the one who should be providing the evidence. You've made plenty of claims, most of them boiling down to 'RPGs have always been like this, should be played this way, this is hte only way they have been played.' And yet, you never prove these points. Apparently, because you 'know' the true and absolute style of RPGs and everything about them, we should just take your word as the Word of God


And your second argument is simply wrong, and indeed self-contradictory. You have more options, why CAN'T you plan ahead? You give no evidence to support your random assertion.
I'm noting it seems less "Ok here is a list of feats, go with it" and more "here is a list of paths and styles, go with it" Different feel.



They do know better than you do, you know. First off, they don't advocate criminal activity, and second, they do make all their money by selling wildly successful games. How many people have bought D&D books and Magic cards? Millions upon millions. You've never done anything even remotely as successfu
1. Really? They why is 3E so broken? If WOTC knew there business, they wouldn't make such blunders
2. I'm not advocating stealing, reading my post does help amazingly enough
3. Oh wait, they have lots of money? Oh my, that, well, that must mean we should trust them explicitly. I mean they have money, you can't argue with that. So if i told you i inherited Bill Gate's money and invested in WOTC 90 %, would that make my option better. I"m glad you cleared that up for me
By that standards, Eragon is one of the best examples of writing and character development, 300 is the best movie ever made, the LOTRS movies are better than the books, Troy is better than hte Illiad and Olando Bloom is the best actor to bless the world.



Making a good, fun game for a lot of people is hard; there's a reason WotC is so much more successful than other gaming companies. It is because they DO know how to make a fun game, something you clearly don't understand how to do.
Because WOTC is good at marketing? That is why they are a good company generally, 3E is totally broken normally.
But more to the point, the arrogance of claiming that WOTC knows how to make the game fun and i apparently don't understand what fun and basing any statement off nothing more than your basic conviction that 'You' know best is nothing but arrogance and close minded absurdities.


Its not a matter of trusting WotC; what we've seen confirms that it is a better system than 3.5, and what we've figured out about the system implies it is MASSIVELY better than 3.5
Yeah, and that is, i don't thing it is Massively better than 3E really. Maybe in certain areas, but generally i don't. Now you based this apparent "Greatness" after nothing more than you saying it is great


Ones you were foolish enough to purchase. Seriously, I avoided those books like the plague because they had "ripoff" printed on their front covers; I care little about their fluffbooks, hence why I own none.

Fair enough, they weren't a good buy, but they did give him a hint of what 4E is going to be like thus far.



You, like he, don't understand business, economics, or it seems many things like "game balance", "time and effort", and "playtesting". These are important for making a good game. Your whining is quite illogical, especially given the amount of options all the classes have.
And remember kids, WOTC knows what is best for you. If something you enjoyed is taken away, trust me, WOTC knew you were better off without it. Only they can define fun. Prepare to be assimilated



The only people saying WOTC never makes mistakes are people like you; people who are trying to construct straw man arguments. And do you know what a straw man argument is?
Um, no i've already said that i think WOTC makes mistake in both 3E and from what we have seen from 4E. So technically your making a straw man argument.

Worthless. What kind of person makes worthless, illogical, meaningless arguments?

Exactly.

Oh i know. People who make absurd claims of greatness of 4E without providing evidence, and base truth off their ability to say "This is how it is, your wrong".



WotC isn't perfect, but 4e is much better than 3.5. YOU claim they aren't perfect, and then cling to the horribly flawed 3.5 rather than even being willing to THINK about switching over to an obviously better system

1. Prove taht 4E is better. Oh wait, you don't need to prove things, you have hte ability to say stuff and it is simple true. Forgot
2. Don't misquote me, i've already said many times that 3E is a flawed system and an new edition is needed. That hasn't happened as of yet however.


Yes they were; I don't think a real campaign can survive diplomacy cheese

Even without diplomacy, bards were a pretty good class, no where near as bad as fighter or monks


The concept of going into a dungeon to sing at monsters is, in fact, stupid. The fact that it is funny is its major saving grace, but when you think about it, the very premise is quite silly. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the reality is that some things are more important than others, and apparently people enjoy seriousness a great deal in D&D; not to the exclusion of all else, but a class which is, on the face of it, a joke is probably not appropriate for the core books. Not to mention that bards, of all the classes, have the least in the way of fantasy backing; while people with magical voices are actually pretty common in fantasy, they are not at all bardlike generally; indeed, the only real "bard-like" character I can think of offhand is the pied-piper.
They inspire the other characters, they act as epic singers, ect ect. Now yet again, your entire argument is based off "i say is is bad, it must be so"


Gnomes are unpopular and replacing them with something far cooler/more popular is entirely logical; they'd be stupid to do otherwise.
Gnomes have been with us for three editions, why move the now? I guess because they get mocked in WOW a lot and that carries over but what ever. Yet again, your argument is based after nothing more than "I say so, it must be true"


Indeed, it basically boiled down to a few people saying "4th edition is too much like a MMO!" and the rest of us pointing out that, in fact, all MMOs are in fact D&D without DMs, so it is impossible to make D&D more like a MMO without removing the DM. Some of you just didn't want to hear it
Not really, personally i don't think 4E is like an MMO more than video games in general. if you want to discuss that, your going need to do better than "Your wrong, i'm right"


in the end, the complaints I see basically boil down to "I don't want to spend money on 4th edition", "I'm scared of change", "I don't understand game design", and "My idiosyncrhatic preferences weren't catered to."

I'm going with a theory that you never actually read things and just rely on misquotes or your own words to deiced posts
1. I want a new edition, i've never said i didn't want change. I've already said, 3E is broken and a new edition is needed. I don't like 4E's direction however
2. What, other than your claim makes me not understand game design. Because ergo, your word isn't god, nor truth, nor the deciding factor in an argument
3. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me idiosyncratic, saying otherwise is nothing but hubris.




Several AD&D compatable products were published last year and a number are in the line up this year. It's quite an interesting time for simulacrum games.

That is very interesting, can you give a link please?


I think you really need to establish why you think it is better to have specific rules governing particular actions than having an open or general task resolution system before you attempt to make this argument, otherwise you are constantly going to have the rug pulled from underneath you by people who just don't agree
Titanium Dragon doesn't need to support his points don't you know, he just needs to say something and it is accepted as fact.

W
ell, people who just don't agree are never going to be convinced, especially the small but vocal whiny contingent of people who, quite frankly, just want to whine; they don't have any real complaints, they just want to create drama and be heard. These are the people who will be playing 4e in a year and talking about how horrible 3.5 was, but they'll still be whining about this or that. It is their nature
1. Well your "I'm right because i say so" method isn't going to convince anybody.
2. I don't give a damn about drama, your pathetic attempt at flaming only shows your black and white idea of what is good and bad.


1) It sucks. Highly probable.
2) It is inconsistant with the tone of the game. Also highly probable.
3) Its role in the party was not distinct enough from the other developed classes to be worth keeping.
4) It evolved into something else entirely.
5) It wasn't all that interesting.
6) It wasn't worth the space. Probably the most probable at all.
7) IT is more of an expansion type class in the first place. Also true and a possible side-reason, but not the primary one.
1. Prove it. It isn't great, but it is far better than fighter or monk if played right
2. Prove it
3. Why?
4. Why not make it evolve into something closer to the them. I mean we have plenty of magical singing stuff they could go with
5. Yet again, that is based on nothing more than your statement. Which is apparently absolute truth. Some people like it
6. So the people who liked bards? Ah well, they didn't understand the holy master that is WOTC after all
7. Fair enough



Now is 3E a good system? No. Do i advocate piracy? No. Generally i just don't like people relying on "Your wrong, i'm right" as the only argument they have.

from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 11:16 AM
D&D before 4e and videogame RPG's have been 2 completely diferent things for a loonnnggg time.

The main diference is that D&D allowed me to do whatever I wanted.
If I wanted to attack the shopkeer, I could. And the shopkeeper would have stats.

If I wanted to breack down a wall, I could. There were even rules to opening holes in reality. In core.

If I was the wizard, that didn't stop me from using heavy armor whitout feats.

If I was a rogue I could dual wield pretty much anything and deal sneack attack damage with it. Now that's what a rogue is all about. Turning anything capable of hurting in a deadly weapon. And I was rewarded for finding ways to get extra attacks.

NIce


And then, if you say casters are overpowered, I have one 2 words:

Magic items. They actually balance the game. If the wizard wants to be a jerk and make some bizzarre spell combination, just give the villain a candle of invocation, and let the summoned solar teach the wizard a lesson or two about humility.

Will you trust me when i say that such an idea doesn't really hold up, or should i explain why. Regardless, magic items don't balance the game, they can help, but 3e wasn't perfect (or are you talking about 2E?)


Players had to think about the consequences of their acts.

But there the heroes. Everything needs to go there way


But in 4e, it indeed feels like Wow. A unbuffed wizard can jump in the frontline and laugh as the enemies of his level simply can't kill him in a single turn because he has so many HP.

Personally, i think it is more the video game feel of NPCs being scenery/things to kill and the world being static


This totally kills any feel of heroism for me. You need to throw an enemy around 3 level bigger than the party to actually have a chance to kill someone, in this case the solo lv4 dragon.

Where is the glory in killing enemies wich have no real chance to defeat you?

But your the heros, you can't die, that would imply your not doing something right


Not to mention, now enemies die automatically when downed. What hapened to trying to catch enemy alives for interogation?

Bah, talking to enemies is over rated. By the by, i'm eager for 4E diplomacy, hoping for a fix



But now, the fighter is born with a heavy armor glued to his body and either a big weapon or a medium weapon and a shield glued to his hands. Wee.....
I think that 4E fighters are more Wuxia really.

S
ame place it's always been.

CR appropriate encounter for a level 1 party of of four fully armed, fully equipped adventurers includes:

1 Orc.
3 Goblins.
6 rats.

Not exactly the stuff of legend, is it? Oh yeah, we heroically ganged up on this orc and hacked it to death.
You've never been killed by Goblins i see

from
EE

Ozymandias
2008-03-02, 11:18 AM
Well a good DM wouldn't take playtime out, he'd just make it happen. Here i'll do an example

The PCs are in the Country where People Where Silly Hats. Now the Government is a fascist military. who plan to preform a genocide upon all gnome bot to obtain their goods and to have them act as a scapegoat for all of hte nations problems, generally encouraging a radical nationalist feeling in the country which will then be used to invade he near by nations where people where funny shoes. Now if the PCs ask people, they will describe a general hatred of gnomes ("Damn Bastards, them with their lack of place in a party") or support of the goverment. Now if the PC don't do anything that would interferer with htat, the Government will go ahread with their plan, only to be surprised attacked by the nation where people where funny pants. The PCs can interfere with this of course, but that isn't the issue. The real issue is that the PCs are in a world that isn't static, that moves and changes based on things other than their actions. Thing should be explained by reason


from
EE

I could be wrong, but I think the whole paradigm-shift isn't saying that the PCs should be powerful forces in everything, but rather that whatever force the PC does happen to play will be at the forefront of the narrative. If Gnomish WWII occurs, and the PCs decide to hunt rats, the game will be about hunting rats.

Scintillatus
2008-03-02, 11:23 AM
EE, can you prove that 4e's rules break your idea of a changing world?

Cause uh, I'm actually in the process of developing a 4e setting that is very, very changeable.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-02, 11:28 AM
So, in case anyone missed it in one of the four threads bouncing around.... evil elitist is not a fan of 4e. :smalltongue:

Artemician
2008-03-02, 11:28 AM
EE....


PC-Centricism

You are absolutely correct in saying that the world should exist outside of the PCs. However, it is not necessary to think of anything that doesn't involve the PCs in any way. That is the meaning of PC-Centric.

To bring up the Land of Silly Hats again. Event X happens there, with Repercussion Y. The PCs sit in a tavern and rumour monger. They hear news of Repercussion Y, and perhaps act on it.

However, if the PCs have no reason and no way of ever hearing the news of what happens in the Land of Silly Hats, or experiencing its repercussions, the DM need not describe it.

Your argument of a world where the only way the plot advances is through the PCs is a strawman. PCs are the agents of change, but by no means are they the only agents of change.


Whether 4e will be better or not

It might, it might not. I don't care at this point in time, I'm waiting until May to find out.


Whether 3e sucks

It does an adequate job. 4e might be better, it might not be. Whatever. I'm not going to go into the specifics, because they don't matter. The group you're with is so much more important than the system anyway.


Personal Insults

Stop using them.


Great strawman over listening to everything Wizards tells us

I don't care for it.


Bards

Bards are actually quite a powerful class... when splatbooked. In Core, they are mediocre in power at best, limited in options, and are incredibly hard to roleplay. However, that's not my main beef with it, my beef with it is the same beef that I have with Paladins, that it looks more like a PrC than a base class.

_________________

As for my own personal view on the matter, I already stated it above. When May comes around, I'll swing by and take a look at 4e with no preconceptions. If I have high hopes, they might be disappointed. If I'm pessimistic, I might not even buy it, even if it were indeed good. That's why it's best to keep an open mind :P

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 11:36 AM
I could be wrong, but I think the whole paradigm-shift isn't saying that the PCs should be powerful forces in everything, but rather that whatever force the PC does happen to play will be at the forefront of the narrative. If Gnomish WWII occurs, and the PCs decide to hunt rats, the game will be about hunting rats.

True but the event are still happening and will likely effect them. If the PCs are hunting rats, things will still change in the land (more empty houses, more rats, less food, more hungry fats, lower living standards, nastier rats ect)

Edit

and Scintillatus i'm using the two preview books Races and Classes and Worlds and Monsters as my reference here. Mostly the fluff (the PCs and NPCs following different rules) and the world ect. I would go into more detail, but this isn't hte right thread. PM me or check out some other threads on the matter



So, in case anyone missed it in one of the four threads bouncing around.... evil elitist is not a fan of 4e.
Ironically enough, when 4E was first announced i was one of the people who supported that change and argued against people saying we don't need change. Strange


You are absolutely correct in saying that the world should exist outside of the PCs. However, it is not necessary to think of anything that doesn't involve the PCs in any way. That is the meaning of PC-Centric.

To bring up the Land of Silly Hats again. Event X happens there, with Repercussion Y. The PCs sit in a tavern and rumour monger. They hear news of Repercussion Y, and perhaps act on it.

However, if the PCs have no reason and no way of ever hearing the news of what happens in the Land of Silly Hats, or experiencing its repercussions, the DM need not describe it.
I never said the DM needs to describe random details taht the characters wouldn't know, just that he should keep the actions and consequences in mind when making this world.
I was talking about the whole "PCs are special unique for not given reason" thing

from
EE

Matthew
2008-03-02, 11:43 AM
That is very interesting, can you give a link please?

Sure. These are links to PDFs, but print versions are also available; for the smaller manufacturers through Lulu, for bigger companies like Goodman Games and Expeditious Retreat Press you can order them in at your local game store or through Noble Knight Games:

Adventure Module PDFs at YourGamesNow

Advanced Adventures (Expeditious Retreat Press)

AA1 - The Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=96) ($5.00)
AA2 - The Red Mausoleum (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=97) ($5.00)
AA3 - The Curse of the Witch Head (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1393) ($5.00)
AA4 - The Prison of Meneptah (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_19_23&products_id=2045) ($6.00)

http://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/i/OSRIC/Pod-Caverns_Cover_for_Ads__small_version_.jpghttp://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/i/OSRIC/JPEG_Web_Cover_image.jpghttp://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/i/OSRIC/XRP6103Witch_Head_Cover.jpg
http://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/i/OSRIC/XRP6104Cover.jpg

Advanced Master Adventures (0one Games)

The Andwan Legacy (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=530) ($5.00)
The Divine Alligator (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1454) ($6.50)
The Minotaur (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=531) ($5.00)
Deadly Ice (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1012) ($6.00)
Blood Runs Cold (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1904) ($6.50)

http://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/23337.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/25763.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/23611.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/24073.jpg
http://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/50854.jpg

Dungeon Crawl Classics (Goodman Games)

Iron Crypt of the Heretics (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=877) ($6.99) - incorrectly listed!
Saga of the Witch Queen (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1864) ($9.99)

http://www.rpgnow.com/images/36/23822.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/36/50480.jpg

First Edition Fantasy (Ronin Arts)

Into the Mite Lair (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=359) ($2.00)
Smuggler's Bane (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=361) ($3.00)

http://e23.sjgames.com/media/FEF001.jpghttp://e23.sjgames.com/media/FEF003.jpg

Adventure Module PDFs at RPGNow

Realms of Arkonus (Magique Production)

RAM1 - The Dark Raiders of Misty Ridge (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=29506&it=1) ($7.99)
RAM2 - The Forgotten Isle (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=24771&it=1) ($3.00)

http://www.rpgnow.com/images/products/product_22435.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/773/24771.jpg

I am not sure how to link the modules available through Pied Piper Publishing, all of which are penned by Robert Kuntz, but if I figure it out, I will add them.

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 11:45 AM
Thanks a lot, i've been cutting and pasting things from 2E for ages now, it is nice to see some new stuff


For the record, i will be doing the same with 4E, taking stuff i like and cutting and pasting it

Most of it is cheap as well, never nice

Where could i pick up old 2E books?
from
EE

Matthew
2008-03-02, 12:01 PM
[You might want to delete that quote, it's stretching the screen out]

Check out TSR at Noble Knight Games (http://www.nobleknight.com/ViewProdLine.asp_Q_ManufacturerID_E_1_A_CategoryID _E_12_A_GenreID_E_0). You might also be interested in this fan made Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3e Player's Handbook (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~dp58/AD&D3.pdf) that I discovered the other day.

Castles & Crusades is arguably the closest modern successor to AD&D. They're releasing a lot of stuff and it's very compatable for the most part. A lot of C&C folk claim that adding D20 stuff into their game is very easy. Never tried doing that myself, but there you go.

Castles & Crusades (free stuff)

Quick Start Rules (http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/downloads/pdfs/cnc_qs.pdf)
Monsters & Treasure (http://www.trolllord.com/files/monsters.pdf)
The Rising Knight (http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/downloads/pdfs/knight.pdf)
A Lion in the Ropes (http://www.trolllord.com/files/cclion.pdf)

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 12:10 PM
That fan made thing is going to change oh so much about my world, thank you very much
from
EE

Gorbash Kazdar
2008-03-02, 12:32 PM
Comrade Gorby: Due to a number of reported posts in this thread, and the fact that it has become quite heated, I am currently locking the thread for review to see what, if any, warnings and infractions need to be issued. As a general reminder, please keep the Forum Rules in mind whenever making a post.