things you dislike about 4E v.2

[Myatar_Panwar]

wait, i lost you somewhere, can you explain that again?
from
EE

Yeah sorry, didn't word it very well.

What I was trying to get across was:

A. If you actually try with making a balanced class in 4e, chances are you will fail, but greater chances are that the balance gap will be very small.
So easier to unbalance, but harder to really make a difference.

B. It's easy to determine class features and powers now that they are so similar. Every class gets the same number of power at any one level, for example. Damage between certain roles is also very similar, thus that is also easier to calculate. The lack of truely defining class features also helps.

[EvilElitest]

Yeah sorry, didn't word it very well.

What I was trying to get across was:

A. If you actually try with making a balanced class in 4e, chances are you will fail, but greater chances are that the balance gap will be very small.
So easier to unbalance, but harder to really make a difference.

B. It's easy to determine class features and powers now that they are so similar. Every class gets the same number of power at any one level, for example. Damage between certain roles is also very similar, thus that is also easier to calculate. The lack of truely defining class features also helps.

Thanks
1) Fair enough, but i don't think that makes up for
2) The classes being so similar, which makes the piont of classes kinda useless and takes the fun out of it
from
EE

[Knaight]

Popular appeal doesn't prove something is good. Eragon is a crappy book, Naruto is an overrated manga, Halo is nothing more than decent, and Dominic Deegan is nothing more than the work of a hack. All are popular. 4E appeals to the majority who know nothing about D&d and simply want to bring in masses with combat appeal, not actual quality. And so we get a game aimed at the lowest common denominator

Popular demand proves that the target audience likes it. Eragon is aimed at preteens(although the guy has potiential, and the second is way better), Naruto is aimed at 10 year olds, Halo is aimed at action junkies who don't like thinking about possiblitied like morph ball, and Dominic Deegan is just something you don't personally like. And simple doesn't mean lowest common denominator, and playing a more complex game doesn't make you smarter or better, despite what some people may think.

[Arbitrarity]

The one thing I don't like about 4E is that it has caused our DM to try and recruit new players. I, being the local rules-junkie, have it fall on me to explain how things work. In game. This severely screws up roleplaying, because I have to split between OOC explanation, and trying to figure out what I can do that's useful in social situations.

Also, our DM doesn't quite get how to do skill challenges well. He's got pre-errata challenges, and declares them. :smallannoyed:

[thegurullamen]

Popular demand proves that the target audience likes it. Eragon is aimed at preteens(although the guy has potiential, and the second is way better), Naruto is aimed at 10 year olds, Halo is aimed at action junkies who don't like thinking about possiblitied like morph ball, and Dominic Deegan is just something you don't personally like. And simple doesn't mean lowest common denominator, and playing a more complex game doesn't make you smarter or better, despite what some people may think.

Hey, I found the story in Halo very engaging to the point of it being the primary motivator for me to play the games and to be fair, DD has gone way downhill recently, even by diehard-fan standards. I've stopped reading it altogether after three years of devotion because the writer dumped story structure in favor of wish-fulfillment fanfictions of a previous work. So yeah, there's some objective merit to the "It sucks." camp.

To be completely blunt abut 4e's success, I think a large amount of it comes from a gestalt of WotC mistakes and incompetence. Since they screwed up 3.5 so much (and 3.0 was so bad they had to rerelease it in another edition which ultimately did little to solve most problems and just supports my argument more), I think many people grasped on to it out of hatred towards 3.5 and the blind hope it might have represented. This isn't to say it doesn't have its merits (in fact, a good portion of gamers find 4e well suited towards their style of play and good for them and all) but I don't think this new edition lives up to the name of Dungeons & Dragons. Sure it might be a personal opinion refuted by popularity, but it's a common one backed by a number of facts about the game and it's resulting in a split fanbase that I don't think will eventually migrate over to the newest edition ala The 2nd/3rd Wars. This, I think, is causing some worry in the D&D fans on both sides for obvious reasons.

[RebelRogue]

4E appeals to the majority who know nothing about D&d and simply want to bring in masses with combat appeal, not actual quality. And so we get a game aimed at the lowest common denominator
I'm so glad to know I appearantly know nothing about D&D after approximately 20 years of playing it! :smalltongue: Have you tried actually playing 4th ed EE? As opposed to just reading the rules? Comments that all classes are essentially the same now lead me to believe you have not! They really do play quite differently in real games!

[thegurullamen]

I'm so glad to know I appearantly know nothing about D&D after approximately 20 years of playing it! :smalltongue: Have you tried actually playing 4th ed EE? As opposed to just reading the rules? Comments that all classes are essentially the same now lead me to believe you have not! They really do play quite differently in real games!

I'm going to step in on EE's behalf here (whether he wants me to or not and in all actuality, it's more than likely the latter.) This has got to be the tenth time someone has asked him this question and it'll probably be the tenth time the forums will have to print the same response. Until he gets around to writing it or not, here's my interpretation on this much-brushed subject:

Yes, the classes are bound to be played differently in gameplay. This does not mean that they are not products of a failed D&D edition (which is not to say they come from a failed system. On the contrary, if only the gameplay were as flawed as having exact replicas of every class with different names attached. Then we could all hate 4e equally instead of having split loyalties and pro-/anti-4e/3e/3.x/3.5/3P/2e/Shadowrun/WotC/Paizo/1e/Cake debates. Alas, we're stuck with a much lauded/hated edition and a lot of people making arguments for and against other peoples' opinions of all things.) In summary: sigh.

[The New Bruceski]

I'm so glad to know I appearantly know nothing about D&D after approximately 20 years of playing it! :smalltongue: Have you tried actually playing 4th ed EE? As opposed to just reading the rules? Comments that all classes are essentially the same now lead me to believe you have not! They really do play quite differently in real games!

Well the name does spell it out. Reminds me of how this website got its name.

[RebelRogue]

I'm going to step in on EE's behalf here (whether he wants me to or not and in all actuality, it's more than likely the latter.) This has got to be the tenth time someone has asked him this question and it'll probably be the tenth time the forums will have to print the same response. Until he gets around to writing it or not, here's my interpretation on this much-brushed subject:

Yes, the classes are bound to be played differently in gameplay. This does not mean that they are not products of a failed D&D edition (which is not to say they come from a failed system. On the contrary, if only the gameplay were as flawed as having exact replicas of every class with different names attached. Then we could all hate 4e equally instead of having split loyalties and pro-/anti-4e/3e/3.x/3.5/3P/2e/Shadowrun/WotC/Paizo/1e/Cake debates. Alas, we're stuck with a much lauded/hated edition and a lot of people making arguments for and against other peoples' opinions of all things.) In summary: sigh.
I assumed he'd probably been asked before. I just didn't wan't to look through all of the massive wall-of-text threads to get an answer... And how something can be a succesful system, yet a failed edition is a strange distinction to me.

[thegurullamen]

I assumed he'd probably been asked before. I just didn't wan't to look through all of the massive wall-of-text threads to get an answer... And how something can be a succesful system, yet a failed edition is a strange distinction to me.

Fair enough I suppose. They should just Sticky most of his arguments. Then he could just hyperlink instead of repeating himself, which he complains about a lot. As for the last line, 4e's good at what it does which is simulate combat in a fun way. As a well-rounded rpg based on fantasy characters doing adventurous things, it falls flat on several key points including dissociated mechanics. If they'd found a way to mitigate at least that point, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. I'll still play it, but it isn't the genuine D&D experience for me.

[RebelRogue]

Well, I could understand it if it was just turned into a game of combat and nothing else, but personally I think 4th essentially supports doing non-combat just as well as the older editions. It's less set-in-stone, in a way, but to me that's overall more conductive to storytelling. Other people will disagree on what works best, but at it's core I just think people are off when they claim it's an aspect of the game that's been surgically removed through the rules alone.

[thegurullamen]

Well, I could understand it if it was just turned into a game of combat and nothing else, but personally I think 4th essentially supports doing non-combat just as well as the older editions. It's less set-in-stone, in a way, but to me that's overall more conductive to storytelling. Other people will disagree on what works best, but at it's core I just think people are off when they claim it's an aspect of the game that's been surgically removed through the rules alone.

I can respect this opinion, but I disagree. Sadly, this is where everything becomes subjective and were we two more immature individuals, the screaming, sarcastic retorts and thinly-veiled insults would start. Thank goodness for level-headed people with sensible holds on their opinions, eh? [/self-praise]

[horseboy]

2) 2E's designers cared. 3E's did (through not in the end). White Wolf Cares very much about the quality in their games, say what you will of Scarred lands, Exalted, and at least some WoD, they do certainly put a hell of lot of effort in completing their own game.
To throw some help his way:


Hiya,

And FYI, while I am a business-man, greed has nothing to do with anything Earthdawn-related in my life. I abhor greed. And greed does not have to be a part of business, in my experience.

Take kaer, James

And yeah, going to agree with Rogue on the whole "doesn't support non combat stuff" argument. The core problem is that it's still a schizophrenic system, full of obsessive-compulsive combat rules, and hand waving the rest of it. A legacy problem, so as they say in the computer industry, it's actually a feature. :smallwink:

[Thurbane]

I'm so glad to know I appearantly know nothing about D&D after approximately 20 years of playing it! :smalltongue: Have you tried actually playing 4th ed EE? As opposed to just reading the rules? Comments that all classes are essentially the same now lead me to believe you have not! They really do play quite differently in real games!
I've played D&D for over 20 years. And 4E is the worst edition by quite some way, IMHO.

Of course, I realize that this is opinion, but then, given the topic title... :smallbiggrin:

[T.Titan]

The stuff they took out of the Wizard... especially how the spellbook works now... i mean was it really that hard to keep "learning from scrolls" and to make the "replace X power" into "add another X power into the spellbook"?! Just have him/her be stuck with his chosen encounter power for the day.

[RebelRogue]

The stuff they took out of the Wizard... especially how the spellbook works now... i mean was it really that hard to keep "learning from scrolls" and to make the "replace X power" into "add another X power into the spellbook"?! Just have him/her be stuck with his chosen encounter power for the day.
I guess it's because of the limited number of Powers. In the end that would make all wizards indistinguishable. With greater numbers of Spells available, this becomes more viable, although I'm not sure about the balance issues.

[EvilElitest]

Popular demand proves that the target audience likes it. Eragon is aimed at preteens(although the guy has potiential, and the second is way better), Naruto is aimed at 10 year olds, Halo is aimed at action junkies who don't like thinking about possiblitied like morph ball, and Dominic Deegan is just something you don't personally like. And simple doesn't mean lowest common denominator, and playing a more complex game doesn't make you smarter or better, despite what some people may think.

That doesn't mean that because they are aimed at a younger audience that fogives them for being crappy forms of media. Eragon is crap by the standards of children's books (compare Artimis Fowl, the Hobbit, Harry potter) for being cliche and uninteresting, Naurato is crappy both by that standard and the standards of manga, Halo is bad just as a shooter game, and dominic Deegan is bad as a webcomic. A niche story can target certain audiences (for example, Exalted is a good game, but not my style without being bad




I'm so glad to know I appearantly know nothing about D&D after approximately 20 years of playing it! Have you tried actually playing 4th ed EE? As opposed to just reading the rules? Comments that all classes are essentially the same now lead me to believe you have not! They really do play quite differently in real games!
how many times do i have to answer this question i have played hte game and own the books. You think i'm wrong, adress my posts
from
EE

[RebelRogue]

how many times do i have to answer this question i have played hte game and own the books.
Apologies then. I just haven't stumbled upon it (it's easy to get a little lost in following all the threads on the subject).

[Knaight]

That doesn't mean that because they are aimed at a younger audience that fogives them for being crappy forms of media. Eragon is crap by the standards of children's books (compare Artimis Fowl, the Hobbit, Harry potter) for being cliche and uninteresting, Naurato is crappy both by that standard and the standards of manga, Halo is bad just as a shooter game, and dominic Deegan is bad as a webcomic. A niche story can target certain audiences (for example, Exalted is a good game, but not my style without being bad



how many times do i have to answer this question i have played hte game and own the books. You think i'm wrong, adress my posts
from
EE
Artemis Fowl is good, the Hobbit is good, Harry potter is crap that uses a bunch of stolen ideas, sticks them in a book, and is boring within 5 minutes. Naruto is mindless violence, thats the selling point, Halo works fine as a shooter game, not that there aren't better(the morph ball comment in my post attests to that one, then there are the doom and quake games that aren't doom 3)

Also that was probably the most readable post I have ever seen you make, right up until you responded to somebody else, at which point it dovetailed.

[Thane of Fife]

(the morph ball comment in my post attests to that one, then there are the doom and quake games that aren't doom 3)


While I adore Metroid, I don't know if I'd compare it to Halo - they're two completely different types of game.

[Knaight]

The games in the prime series are shooters.

[Thane of Fife]

I know, but I would still be inclined to call them... adventure games or something.

It doesn't really matter.

[Knaight]

Well they do have more of an adventure and puzzle element, to say the least.

[Draco Dracul]

That doesn't mean that because they are aimed at a younger audience that fogives them for being crappy forms of media. Eragon is crap by the standards of children's books (compare Artimis Fowl, the Hobbit, Harry potter) for being cliche and uninteresting, Naurato is crappy both by that standard and the standards of manga, Halo is bad just as a shooter game, and dominic Deegan is bad as a webcomic. A niche story can target certain audiences (for example, Exalted is a good game, but not my style without being bad
EE

I think Dominic Deegan was a good (but not great) webcomic, but the author didn't know when to end the story. I think the series as a whole would be better if the comic had ended with the Storm of Souls arc, after which the series goes down hill, by the Snowsong arc the comic just jumped off a cliff.

[nagora]

Artemis Fowl is good, the Hobbit is good, Harry potter is crap that uses a bunch of stolen ideas, sticks them in a book, and is boring within 5 minutes.
Yeah, I noticed that too. It seems bizarre that someone with so little in the way of original ideas (or writing skill) should have been awarded such a huge victory in a copyright case. I guess the law is an ass and all that, but it still seems a case of the pot complaining about the kettle.

[Knaight]

Wait what? What copyright case?

EDIT: After a little internet research it makes sense, although why she sued in the first place is pretty ridiculous.

[The Glyphstone]

JK Rowling and WB vs. Steve Van der Ark and his Harry Potter Lexicon. It was supposed to be some sort of encyclopedia/reference guide to the series, but Warner Brothers sued on the grounds that the book just reprinted/repackaged Rowling's writing without adding or changing anything. It wasn't a "huge" victory by any means, though - they had to pay $6,750 in damages. Not really big money compared to what it could have been if WB decided to get nasty, like big corporations stomping on the little guy tend to do...*

EDIT: I honestly think it was probably WB that initiated the lawsuit, not JK - she had given a 'stamp of approval" to the website, so it was probably contract-related issues that had her against the whole thing.

EDIT 2*: Just realized how this could be read as a subtle slam against WotC...don't take it that way. it wasn't intentional.

[nagora]

JK Rowling and WB vs. Steve Van der Ark and his Harry Potter Lexicon. It was supposed to be some sort of encyclopedia/reference guide to the series, but Warner Brothers sued on the grounds that the book just reprinted/repackaged Rowling's writing without adding or changing anything. It wasn't a "huge" victory by any means, though - they had to pay $6,750 in damages. Not really big money compared to what it could have been if WB decided to get nasty, like big corporations stomping on the little guy tend to do...*
It's a huge result because of the effects on people who write similar books - and have done for a century or two. The prosecution case was nonsense IMO, but I learnt a long time ago that what the law says and what a judge will decide are totally unrelated things. Never go to court folks - that's my advice (and I was just a witness!).


EDIT: I honestly think it was probably WB that initiated the lawsuit, not JK - she had given a 'stamp of approval" to the website, so it was probably contract-related issues that had her against the whole thing.
I guess you missed her performance in court where she cried her eyes out at this terrible crime that had been commited against her and all the little orphans that she wanted to help with the proceeds of her own book. What a pathetic wretch.


EDIT 2*: Just realized how this could be read as a subtle slam against WotC...don't take it that way. it wasn't intentional.
I think that was a bit too subtle to cause any trouble :smallsmile:

[Talya]

Wow. This discussion is still going? That's why I mostly stopped coming here. I got so sick of seeing 4e related stuff that I got bored.

Any splatbooks for 4e out yet? I haven't checked...maybe the options have improved to a point it could be workable for me. No matter, I'm playing several 3.5 games, and a Saga game or two, that's enough on my plate.

[The New Bruceski]

Wow. This discussion is still going? That's why I mostly stopped coming here. I got so sick of seeing 4e related stuff that I got bored.

Any splatbooks for 4e out yet? I haven't checked...maybe the options have improved to a point it could be workable for me. No matter, I'm playing several 3.5 games, and a Saga game or two, that's enough on my plate.

Forgotten Realms campaign setting/player's guide, and Adventurer's Vault (magic items)

[Magnor Criol]

By most accounts I've heard, and a little bit of my own personal investigation (I only had about five minutes to skim through it), the Adventurer's Vault is a pretty nice splat. It seemed to really do much for bringing the feel of older DnD back to 4E.

[EvilElitest]

I'm going to step in on EE's behalf here (whether he wants me to or not and in all actuality, it's more than likely the latter.) This has got to be the tenth time someone has asked him this question and it'll probably be the tenth time the forums will have to print the same response. Until he gets around to writing it or not, here's my interpretation on this much-brushed subject:


Why thank you, that helps to have some other people answer for me


Fair enough I suppose. They should just Sticky most of his arguments. Then he could just hyperlink instead of repeating himself, which he complains about a lot. As for the last line, 4e's good at what it does which is simulate combat in a fun way. As a well-rounded rpg based on fantasy characters doing adventurous things, it falls flat on several key points including dissociated mechanics. If they'd found a way to mitigate at least that point, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. I'll still play it, but it isn't the genuine D&D experience for me.
1) Actually, i plan on getting a blog to simply store these arguments.
2) the thing is, 4E is like a spin off game of D&D, where it focuses upon making only one aspect of the game and tries to do that well. A niche game essentually. Thats fine, however as a new edition, 4E has a duty to satisfy all types of gaming that 3E could (or attempted to) and instead brushed them off as "unworthy"




Well, I could understand it if it was just turned into a game of combat and nothing else, but personally I think 4th essentially supports doing non-combat just as well as the older editions. It's less set-in-stone, in a way, but to me that's overall more conductive to storytelling. Other people will disagree on what works best, but at it's core I just think people are off when they claim it's an aspect of the game that's been surgically removed through the rules alone.
Consistency has been hamstringed, NPCs and monsters are little more than plot fulfilling entities, vermilitude is awful, world building is largly abandoned and it throw everything else away for the sake of comabat. Not really

horseboy, your quotes and link's are mixed up, i can't tell waht your saying



Apologies then. I just haven't stumbled upon it (it's easy to get a little lost in following all the threads on the subject).
fair enough


Artemis Fowl is good, the Hobbit is good, Harry potter is crap that uses a bunch of stolen ideas, sticks them in a book, and is boring within 5 minutes. Naruto is mindless violence, thats the selling point, Halo works fine as a shooter game, not that there aren't better(the morph ball comment in my post attests to that one, then there are the doom and quake games that aren't doom 3)

Wait, thats a double standard how can you defend eragon and attack harry potter on the same basis. Every complaint you've named of HP i can name of Eragon, just multiply it by thousands.
Actually, Naruto isn't sold on the basis of mindless violence, it is sold on the basis of being a good story. Which it isn't. Hallo's is only an adverage shooter without very much that makes it special. AF and the Hobbit are good as books, the fact they are aimed at children isn't the point, they area actually well written


I think Dominic Deegan was a good (but not great) webcomic, but the author didn't know when to end the story. I think the series as a whole would be better if the comic had ended with the Storm of Souls arc, after which the series goes down hill, by the Snowsong arc the comic just jumped off a cliff.
See, i never liked Dominic Deegan. It didn't activity hate until the snowsong arch, but it was never more than somewhat decent in my mind.
from
EE

[Knaight]

Yes Eragon has the whole guy finds a dragon egg and takes his dragon to go attack an evil emperor, on the other hand eventually(in the second book mostly) they start up on the political intrigue, and its also a boy growing up story, of which I can't remember the technical term(not coming of age story, there is some German term which starts with a J and has 5 or 6 syllables.). Harry potter has guy discovers magic, and then makes a mediocre school story off of it while blatantly ripping off Latin and calling it creative. That and Eragon doesn't have as much dues ex machina (Hi, I'm Dumbledore and here to solve all your problems for you, because people really do confide in their teachers, and their teachers actually do more for them than just teach. Please, suspension of disbelief only goes so far.)

As for lack of world building, I call that a plus. Those stupid tables and rolls of having how many of each class in a city have always seemed incredibly stupid to me, and get in the way of new GMs who don't really grasp that they should throw that stuff out if they want to and that there is no problem doing so. The way 3.5 was presented to new GMs had rule zero, and then everything else that made the rules seem of the utmost importance and sacred, because they had them for everything, including things they should have just left rule-less. Case in point being the city charts, and thickness of wall per city advice, and all that other crap.

And Naruto is not trying to sell with its story. Commercials and such are all fight scenes, the story is justification.

[EvilElitest]

Yes Eragon has the whole guy finds a dragon egg and takes his dragon to go attack an evil emperor, on the other hand eventually(in the second book mostly) they start up on the political intrigue, and its also a boy growing up story, of which I can't remember the technical term(not coming of age story, there is some German term which starts with a J and has 5 or 6 syllables.).


Harry potter has guy discovers magic, and then makes a mediocre school story off of it while blatantly ripping off Latin and calling it creative. That and Eragon doesn't have as much dues ex machina (Hi, I'm Dumbledore and here to solve all your problems for you, because people really do confide in their teachers, and their teachers actually do more for them than just teach. Please, suspension of disbelief only goes so far.)


Eragon is far worst. Badly written, crappy plot detaills, bad characterization, cliches, painful dialoge, purple prose. HP iisn't great, but it has some orginial ideas, actual good writing, and doesn't result in a wall banger (see anti shurengal for details)


As for lack of world building, I call that a plus. Those stupid tables and rolls of having how many of each class in a city have always seemed incredibly stupid to me, and get in the way of new GMs who don't really grasp that they should throw that stuff out if they want to and that there is no problem doing so.
Again, pointing out one flaw doesn't make the idea of world building bad. True , if you like Eragon, then 4E is basically the RPG version of that, overated mas of cliche

The way 3.5 was presented to new GMs had rule zero, and then everything else that made the rules seem of the utmost importance and sacred, because they had them for everything, including things they should have just left rule-less. Case in point being the city charts, and thickness of wall per city advice, and all that other crap.
um, what? Your rambling




And Naruto is not trying to sell with its story. Commercials and such are all fight scenes, the story is justification.
1) The fight scenes like everything else are handled badly
2) Actually no, its main point is that its a teen manga that claims quality. Kill bill is a fight scene with no story, Narato is just a bad manga
from
EE

[thegurullamen]

Kill bill is a fight scene with no story

Actually, Kill Bill is a brilliant and detailed homage to a lot of different genres and individual movies to rival...well, I can't actually think of a good comparison here. Pretty much every line and action is a nod or examination of something from cinema history.

[Knaight]

Eragon is far worst. Badly written, crappy plot detaills, bad characterization, cliches, painful dialoge, purple prose. HP iisn't great, but it has some orginial ideas, actual good writing, and doesn't result in a wall banger (see anti shurengal for details)

Again, pointing out one flaw doesn't make the idea of world building bad. True , if you like Eragon, then 4E is basically the RPG version of that, overated mas of cliche

um, what? Your rambling



1) The fight scenes like everything else are handled badly
2) Actually no, its main point is that its a teen manga that claims quality. Kill bill is a fight scene with no story, Narato is just a bad manga
from
EE

First, as far as world building, it should be left in the hands of the GM. For instance right now I'm working on a sci fi that should be in the realm of 60-120 pages with no stats (Since honestly, going beyond that is going to make convincing my players to read it is going to be difficult), so lose the arrogance just because I don't absolutely hate Eragon, and quit assuming that because I don't want stats and tables on world building I don't want a consistent world. You have always been so polite before, so I'm going to assume that you had a stressful day at work or something.) The idea of world building is not bad, you need world building, without it your game is going to be incredibly boring(I'm not even sure how its going to exist), but 3e makes it incredibly restrictive unless you know to ignore it, and its something that they should keep their paws away from, except for the general stuff (outside in building versus inside out building, notes on how historical cities often worked, explanations of how magic and such could change it, stuff like that, not exact class distributions.)

And yes the fight scenes are handled badly in Naruto, but thats just because thats all there are. A quick fight can be interesting, dragging that on for multiple episodes is just asking for you to sleep through most of it.

[Diamondeye]

First, as far as world building, it should be left in the hands of the GM. For instance right now I'm working on a sci fi that should be in the realm of 60-120 pages with no stats (Since honestly, going beyond that is going to make convincing my players to read it is going to be difficult), so lose the arrogance just because I don't absolutely hate Eragon, and quit assuming that because I don't want stats and tables on world building I don't want a consistent world. You have always been so polite before, so I'm going to assume that you had a stressful day at work or something.) The idea of world building is not bad, you need world building, without it your game is going to be incredibly boring(I'm not even sure how its going to exist), but 3e makes it incredibly restrictive unless you know to ignore it, and its something that they should keep their paws away from, except for the general stuff (outside in building versus inside out building, notes on how historical cities often worked, explanations of how magic and such could change it, stuff like that, not exact class distributions.)

And yes the fight scenes are handled badly in Naruto, but thats just because thats all there are. A quick fight can be interesting, dragging that on for multiple episodes is just asking for you to sleep through most of it.

Not to take sides between you and EE, but what you're writing is very difficult to follow. The sentence I bolded, for example, doesn't convey any coherent idea and is rather lengthy. Some editing would really help.

[Asbestos]

By most accounts I've heard, and a little bit of my own personal investigation (I only had about five minutes to skim through it), the Adventurer's Vault is a pretty nice splat. It seemed to really do much for bringing the feel of older DnD back to 4E.

Really, I'd go so far as to say it isn't even a splat book. Its something that should be just plain in the PHB, but whether for space saving purposes or because 'Wizards left it out just so they could make money later' it got left out. It adds so many of the options for PCs that people feel they have lost. I mean, finally I can have my sovereign glue again!

[Knaight]

Not to take sides between you and EE, but what you're writing is very difficult to follow. The sentence I bolded, for example, doesn't convey any coherent idea and is rather lengthy. Some editing would really help.

I do that occasionally, this time it looks like a parentheses thing and me writing somewhat defensively combining rather poorly. That and trying to cram too much in a sentence.

[Thurbane]

Actually, Kill Bill is a brilliant and detailed homage to a lot of different genres and individual movies to rival...well, I can't actually think of a good comparison here. Pretty much every line and action is a nod or examination of something from cinema history.
Not done particularly well, IMHO...

[Starsinger]

No matter, I'm playing several 3.5 games, and a Saga game or two, that's enough on my plate.

I'm very happy for you. But couldn't you have said this without the earlier vitriol?

[horseboy]

(Hi, I'm Dumbledore and here to solve all your problems for you, because people really do confide in their teachers, and their teachers actually do more for them than just teach. Please, suspension of disbelief only goes so far.)Dumbledore was pure Ho Ya. How did people not realize?

[Colmarr]

so lose the arrogance just because I don't absolutely hate Eragon, and quit assuming that because I don't want stats and tables on world building I don't want a consistent world. You have always been so polite before, so I'm going to assume that you had a stressful day at work or something.

Ah, Knaight. I believe you've just discovered what it's like to be someone with whom EE disagrees :smalltongue:

[Break]

Apologies for the disorganized nature of this post - I found it difficult to arrange my thoughts on the matter.

I don't really hate 4E - I just think it's okay, and prefer 3.x over it.

Things seemed to be going well as the d20 system progressed - perhaps not necessarily in terms of balance, but more because of the ideas for these mechanics. The ToB gave meleers more options to bring them up to speed, and brought up the interesting idea of giving classes "powers" for those who did not traditionally have them; in effect not tying itself down by tradition. Star Wars: Saga Edition streamlined the system (which I don't necessarily equate with [over]simplifying), and cut out unnecessary bookkeeping. The general design philosophy was one I agreed with.

I made the assumption that 4E was the natural next step in the progression (if one that was taken too soon), and in many ways, it was -

- it just overshot the mark, in my opinion, and fixed things that did not really need fixing.

Whoever said that broken options trumps uninteresting balance hit the nail on the head. As much as I liked playing with mechanics and seeking balance between the classes, 4E's take on it wasn't for me.

Reading through the PHB was a bit of a disappointment, especially when I saw that powers were unified into a single system, and read like Magic stat blocks. It doesn't affect the roleplay much (if at all), nor does it make the characters "basically all the same", but it definitely made things seem dull and samey at first glance. It didn't really feel like the classes would be much fun to play, especially the wizard, who I felt lost much in the transition. I didn't really feel a connection to the game until I read about the swordmage, honestly.

It divorced itself from older staples, yes, but it felt a bit foreign - not like the refreshing change the ToB and Saga was for me. I can't quite express why those succeeded at feeling like a "good" change while 4E did not - perhaps it was simply a case of it being too much at once. To be fair, though, the latest splats are bringing about that sort of change to slowly erase the "uninteresting" portion of the whole choice versus balance bit, while adding variety back into the mix.

I didn't like how powers were handled - namely the glaring lack of recovery options, the encounter/daily setup as opposed to other methods of limiting them, and how they attempted to be a one-size-fits-all solution for the classes. I liked having different mechanics for different classes, as it established that they were different; this is the main reason why the Wizard feels so much like a shadow of its former versatile self (even if doing away with the imbalance was a rather large plus). Healing surges also seemed a bit silly to me - not so much because of its use as a second wind, but more because of how it acts as a limitation on healing for (seemingly) no good reason. Good ideas, but lacking in execution.

Anything past these points is, in comparison, just me nitpicking. I'll post the rest if any major points flood back into my memory.

[Justin_Bacon]

Yeah, I noticed that too. It seems bizarre that someone with so little in the way of original ideas (or writing skill) should have been awarded such a huge victory in a copyright case. I guess the law is an ass and all that, but it still seems a case of the pot complaining about the kettle.

There is a functional difference between using common archetypes and hitting CTRL-C/CTRL-V.

Rowling did the former and many, many people seem to feel she did it well. (YMOV) The guy who got sued did the latter.

[nagora]

There is a functional difference between using common archetypes and hitting CTRL-C/CTRL-V.

Rowling did the former and many, many people seem to feel she did it well. (YMOV) The guy who got sued did the latter.

Have you read the site the book is based on? It is far far more than a cut and paste job. Indeed, there's not much cut and paste in it compared to his original analysis.

[Morty]

I'm very happy for you. But couldn't you have said this without the earlier vitriol?

My eyesight must be getting worse, because I see no vitrol in Talya's post at all.

[Knaight]

Ah, Knaight. I believe you've just discovered what it's like to be someone with whom EE disagrees :smalltongue:

I usually disagree with EE, he's normally pretty polite.

[Kaiyanwang]

Originally posted by Charl

The system is made the way it is to make it easier for wotc to make computer games (or license them at least) out of DnD.



This is, IMHO, the answer to most things.

[Jayabalard]

As the first point is just whiningDisliking Change for change's sake is not "just whining" ...


3. It's still there. It just works differently. In fact, unless you're a powergamer, it works wonderfully.Nice snide little comment here; it's not still there; the term may be used it both editions, but they mean very different things. 3e multi classing is no longer present.

Keep in mind that This is coming from someone who disliked 3e's multiclassing rules... but whether I like it or not, it's a valid complaint for the people who did enjoy it.


5. And Tome of Battle didn't have these? Heck, the Tome of Battle was DEDICATED to these.ToB is optional material, and it's pretty safe to assume that anyone who has this listed did not generally allow ToB in thier games for precisely that reason. Now it's a core part of the game, somthing that you really just can't get away from.


so lose the arrogance just because I don't absolutely hate Eragon, You don't have to hate, or even to dislike Eragon, but it it's kind of hypocritical to attack Harry Potter for ripping off anything while trying to defend Eragon.

[Cainen]

You don't have to hate, or even to dislike Eragon, but it it's kind of hypocritical to attack Harry Potter for ripping off anything while trying to defend Eragon.

It's actually worse on principle since Eragon is just that much more derivative. At least Harry was relatively worthless with a penchant for getting lucky - Eragon is a dead ringer for a Gary-Stu.

[Knaight]

Yes, but Eragon puts it all together much better than Harry potter does, and it merges stuff into eachother to create something new more often. Its core story of a boy finding a dragon and becoming a dragon rider is very old, but it does a good job. Harry Potter doesn't, and most of the characters in Eragon are honestly more interesting than the ones in Harry Potter with the exception of Snape. That and Paolini isn't filing lawsuits against people who use any of their stuff.

[thegurullamen]

Yes, but Eragon puts it all together much better than Harry potter does, and it merges stuff into eachother to create something new more often. Its core story of a boy finding a dragon and becoming a dragon rider is very old, but it does a good job. Harry Potter doesn't, and most of the characters in Eragon are honestly more interesting than the ones in Harry Potter with the exception of Snape. That and Paolini isn't filing lawsuits against people who use any of their stuff.

Probably because he can't. He doesn't own any of it himself.

Ooh, ZING!!

[Oslecamo]

Guys, Harry Potter was pointed at little children who normally wouldn't touch a no picture book even with a 10 foot pole. Of course it isn't a super deep epic consistent story like you hardcore gamers are used to.

[nagora]

Guys, Harry Potter was pointed at little children who normally wouldn't touch a no picture book even with a 10 foot pole. Of course it isn't a super deep epic consistent story like you hardcore gamers are used to.
True, but the issue is with the author who is a pretentious control freak convinced of her own role as a discoverer of new horizons in literature. Or is that Pullman? Actually, now I think of it, I've never seen Pullman and Rowling in the same place together...!

[Oslecamo]

True, but the issue is with the author who is a pretentious control freak convinced of her own role as a discoverer of new horizons in literature. Or is that Pullman? Actually, now I think of it, I've never seen Pullman and Rowling in the same place together...!

She was scavenging for places where to write in the garbage before geting published, and now she's richer than the queen of her country. Very few writers can say that. Heck, actually I think no other writer can say that. She certainly discovered something, and I don't blame her for trying to protect it.

[Roderick_BR]

Dumbledore was pure Ho Ya. How did people not realize?
Didn't the author herself confirmed it (and later retconed it because of the rabid fans that were about to eat her)?

[DM Raven]

Wow, I get to the last page expecting some DnD 4e discussion and we're talking about dumbledore. This thread seems to be super-derailed...er...

super-de-railed?

[T.Titan]

I guess it's because of the limited number of Powers. In the end that would make all wizards indistinguishable. With greater numbers of Spells available, this becomes more viable, although I'm not sure about the balance issues.


Oh, and that's the other thing... NEEDS MOAR SPELLZ!

(Also, i might have exaggerated with the encounter powers... daily powers would be enough).

[DM Raven]

Oh, and that's the other thing... NEEDS MOAR SPELLZ!

(Also, i might have exaggerated with the encounter powers... daily powers would be enough).

I would agree, wizards need more spells in 4e...one of my few gripes with the system. But I would also argue that characters in general need more powers...yay for new books and dragon magazine!

[Crow]

Got a new one.

I'm getting tired of having to write down keywords, actions, different attack stats, different damage stats, triggers, and sentences of rules for (right now <6th level>, 3 dailies <1 from warlord multiclass>, 2 encounter, 2 utility, 3 at will) 10 different powers which really aren't any more useful than one another. Some of my players have gotten to the point where they just write "See page xxx" after the power name, which slows the game down when they have to look it up.

[DM Raven]

Got a new one.

I'm getting tired of having to write down keywords, actions, different attack stats, different damage stats, triggers, and sentences of rules for (right now <6th level>, 3 dailies <1 from warlord multiclass>, 2 encounter, 2 utility, 3 at will) 10 different powers which really aren't any more useful than one another. Some of my players have gotten to the point where they just write "See page xxx" after the power name, which slows the game down when they have to look it up.

Haha, you obviously never played a 3.5 wizard then. ;p

But for this I would suggest making power cards. Power cards are badass and make keeping track of powers damn easy. If you want to give an enemy a bunch of powers, you just give him the appropriate cards. Then, when he uses an encounter, daily, ect power, you just flip the card over.

[horseboy]

Didn't the author herself confirmed it (and later retconed it because of the rabid fans that were about to eat her)?
I hadn't heard about her retconing it out. I know she confirmed it, cause I was "In your face"ing my buddy's wife for yelling at me when I asked before finishing the first book.

[Crow]

Haha, you obviously never played a 3.5 wizard then. ;p

But for this I would suggest making power cards. Power cards are badass and make keeping track of powers damn easy. If you want to give an enemy a bunch of powers, you just give him the appropriate cards. Then, when he uses an encounter, daily, ect power, you just flip the card over.

Actually I have played a wizard in just about every edition. The difference was that when I wanted that level of complexity I could have it, but when I didn't feel like it, I could play a less paperwork-intensive character.

Now it is the default.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about managing resources in-game. I am talking about having to write down a bunch of superfluous information just so I don't have to look it up later everytime I choose a new power. Copying all of the power information onto cards is the exact same thing I dislike. The only difference being that instead of copying everything onto a piece of paper I am copying it onto cards instead.

[DM Raven]

Actually I have played a wizard in just about every edition. The difference was that when I wanted that level of complexity I could have it, but when I didn't feel like it, I could play a less paperwork-intensive character.

Now it is the default.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about managing resources in-game. I am talking about having to write down a bunch of superfluous information just so I don't have to look it up later everytime I choose a new power. Copying all of the power information onto cards is the exact same thing I dislike. The only difference being that instead of copying everything onto a piece of paper I am copying it onto cards instead.

So you would rather they kept melee characters as one-trick ponies so you didn't have as many options to worry about? I would think that giving the characters more options and tactics in battle would make the game more fun. You know you can just choose to use a melee basic attack every round if you want...maybe just keep track of one or two encounter powers and a daily...sort of a 4.0 simulation of 3.5

But in all seriousness...if you're lazy like me you can find all the powers in card form online. You just have to print them and cut them out and you have your power cards. Problem solved...unless you're like me and your printer is out of ink...sigh...its almost better to just buy a new one! =)

[Colmarr]

I hadn't heard about her retconing it out. I know she confirmed it, cause I was "In your face"ing my buddy's wife for yelling at me when I asked before finishing the first book.

Ok, I haven't read HP and I can't find the answer on Google. What does 'Ho Ya' mean and why would JKR confirm or ret-con it?

[turkishproverb]

Ok, I haven't read HP and I can't find the answer on Google. What does 'Ho Ya' mean and why would JKR confirm or ret-con it?

He was a gay character.

[horseboy]

Ok, I haven't read HP and I can't find the answer on Google. What does 'Ho Ya' mean and why would JKR confirm or ret-con it?
Ho Yay (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HoYay) To take up space: "What? This "D" guy clearly has some transference issues. He's transferring his feeling for Harry's dad onto Harry. Either he's a poof or he's Harry's uncle. You've read the next two, which is it?"

[Crow]

So you would rather they kept melee characters as one-trick ponies so you didn't have as many options to worry about? I would think that giving the characters more options and tactics in battle would make the game more fun. You know you can just choose to use a melee basic attack every round if you want...maybe just keep track of one or two encounter powers and a daily...sort of a 4.0 simulation of 3.5

But in all seriousness...if you're lazy like me you can find all the powers in card form online. You just have to print them and cut them out and you have your power cards. Problem solved...unless you're like me and your printer is out of ink...sigh...its almost better to just buy a new one! =)


Dude, you're not understanding. I would rather they gave the characters options that didn't utilize so much damn text. It's a pain in the ass, and I'm pretty certain they could have found a better way. I like my characters to fit on 1 or 2 pages without having to abbreviate everything or write page number references everywhere except when absolutely neccessary. I sure as hell don't want a deck of cards that I need to keep with my character sheet as well.

[Knaight]

That would be nice, for spell casters too.

[The New Bruceski]

Dude, you're not understanding. I would rather they gave the characters options that didn't utilize so much damn text. It's a pain in the ass, and I'm pretty certain they could have found a better way. I like my characters to fit on 1 or 2 pages without having to abbreviate everything or write page number references everywhere except when absolutely neccessary. I sure as hell don't want a deck of cards that I need to keep with my character sheet as well.

Well here's what I have for my Warlord. Typed it in Notepad. Works pretty well. Do it in Word and you could add color.

At-Will:
BASIC ATTACK -- +7 vs AC, 1d10+4 (with longspear +1)
JAVELIN -- +6 vs AC, 1d6+3 (range 10/20)
Charge -- Basic Attack/Bull Rush +1 to hit, move first.
Bull Rush -- +7 vs Fort, push 1 (can follow)
Furious Smash -- +7 vs Fort, 3 damage + adjacent ally gets +4 to attack/damage vs target.
Wolf Pack Tactics -- +7 vs AC, Basic Attack + ally gets to shift 1 first.

Encounter:
Inspiring Word (2x) -- range 5, ally gets healing surge +d6
Eyebite -- +5 vs Will (range 10), 1d6+4 and invisible to target till start of turn.
Leaf on the Wind -- +7 vs AC, 2d10+5, swap with me or an adjacent ally.
Warlord's Strike -- +7 vs AC, 2d10+5, all allies get +5 damage vs target until end of next turn.
Shake it Off -- range 10, target makes a saving throw +4

Daily:
Bastion of Defense -- all allies within 5 get +9 temp HP, +7 vs AC, 3d10+6 and allies get +1 defenses for length of encounter.
Frost Longspear +1 -- (d6 on crit) +1d8 cold to a guy hit and slowed till end of next turn.

Reactions:
Spend action point -- +3 to hit with attack
Ally spends action point -- regains 5 HP, makes a save at +4
Allies gain +3 initiative, +1 insight, +1 diplomacy

[Crow]

Well here's what I have for my Warlord. Typed it in Notepad. Works pretty well. Do it in Word and you could add color.

At-Will:
BASIC ATTACK -- +7 vs AC, 1d10+4 (with longspear +1)
JAVELIN -- +6 vs AC, 1d6+3 (range 10/20)
Charge -- Basic Attack/Bull Rush +1 to hit, move first.
Bull Rush -- +7 vs Fort, push 1 (can follow)
Furious Smash -- +7 vs Fort, 3 damage + adjacent ally gets +4 to attack/damage vs target.
Wolf Pack Tactics -- +7 vs AC, Basic Attack + ally gets to shift 1 first.

Encounter:
Inspiring Word (2x) -- range 5, ally gets healing surge +d6
Eyebite -- +5 vs Will (range 10), 1d6+4 and invisible to target till start of turn.
Leaf on the Wind -- +7 vs AC, 2d10+5, swap with me or an adjacent ally.
Warlord's Strike -- +7 vs AC, 2d10+5, all allies get +5 damage vs target until end of next turn.
Shake it Off -- range 10, target makes a saving throw +4

Daily:
Bastion of Defense -- all allies within 5 get +9 temp HP, +7 vs AC, 3d10+6 and allies get +1 defenses for length of encounter.
Frost Longspear +1 -- (d6 on crit) +1d8 cold to a guy hit and slowed till end of next turn.

Reactions:
Spend action point -- +3 to hit with attack
Ally spends action point -- regains 5 HP, makes a save at +4
Allies gain +3 initiative, +1 insight, +1 diplomacy

That's not too bad, but I'd need to color-code it. Maybe I'll pick up some colored pencils. I'll see if my players would be willing to do it that way. At the moment, they are all pretty disillusioned with the system.

[nagora]

She certainly discovered something, and I don't blame her for trying to protect it.
Then you probably don't understand the implications for literature and art of creeping copyright legislation. People like Rowling and Disney love to pull the ladder they climbed up behind themselves ostensibly to "protect their work", but in reality it is to prevent other people doing what they (and all authors) did themselves - reusing other people's work in combination with their own ideas. It's pure hypocracy (well, there's a big dollop of greed too, I suppose).

[Oslecamo]

Oh, I do understand. It's called capitalism. Society pushes you to try to make as much money as possible. It's why copyright laws were created like that in the first place. If other people would copy your ideas, then you would lose money, because people wouldn't be buying your product.

I never said that what J.K Rowling did was fair. I'm saying it's a dog-eat-dog enviroment in the business world out there. If you try to play fair, you'll either be eaten alive or never get rich on the first place.

Heck, even the current laws punish you for trying to play fair.

[nagora]

I never said that what J.K Rowling did was fair. I'm saying it's a dog-eat-dog enviroment in the business world out there. If you try to play fair, you'll either be eaten alive or never get rich on the first place.

Heck, even the current laws punish you for trying to play fair.
But JKR did make her money "playing fair" under the existing laws - she's pushing for those laws to be changed to prevent people exactly like herself from making money. Yet it's no skin off her nose now if they do - she's banked her cash.

[Oslecamo]

But JKR did make her money "playing fair" under the existing laws - she's pushing for those laws to be changed to prevent people exactly like herself from making money. Yet it's no skin off her nose now if they do - she's banked her cash.

Wait a minute, what laws is she pushing to change? As far as I remember, she simply hired lawyers and went out to sue the people trying to use her ideas, wich is completely legal.

Also, other people tried to sue her for copyright issues, and she managed to push them away with their lawyers, again completely legal. At least acording to the courts.

[nagora]

Wait a minute, what laws is she pushing to change? As far as I remember, she simply hired lawyers and went out to sue the people trying to use her ideas, wich is completely legal.
She managed to get an idiot judge to find in her favour. Laws creep by such bad judgements which set precedents. Later authors will have a higher hurdle to jump because of her actions if someone objects to their work. To put it another way: the law today assumes that some actions which were assumed to be legal last year are not any longer. That's a change, and it's a problem over time as such changes add up.

[tumble check]

I'm trying to avoid Power cards as much as I can, even at the expense of slowing down the game.

Flipping through a bunch of cards in my hand just doesn't feel right for D&D. 4E already reminds me of the Descent board game, and having cards in front of me (instead of a book) just crosses the line.

[pjackson]

Regarding the topic of this thread:

The powers system feels more suited to superheros than fantasy characters
The idea that all characters have to be balanced in their combat abilities. I have built characters that have been deliberately weak at combat but have contributed to the party in other ways and enjoyed playing them (and still am). Such characters include such fantasy staples as the academic mage and the non-combatant healer. (Yes, playing such characters meant not playing their classes to their full potential, but it is/was fun.)
Magic should feel wierd and wonderful. Having it use the same system as mudane abilities negates that.
3.5 is flawed, but WotC had been improving it with things like the Rules Compendium. 4.0 has stopped that.

[Starbuck_II]

The idea that all characters have to be balanced in their combat abilities. I have built characters that have been deliberately weak at combat but have contributed to the party in other ways and enjoyed playing them (and still am). Such characters include such fantasy staples as the academic mage and the non-combatant healer. (Yes, playing such characters meant not playing their classes to their full potential, but it is/was fun.)
[/LIST]

It isn't so much that they should all be balanced, but you shouldn't suck by default.

Like a Fighter without rules mastery; he is gonna suck past level 6 (7 at most) without the DM bending rules.

That was a horrid idea. That you had to have system mastery to maintain balance.
You can still play a Cleric without being a combatant...but the other players might wonder why you don't do much in 4th.

[Jayabalard]

It isn't so much that they should all be balanced, but you shouldn't suck by default.Characters don't have classes by default, so they don't suck by default in 3e either.


You can still play a Cleric without being a combatant...but the other players might wonder why you don't do much in 4th.Then it's pretty obvious why he listed that in with things he dislikes about 4e, eh?

[Jayabalard]

People like Rowling and Disney love to pull the ladder they climbed up behind themselves ostensibly to "protect their work", I would aim that at Disney the corporation rather than at Walt himself...


Wait a minute, what laws is she pushing to change? I can't really say for JKR, but his other example (the Disney corporation) has pushed hard (and succeeded) in extending copyright so that Mickey Mouse didn't wind up in the public domain (which should have happened in 2003)

See Wikipedia for Eldred v. Ashcroft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft) (a relevant court case)


As far as I remember, she simply hired lawyers and went out to sue the people trying to use her ideas, wich is completely legal. It's legal to push for laws to be changed too... just not necessarily moral behavior to do so (which I think is Nagora's point); in these particular cases it's more than a little bit hypocritical.

[Oslecamo]

It's legal to push for laws to be changed too... just not necessarily moral.

Hmmm, since when is law moral? Protect the rich and strong and punish the poor and weak.

One way or another, it isn't really the authors fault, it's the real world laws that are made in such a broken way that make 3.X look perfectly balanced to the last detail.

The expression rules lawyer from gaming doesn't come out of nowhere. Lawyers train how to better exploit the laws of their world. And believe me, most of the holes in our law system aren't there by mistake.

[T.Titan]

I would agree, wizards need more spells in 4e...one of my few gripes with the system. But I would also argue that characters in general need more powers...yay for new books and dragon magazine!

My prefered method would have been more interesting feats for non-spellcasters... just so it would make mages more different (never liked games where mages and fighters have the same skill tree)

[Justin_Bacon]

Have you read the site the book is based on? It is far far more than a cut and paste job. Indeed, there's not much cut and paste in it compared to his original analysis.

I'm not entirely clear on what the point is you're trying to make. Are you under the illusion that it's OK because he also wrote some stuff that didn't blatantly violate copyright?

The fact that he felt the need to ask her permission to use the material on the website in the first place was pretty much a prima facie admission of guilt.

The idea that Rowling has some sort of irrational need to eradicate all non-approved third party resources discussing her work is rather belied by the fact that there are dozens of non-approved third party resources available on the bookshelves today. Whether she's right or wrong (and the courts say that she was right), Rowling felt that this one particular book crossed a line between fair use referencing of her material. She identified that line as word-for-word copying of her prose.

And the evidence backs that up. Even you admit that it's true.


But JKR did make her money "playing fair" under the existing laws - she's pushing for those laws to be changed

{Scrubbed}

The guy she sued violated copyright. What he did would, in fact, have violated any copyright law that has been active in the United States for the past century.

It doesn't take any expansion or reinterpretation of copyright law to identify word-for-word copying (without a justification of fair us) as copyright violation.

{Scrubbed}

[Raz_Fox]

Well, I love 4E, so I'll think up the things I dislike about it...

- Fewer races and classes, but this will change over time.
- The wizard's spellbook has shrunk dramatically. They needed a change, but not that bad an overhaul.
- Multiclassing is weird. Really wierd.
- The new look for Tieflings is a bit wierd. I wish that Tieflings with lesser physical deformities were in the rules, but this is easily houseruled.
- My least favorite thing, connected to the above: the classes are good at this point, but a lot of ingenuity is required to make certain classes or combinations thereof. Druids and Monks are difficult, and the ability to play a class that mixed rougishness and spellcasting like the spellthief is just about impossible to pull off.

That's about it, but I understand how 4E isn't to everyone's tastes. It is to mine, but if it's not yours then I still wish you Happy Gaming.

[Oracle_Hunter]

- My least favorite thing, connected to the above: the classes are good at this point, but a lot of ingenuity is required to make certain classes or combinations thereof. Druids and Monks are difficult, and the ability to play a class that mixed rougishness and spellcasting like the spellthief is just about impossible to pull off.

I heartily disagree here. The Eladrin Wizard-Rogue is an excellent magical thief. Cantrips are immeasurably helpful for thievery (ability to turn small items invisible and then carry them 25 feet into my hand? Yes, please!) and between Eladrin Education and the MC Rogue grant of Thievery, you have all the basic skills a thief needs.

Have you tried this?

[nagora]

I'm not entirely clear on what the point is you're trying to make. Are you under the illusion that it's OK because he also wrote some stuff that didn't blatantly violate copyright?
Yes, because that is the law. You can excerpt for criticism, research, and analysis even if you charge for the result, and that has been the case for centuries.


The fact that he felt the need to ask her permission to use the material on the website in the first place was pretty much a prima facie admission of guilt.
No, it's prima facie admission of politeness.


She identified that line as word-for-word copying of her prose.
Yes, that's right. However, until this case that was acceptable.


And now, of course, you're off in irrational la-la land. She sued under existing law.
She sued under existing law and the judge found in accordance to a law in his head. That imaginary law will now be quoted in future cases.


It doesn't take any expansion or reinterpretation of copyright law to identify word-for-word copying (without a justification of fair us) as copyright violation.
That's true. The problem is that there was a fair use justification.


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
This was clearly a work for use use of scholarship and research. It in no way replaced the original books by precising them or otherwise "spoiling" them and thereby reducing the market, nor was that the intent. Indeed, it is very hard to see what possible alternative use than research the book had. As such, it was clearly and comfortably within the limitations on copyright.

If you really want to continue this, start a thread in media.

[Raz_Fox]

I heartily disagree here. The Eladrin Wizard-Rogue is an excellent magical thief. Cantrips are immeasurably helpful for thievery (ability to turn small items invisible and then carry them 25 feet into my hand? Yes, please!) and between Eladrin Education and the MC Rogue grant of Thievery, you have all the basic skills a thief needs.

Have you tried this?

Hmmm... hmmm...

No I haven't, actually. That's an interesting idea. I was looking for something more... swashbucklery... but that Eladrin Rogue-Mage is still very, very cool and a character idea I'll be swiping.

Thanks!

Edit: Since when is J.K. Rowling in 4th Edition? I know wizards use wands a lot now, but when does the Wizard get to use a disarming charm or a Cruciatus curse? Will this come out in Arcane Power?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Hmmm... hmmm...

No I haven't, actually. That's an interesting idea. I was looking for something more... swashbucklery... but that Eladrin Rogue-Mage is still very, very cool and a character idea I'll be swiping.

Thanks!

For pure Swashbuckling, go Rogue-Wizard. The MC Wizard gives you some extra magic, and you can swap in a Utility if you want. Eladrin continues to be your best choice, by and large.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Comrade Gorby: I will be making a number of edits or deletions of posts in this thread, as they are both off-topic and have descended into overtly hostile personal attacks in many cases. Neither of these is acceptable. If you wish to discuss Harry Potter as a literary work and not in relation to an RPG, please take that discussion to the appropriate board - Media Discussion - and keep the discussion civil.