[4e]Open Warfare

[Mr. Friendly]

Something of a hybrid between "Say only nice things about 4e" and "Say only bad things about 4e" this is, say good things or bad things about 4e but be prepared to defend your point. This thread is the place to take the flamewars arguements "reasonable and enlightened discussions".

Rather than derailing the various threads by degenerating into arguements, just bring your arguements back over here. Or talk about some bit of 4e that makes makes you throw up a little in your mouth; or some bit of 4e that makes you feel all warm and snuggly. Whatever.

Not that I am advocating an open flamewar; if actual reasonable discourse can be achieved, great. However, this is the internet...

[Mewtarthio]

...I came in here expecting a 4e preview that would show how rules for massed combat would be implemented in the DMG. Curse you and your misleading topic titles!

[Mr. Friendly]

...I came in here expecting a 4e preview that would show how rules for massed combat would be implemented in the DMG. Curse you and your misleading topic titles!

BWAHAHAAHAHA!

Me +1

[Tengu]

Okay, my point...

It's silly to take any 4e aspect for granted before seeing the final, complete product. The scraps they feed us are enough to add fuel to our curiosity, but nowhere near to letting us see the whole picture.

[Mr. Friendly]

Okay, my point...

It's silly to take any 4e aspect for granted before seeing the final, complete product. The scraps they feed us are enough to add fuel to our curiosity, but nowhere near to letting us see the whole picture.

I agree. More people need to keep that in mind. However, between the Rogue Preview and the Pit Fiend, we have a fairly nice amount of Crunch to speculate a little less wildly with.

[Artanis]

Okay, my point...

It's silly to take any 4e aspect for granted before seeing the final, complete product. The scraps they feed us are enough to add fuel to our curiosity, but nowhere near to letting us see the whole picture.

PREACH IT MY BROTHER! PREACH THE WORD!

This is the stance I've taken in pretty much every 4e "discussion" I've been in

I usually join in a "discussion" when I see somebody jumping to conclusions that, quite frankly, just aren't logically there. Sometimes, it's an honest misinterpretation or whatnot. But other times, it's somebody trying to twist a single sentence or bit of info around in order to claim that it says something different from - or even completely opposite to - what it really does convey, often completely ignoring everything else that's been stated while doing so.

[Morty]

By now, there is enough material to discuss it. However, most if not all of these discussions would be -and if fact are- entirely subjective.

[Kurald Galain]

By now, there is enough material to discuss it.

Yes, but there are still plenty of people that automatically assume the other side doesn't know what they're talking about. Fundamental attribution error, and all that.

[Morty]

Yes, but there are still plenty of people that automatically assume the other side doesn't know what they're talking about. Fundamental attribution error, and all that.

There's that, too, but I assumed it's meant to be a serious thread.

[Artanis]

By now, there is enough material to discuss it. However, most if not all of these discussions would be -and if fact are- entirely subjective.

Depends on the subject in question. Some things, there really isn't enough material to discuss, even now.

For instance, we know how many trained skills Rogues get, but don't know how "skill-monkey-ish" they are in relation to the other classes because we don't know how many trained skills anybody else gets. In another example, we know that all classes' "powers" are going to look vaguely similar to Rogues' in some fundamental aspects, but we don't know whether they're going to look more or less identical, or look vastly different, or somewhere in between.

[Muyten]

I just find it amusing that the thread called Open Warfare is probably the mosts civil thread about 4E in this entire forum :)

Anyway I'm so far pro-4E (and I'm pretty sure it will take a lot to sway me) but I do see valid points against it from some people but mostly from people who play the game in a different way than me. Of course I don't know enough yet to be entirely sure but almost everything I've seen so far are improvements to me.

To me the D&D rules have always been almost entirely about combat, not that the games I run or play in revolve around that it's just the only time actual mechanics are used in my games. The problem with combat in earlier editions (including 3.X) have always been lack of dynamics. In most cases all a fighter would do was charge,full attack, full attack, repeat untill dead. I loved the way ToB changed that and it seems like 4E is implementing something very similar to that for every class.

As for the fluff part it looks good to me but I'm not overly concerned about it since I'll probably not be using a lot of it anyways.

[Morty]

Depends on the subject in question. Some things, there really isn't enough material to discuss, even now.

Well, I only said that there is enough material to discuss. I agree that people are often arguing about things we don't know much about yet.

I just find it amusing that the thread called Open Warfare is probably the mosts civil thread about 4E in this entire forum :)

That's because it's short. Wait until it reaches 3rd page or so.

[Theodoxus]

My friend (who loves rogues) just finished reading up on the 4th ed preview for them. His very first comment was 'omg, they've made them into Dark Age of Camelot characters. Push this button to do 'crimson strike' and hit against AC. Push that button to do 'sudden swipe' and hit against Fort. My rogue will have a row of buttons that do specialized stuff... yay mmorpg!'

Partically sarchastic, but more than 50% true, I think. Good? Bad? I'm the guy with gun - but seriously - it won't take long to come up with optimal combat strats against each monster in the monster manual. "Hey, the Iron Golem has a crappy reflex save, use that reflex hit strike ya got while I distract it." or "Huh, those harpies are nasty critters, until you start making attacks against their Fort." or whatever.

Not saying it isn't like that in 3.5 for the most part, just with having four defenses to look after, it'll come down to who has better options against all of them rather than simply increasing your Attack Bonus as high as it will go.

[horseboy]

So, who said the Thief Rogue MUST be a skill monkey? Who says skill monkeys should even exist? What benefit is there that only one character type is allowed to be very skilled? How does that benefit the other classes? This is a new edition, questions like this should have been asked in designing the new edition.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't create threads to aggregate arguments. If people have disputes related to the topic of other threads, they should carry them out in those threads and according to the Forum Rules. The excess baggage rule prevents people from bringing those to new threads, and threads like this tend to become nothing more than, well, rule-violating open warfare.