Brilliant Gameologists Forum
Play Like You Have To! => D&D 4e => : Meg May 11, 2008, 02:34:44 PM
-
If anyone has been paying extreme attention, you'd notice we don't have a lot of 4e discussion on our show or on the board. We started, but suddenly cut off.
The main reason is that Josh and I got a chance to review it, as well as quite a few others. The article is here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080509a). Since we know a bit about the game (though obviously not the final version), it's easier to just say nothing than to risk letting something slip.
But, now that we can say that we were in the playtesting group, I'd like to get some discussion going. We are gong to do a review episode when it comes out, so what would everyone like to see? There will be a ton of reviews of course from all over, but how could we make ours unique? How could we give it the Gameologists special stamp?
-
So your saying that when we find problems with 4e that we can blame you guys personally? Sweet! ;D
"This rule sucks! Damn you Meghan!"
But seriously...
I started getting really excited about DnD 4e right around the time I started playing Star Wars: Saga. I love the Saga system, and if DnD 4e goes in the same direction and as well as the Saga system did then I will be dancing around my living room like a Carebear with a handful of pixie stix.
What I'm the most curious about is if 4e moves away from the reliance on stuff as much as Saga did. At first it was hard to adjust, but now I love that the emphasis is what my character can do with a pair of blaster pistols as opposed to coolness of the pistols themselves (for example - playing a gunslinger in one of the Saga campaigns I'm in right now).
In contrast, my last DnD character can best be summed up thusly...
Wakizashi [1] (+1 Fiery Shocking Sonic Metalline Short Sword)
Attack: +27/+22/+17/+12 (16 BAB, +10 Dex, +1 Magic) DMG: 4d6+10 (+5 Str, +4 Int, +1 Magic) Crit: 17-20/x2 Slashing
Wakizashi [2] (+1 Fiery Shocking Sonic Metalline Short Sword)
Attack: +27/+22/+17/+12 (16 BAB, +10 Dex, +1 Magic) DMG: 4d6+7 (+2 Str, +4 Int, +1 Magic) Crit: 17-20/x2 Slashing
Not that she wasn't a whirling dervish of fun to play. ;D
-
I'm a bit peeved that we weren't considered playtesters. Even though I know we didn't actually do any playing, but we did provide feedback.
-
I can't speak to specifics because some things were changed from the version we saw. But, generally it seems that you don't "need" stuff. Or you do need stuff, but not the way in 3 ed.
What I mean is that fighters still need swords. And actually now wizards need wands or similar.
Like we said, we will do a comprehensive review when we have the actual game to look at.
-
Things that I would like to find out about are:
How does multi-classing work or not work?
Are spell casters balanced?
Are advanced/epic classes better than PrCs?
Are there still PrCs?
As my dear wife alluded to, am I more than a collection of my equipment?
How much of 4E is like SAGA (in terms of mechanics)?
How much of SAGA (in terms of mechanics) can you transform to be like 4E (climb, swim, jump, I'm looking at you :nonono )?
I'm not sure that the questions we are going to have are going to be any different for you guys than for anyone else but I would like your take on some of these questions because you have a very similar play style to mine.
-
The articles at wizards.com can answer a lot of those questions, but playtesters might find it hard to separate them from their own experiences and let something slip. Here is what I have gathered.
Are there still PrCs?
You have a base class for levels 1-10. At levels 11-20, you gain a "paragon path" (PrC) alongside your existing class features. At levels 21-30, you also gain features from an "epic destiny".
How does multi-classing work or not work?
Each paragon path is restricted to members of one class, but each class has multiple paragon paths. There is a feat which allows you to gain the class features of a second class instead of a paragon path, and this promises to make gishes more viable, even if you can't throw a dozen classes on to one character.
Are spell casters balanced?
Only time will tell. Casters get all the reserve feats for free, but depend on theeir weapons as much as a fighter. The other classes get stuff from Tome of Battle.
As my dear wife alluded to, am I more than a collection of my equipment?
WotC are going in the direction of items giving non-essential "neat tricks"
How much of 4E is like SAGA (in terms of mechanics)?
I have never played any version of Star Wars d20, so I can't answer that, but apparently SAGA copied ideas from 4E, rather than the other way around.
-
The items and combat thing hopefully have been fixed as their big point about why 4e was important (from the GenCon announcement) is that a character should be more than their stuff and combat needs to move much quicker. So hopefully they succeeded because that's why they did it.
-
As I sit down I realize how difficult it is to explain all of the changes.
Prime32 is correct as far as I know from EN world and keep on the shadowfell.
A couple of other things
1) All items of a particular type give a bonus to a general thing. For example all amulets give a bonus to fort, ref and will.
2) All characters of a given level have the same number of powers. for example at level 1 you have 2 at will, 1 encounter, 1 daily (according to KotS but it might change in the core books). So wizards have spells and fighters have special attacks, all being roughly balanced by class type.
3) Spellcasters if anything are underpowered, but they can do things that other classes cannot. I think that more fits into the idea of needing a party.
4) Multiclassing costs feats and you do not get extra powers you get to switch powers. So instead of 2 spells you would have 1 spell 1 sword swing.
5) Paragon paths are like enforced prcs, except the prcs are more general.
6) The work on monsters is really cool. Monsters are completely different in structure from PCs. Minions, for example, take one successful hit to kill. So the goblin chief is as tough as a pc, his elite troops are moderately tough and his regular troops are minions.
-
An interesting angle for a review/podcast could be "what do you intend to houserule?"
I think that would spark debate, and give an indication of how open/amenable to tinkering the system is, and how badly it needs fivxing with houserules (which will give a fair idea of how good a product it is).
-
What is the problem with the "Wall of" that we keep hearing about if my big question
-
An interesting angle for a review/podcast could be "what do you intend to houserule?"
I think that would spark debate, and give an indication of how open/amenable to tinkering the system is, and how badly it needs fivxing with houserules (which will give a fair idea of how good a product it is).
I'd actually like to see this be the general tone of reviews. RP'ing isn't playing a system, it's being a different person. We use systems to give us structure for our game, not to define our game for us. I liked that the CthulhuTech review was full of suggestions on changes or just flat out using it as a setting and not a system.
-
Also, im actually looking froward to 4e. I will still play 3.x but still something new is never bad.
-
Also, im actually looking froward to 4e. I will still play 3.x but still something new is never bad.
I can't wait to dump 3.5. I have one more day of my current campaign. With any luck, we'll finish it on Monday with the big climactic battle, and I'll never have to look back.
-
I'm kind of excited about the possibility of change-over, and the simplification (or so they claim) aught help with keeping newbies around.
However, the idea of another money sink as big as 3.5 has the other guy who DMs d20 where I live in quite a tiff, so he's been vehemently opposed. And he's a huge Paizo supporter. I'll probably end up going with what my players go with.
Also, I'm pretty pumped to see what they do with post-apocalypitc Faerun.
-
yeah, the story should be gnarly!
-
I'm looking forward to trying 4e... once.
Having read it, my completely non-spoiler assessment is that I don't think my 3.5 stuff will go to waste. I for one will without a doubt keep playing 3.5.
-
My theory is that I will keep an adventure around and when people are hanging out if everyone wants to run around and kill shit, we can whip it out.
-
I'm looking forward to trying 4e... once.
Having read it, my completely non-spoiler assessment is that I don't think my 3.5 stuff will go to waste. I for one will without a doubt keep playing 3.5.
Is it really not worth our time.
-
I'm looking forward to trying 4e... once.
Having read it, my completely non-spoiler assessment is that I don't think my 3.5 stuff will go to waste. I for one will without a doubt keep playing 3.5.
Is it really not worth our time.
Depends on how invested you are in your current 3.5 group and how willing they are to transition with you.
-
Could you elaborate on that?
-
Could you elaborate on that?
Do you want to learn a new game? Do the other players in your group(s) want to learn a new game? Do you want to start accumulating more books? For me, I'm going to hold off on getting the core books because there will be an SRD that I can use for a while. My gaming group has a very new-to-gaming player and maybe she's up to the challenge of a different rule set, maybe she's not. 4th Ed will also likely have a certain feel to it that is a little more action-adventure oriented and if you like intrigue type games, then you may think 4th Ed will be lacking.
Those are the kind of things you have to ask yourself/your group.
See, and I didn't even have to have some kind of inside knowledge of 4th Ed to say this! :)
-
Thanks mate.
I guess this is all true,
But have DnDers not
had to ask themselves
this question many times
3 so far?
-
I'm looking forward to trying 4e... once.
Having read it, my completely non-spoiler assessment is that I don't think my 3.5 stuff will go to waste. I for one will without a doubt keep playing 3.5.
Is it really not worth our time.
Oh, It may not have been clear, but I read it too.
4e is actually going to be good for the hobby. Unfortunately for WotC I think they have screwed themselves.
the system is so easy, You will only need one set of books for the whole group.
Good for gamers, bad for WotC
No one other than the DM needs to reference the books in play.
good for the hobby, speeds up game play. Re enforces the one set idea.
If Dragon is online and gamers are not idiots, only one person needs subscribe and let his friends have copies. The price tag is frankly foolish. At 14 a month people will make "arrangements." The idea is to make the service cheap enough that it would be an inconvenience to obtain it extralegally.
The game is designed like a tree. There are two kinds of fighter: Choose two-handed or sword-n-board. When you hit level 10 you can pick from a few paths. And at 20 you pick from a few more. 4e Fighters are actually 3.5ed Fighter brick subtype. No archers, swashbucklers or two weapon fighters.
Again, it takes a few minutes to setup and little DM prep time if you use pregen adventures with these limits.
Systemheads will hate this game.
All that said, the game is simple enough that almost anyone can play. I like that. As a comparison 4e is like ticket to ride or carcassone. It will give you a fun night if you are not looking too deep. But if you want to play a deeper game, even a only slightly deeper action adventure game, you will want to go to other systems.
-
thank you this is what i was looking for.
-
All that said, the game is simple enough that almost anyone can play. I like that. As a comparison 4e is like ticket to ride or carcassone. It will give you a fun night if you are not looking too deep. But if you want to play a deeper game, even a only slightly deeper action adventure game, you will want to go to other systems.
I've always found that depth in my games comes from the plotline and the characters, and that systems tend to do more getting int he way of it than facilitating. If 4e is all that you say, a mechanically simple system for combat without all the constant book-referancing that bogged down 3.x, I think my gorup will have a much better time with it.
-
I'm drawn to the fact that combat is smoother, more mobile, and that classes are far more balanced. If there isn't much room to optimize I may get bored with it relatively quickly, but I find that unlikely.
As with anything that is 10 years behind, there won't be nearly the wealth of information out initially, you do have to go back to playing core D&D, but I think a year after it's release there will be plenty to crunch, and I hope that pun-pun is outside the reach of 4e play. I love pun-pun, i love the omnificier, but I don't like things like arcane thesis - so easily abused that it needs either banning, or the player to be using it to power up a weaker build (such as a blaster) - I'm certain there will be combinations that get really powerful, but as long as everyone still plays the same game from levels 1-30 I'll be happy.
I will simply say that the one thing I dislike about 3.5 is the full-attack mechanic. I would rather have their one attack get better, so people actually use their move actions, well people other then casters. ToB did a great job on this front, if that is the direction that 4e is going, I'll be happy with it.
-
I'll wait until I see all of the rules. Its too hard to tell what a new edition or game is really going to be like until all of the rules are available. Its like seeing previews to a movie: Sometimes they put all the good parts in the preview and the rest isn't that hot. Other times the previews don't do the movie justice.
Everyone talks about how balanced a new edition is before it comes out. We won't know for sure until people good at breaking things get their grubby hands on all the new rules and give them a spin.
-
I'm not saying that 4e IS balanced, but more that 3.5 ISN'T balanced. A more balanced system would make me happy, so I'm hopeful :)
-
I am too, I'm just trying to remain cautiously optimistic. Wholesale changes can be good, but if you change too much, its easy to create new problems if you don't play test the hell out of it before releasing it.
-
I recently said to my co-hosts that I was not going to play 4th edition.
"but Zeke," they asked "why won't you play?"
I replied: "'Cause fuck 'em that's why"
I have been kicked around by WOTC long enough. It's time to draw a line and say "this far and NO farther."
I'm convinced it will be a good, perhaps excellent game. I simply do not care, enough is enough.
-
I'll try it once I get the opportunity and if it's enough of an improvement to justify spending another $50 to play it, then I might. If I really like it, at that point, I might spend another $50 in order to run games. I'm actually quite happy with 3.5 (slightly tweaked, but not much) so the only motivation for me would be if it were a genuinely dramatic improvement. At this point, though, I have no idea because it's not out yet!
-
I'm guessing, tentatively, that there will be harder to make broken characters in 4e, but that more optimization will be at the party/tactical level. So we'll be seeing the Pun-Pun Party instead of the Pun-Pun Character.
Regardless, I'm hoping that 4e will be easier to learn, so I might be able to attract some new gamers, because it's been darn hard to game regularly with everyone in different cities.
-
It may just be me, but I'm a bit sad at the apparent disappearance of what little realism they had in 3.5
Obviously, it wasn't terribly accurate, but a lot of the aspects of 3.5 were actually pretty close to real-life (sans magic).
With 4th edition, they've truly made it a fantasy role playing game.
It's little stuff like movement that really gets me. (In 4th edition, the hypotenuse of an isoceles right triangle is equal to the sum of it's sides *in other words* moving 4 squares up = moving two squares up-right and two squares up-left)
but that's probably a sentiment that few share.
-
From the information presented thus far from wizards and playtesters 4e it looks very solid, although on a sidenote since the basic campain world has changed are there any sources out thus far for timeline information and general info on the points of light world that 4e is set in?
-
It may just be me, but I'm a bit sad at the apparent disappearance of what little realism they had in 3.5
Obviously, it wasn't terribly accurate, but a lot of the aspects of 3.5 were actually pretty close to real-life (sans magic).
With 4th edition, they've truly made it a fantasy role playing game.
It's little stuff like movement that really gets me. (In 4th edition, the hypotenuse of an isoceles right triangle is equal to the sum of it's sides *in other words* moving 4 squares up = moving two squares up-right and two squares up-left)
but that's probably a sentiment that few share.
Yes, the diagonals always being the same does offend my sense of Euclidean geometry, but the old way makes counting squares a real chore. And its not like the 1-and-2 rule is perfect either.
-
The real answer is to go with Hexes.
The problem with 1 for 1 amd 2 for 1 diagonals is that they are too hard for some people. And those people will never understand them, so you essentially said, if you don't understand you can't play.
Do people know that spell areas are all square? So fireballs are now square instead of rounded.
-
The game is designed like a tree. There are two kinds of fighter: Choose two-handed or sword-n-board. When you hit level 10 you can pick from a few paths. And at 20 you pick from a few more. 4e Fighters are actually 3.5ed Fighter brick subtype. No archers, swashbucklers or two weapon fighters.
Again, it takes a few minutes to setup and little DM prep time if you use pregen adventures with these limits.
Systemheads will hate this game.
While it may be true there are two kinds of fighter on release, I'm sure it will expand and there will be many, many branches splitting off that tree.
When 3e was released, there were only 3 or 4 prestige classes. Should there have been moaning that 3e was so limiting because of that? Now, there are lots of prestige classes.
I think you're right that some systemheads will hate the game just out of spite. The real creative ones will actually get involved in making new things for the game. You WILL see archers, swashbucklers and two weapon fighters at some point.
-
I think you're right that some systemheads will hate the game just out of spite. The real creative ones will actually get involved in making new things for the game. You WILL see archers, swashbucklers and two weapon fighters at some point.
Swashbucklers maybe, although the armor class rules that we know about kinda prevent that a little. But real TWFers and Archers? Nope. That is the exclusive domain of Rangers. Giving those abilities to Fighters steps on the toes of the current Ranger. You can always take the multiclass feat to gain access to TWFing and Archery powers, however - but you will never be as good as a Ranger at them.
-
Fighter now means Tank/Brick. You will not see a fighter stray from that path.
In 3e the rules allowed you to use feats and PrCs and skills to make dozens of kinds of fighters and then turn around and make dozens of rogues. Now there are two fighters and two rogues. When the swashbuckler class comes out there will probably be two of those.
-
Fighter now means Tank/Brick. You will not see a fighter stray from that path.
In 3e the rules allowed you to use feats and PrCs and skills to make dozens of kinds of fighters and then turn around and make dozens of rogues. Now there are two fighters and two rogues. When the swashbuckler class comes out there will probably be two of those.
Now, let's be fair - they could write up a whole new "tree" of powers to make a Swashbuckler-y Fighter. It would take a lot of doing though.
-
Are those fighting styles being limited to the Ranger and not letting the Fighter being as good at them an actual problem?
Or is it more of a "I can't make this type of fighter because the name on the class isn't 'Fighter'" type thing?
I feel I've been led to believe the latter, but is this incorrect?
-
Fighters are Defenders and that means brick. So yes, they will almost certainly add powers but fighters will still brick it out.
Are those fighting styles being limited to the Ranger and not letting the Fighter being as good at them an actual problem?
Or is it more of a "I can't make this type of fighter because the name on the class isn't 'Fighter'" type thing?
I feel I've been led to believe the latter, but is this incorrect?
I don't quite understand the question, but rangers are now "the class that either fights with 2 weapons or shoots a bow with a slight woodland theme." You could just let the fighter take those powers but you would literally be taking all the rangers powers.
Actually, to go the route of the anarchist, you could let anyone take any power by level and it would still be balanced.
-
Basically I mean that isn't that Fighters won't be expert archers or TWFers more of a name thing?
I keep getting the picture that the people likely to have a problem with it were some of the same people who complain about not being able to play a samurai because their DM wouldn't allow the CW Samurai or OA Samurai classes in their game.
Actually, to go the route of the anarchist, you could let anyone take any power by level and it would still be balanced.
That makes my happy places tingle.
-
The items and combat thing hopefully have been fixed as their big point about why 4e was important (from the GenCon announcement) is that a character should be more than their stuff and combat needs to move much quicker. So hopefully they succeeded because that's why they did it.
Move quicker? Admittedly at early mid levels (5-8) combat can take a little while, but after that average 'effective' combat duration was about 1.5-2 rounds (with possible cleaning up of disabled monsters afterwards that could just be handwaived away). Seriously, combat doesn't get faster than that in principle...
-
It may just be me, but I'm a bit sad at the apparent disappearance of what little realism they had in 3.5
Obviously, it wasn't terribly accurate, but a lot of the aspects of 3.5 were actually pretty close to real-life (sans magic).
With 4th edition, they've truly made it a fantasy role playing game.
It's little stuff like movement that really gets me. (In 4th edition, the hypotenuse of an isoceles right triangle is equal to the sum of it's sides *in other words* moving 4 squares up = moving two squares up-right and two squares up-left)
but that's probably a sentiment that few share.
Yes, the diagonals always being the same does offend my sense of Euclidean geometry, but the old way makes counting squares a real chore. And its not like the 1-and-2 rule is perfect either.
In my first 4th Edition game, I'm seriously considering using a hex-based map.
The only problem with this, is that it hurts the rogue a little bit (less mobility) and hurts the wizard a bit more (blasts affect less hexes).
-
How is the rogue less mobile? I don't understand.
-
How is the rogue less mobile? I don't understand.
Technically EVERYONE is less mobile on the hex, but since mobility is relative, I don't think it makes much of a difference.
-
Also, im actually looking froward to 4e. I will still play 3.x but still something new is never bad.
This is how I feel. I am very interested to see how it plays, especially in the high levels. Our group has always liked high-powered play.
-
Technically EVERYONE is less mobile on the hex, but since mobility is relative, I don't think it makes much of a difference.
How's that the case? I mean, if you're playing the 1.5 distance rule for diagonals then the mobility should be kinda sorta the same. If you're playing diagonal movement as "one square" then, well, there's nothing I can do for you.
-
Wizards just put up a sample tiefling warlord detailing information all the way up to 3rd level. I'm liking what I'm seeing.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/TieflingWarlord.zip (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/TieflingWarlord.zip)
The daily power makes me all tingly inside, as well as the 3rd lvl encounter power. I have a feeling I'm going to love playing Warlords.
-
I agree - Warlords are awesome. Wolf-Pack Tactics? I mean, talk about battlefield control!
-
Wizards just put up a sample tiefling warlord detailing information all the way up to 3rd level. I'm liking what I'm seeing.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/TieflingWarlord.zip (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/TieflingWarlord.zip)
The daily power makes me all tingly inside, as well as the 3rd lvl encounter power. I have a feeling I'm going to love playing Warlords.
Warlords are cool. Tieflings may be the new half-orcs. +1 vs bloodied foes and resist fire 5. if resistances are super rare it might be ok. But still compare it to the other races and they get the shaft.
-
Warlords are cool. Tieflings may be the new half-orcs. +1 vs bloodied foes and resist fire 5. if resistances are super rare it might be ok. But still compare it to the other races and they get the shaft.
[/quote]
One of the things to note about 4e, is that only a very small portion of being a race comes from their initial stuff. There are a bunch of racial feats, so tieflings could easily make up for their lack-luster starting with good racial feats.
-
Wizards just put up a sample tiefling warlord detailing information all the way up to 3rd level. I'm liking what I'm seeing.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/TieflingWarlord.zip (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/TieflingWarlord.zip)
The daily power makes me all tingly inside, as well as the 3rd lvl encounter power. I have a feeling I'm going to love playing Warlords.
Warlords are cool. Tieflings may be the new half-orcs. +1 vs bloodied foes and resist fire 5. if resistances are super rare it might be ok. But still compare it to the other races and they get the shaft.
One thing I noticed on the sheet is that the fire resistance scales as the tiefling levels. at lvl 2 its fire resist 6.
-
One of the things to note about 4e, is that only a very small portion of being a race comes from their initial stuff. There are a bunch of racial feats, so tieflings could easily make up for their lack-luster starting with good racial feats.
It is entirely possible those made it into a later version of the rules.
Compare them to the other races(this is from EN world):
Dwarves: use second wind as a minor action, slide one less square, make a save to avoid falling over
Eladrin: teleport
Humans: Extra at will power
dragon born: breath fire
Elves: Elven Accuracy
Halflings: halfling luck
-
Technically EVERYONE is less mobile on the hex, but since mobility is relative, I don't think it makes much of a difference.
How's that the case? I mean, if you're playing the 1.5 distance rule for diagonals then the mobility should be kinda sorta the same. If you're playing diagonal movement as "one square" then, well, there's nothing I can do for you.
I missed this response somehow, So I'll answer it now.
Diagonal movement is 1 square in 4e. I hated this in writing. I loved it after playing with it. Diagonal=1.5 wasn't needed, it made combat less fluid, made people have to recount their movement which slowed game-play.
Not everyone is good at counting their diagonals, some people count their movement 2-3 times just to make sure this just slows game-play, and It really doesn't make much of a difference in the game. Combat still works just fine, and if you use a lot of difficult terrain (which you should) people have to go straight a lot of the time anyway.
-
Diagonals are a pain, certainly, but switching to hexes seems like a better solution to that problem. Oh well...
-
Diagonals are a pain, certainly, but switching to hexes seems like a better solution to that problem. Oh well...
Creates a new problem tho - e.g. I use Excel to draw most of my maps, otherwise I'd have switched to hexes long ago.
-
Diagonals are a pain, certainly, but switching to hexes seems like a better solution to that problem. Oh well...
Are you saying this from a DMing perspective? or are you suggesting that WOTC should have made the game into a Hex game.
The later of those options would have created such an uproar, that I don't think they could have afford to do so as a company. Especially since they already had product lines built around the square basing.
I do agree that hexes help slightly in the simulation aspect, but in game play terms it doesn't seem to matter much.
-
I'm saying that from an all-around perspective. I'd much rather be on a hex standard. It would free a lot of floor-plan design from a strict grid, it would allow for more dynamic movement, and it would be so easy to reckon radii that I think it would be worth it. I realise it would be harder to draw things to exact measurements (ye olde 30' x 40' room), but not significantly harder (they're still 5' hexes!), and I don't have a problem with breaking the habit of having ancient, dank dungeons that are designed on the 5-foot-mark. I realise that is not a popular preference, though, so I won't belabour the point.
-
From what I've been able to glean, there are some things I like and some I don't.
I like the idea that it's hard to make a crap build. I don't like the idea that it's also near impossible to make an optimized build--I want my work rewarded!
I like the de-emphasis on save-or-dies, because I don't want to see my character keel over due to one or two really bad rolls. As has been pointed out over and over, the more random a system, the more likely the players will meet up with the lethally short end of that stick.
I like the at-will / 1 per encounter / 1 per day powers, because it gives everyone something to play with.
I dislike the multiclassing, again, because I like to put in work and see it rewarded.
The system is simple, which is appealing. I'm hopeful that I'll still be able to build my characters as I envision them, but that's currently my greatest worry. I like a lot of the simplifications, such as skills, but I really want my gish character to be able to be the *right* mix of caster and fighter, not just the "one-size-fits-all" version.
-
I'm saying that from an all-around perspective. I'd much rather be on a hex standard. It would free a lot of floor-plan design from a strict grid, it would allow for more dynamic movement, and it would be so easy to reckon radii that I think it would be worth it. I realise it would be harder to draw things to exact measurements (ye olde 30' x 40' room), but not significantly harder (they're still 5' hexes!), and I don't have a problem with breaking the habit of having ancient, dank dungeons that are designed on the 5-foot-mark. I realise that is not a popular preference, though, so I won't belabour the point.
It just makes my head hurt trying to plot out maps on hexes, when you're dealing with buildings. Look around you! Most buildings are built in collections of rectangles. What happens to all those half-hexes or sub-hexes that get left on both sides of a wall ...? something just seems a bit ... off. Like you have places where you should be able to stand, but you can't stand there in the game world. :bigeye
The system is simple, which is appealing.
Up to a point (because oh WOW you can go to far), this is a big part of why 4e doesn't do much for me, or at least has lots of elements that are minuses to me. Too much simplification is, to me, boring, unrewarding to use, blah blah blah. Plus:
I'm hopeful that I'll still be able to build my characters as I envision them, but that's currently my greatest worry. I like a lot of the simplifications, such as skills, but I really want my gish character to be able to be the *right* mix of caster and fighter, not just the "one-size-fits-all" version.
...That's also part of why. :)
But I guess I'll need to wait and check out 4e when it comes out.
I'll wait for someone else to buy the book and borrow it from them, see if it's worth pursuing.
-
It just makes my head hurt trying to plot out maps on hexes, when you're dealing with buildings. Look around you! Most buildings are built in collections of rectangles. What happens to all those half-hexes or sub-hexes that get left on both sides of a wall ...? something just seems a bit ... off. Like you have places where you should be able to stand, but you can't stand there in the game world. :bigeye
I would allow someone to squeeze into a partial hex. Depending on the circumstances, they might take a minus to hit or dodge or something. It's actually not that hard to adjudicate, if you're willing to just make a call and your players are willing to roll with the punches.
As for the buildings, calling them collections of rectangles is a bit much, but I do see your point. What I think, though, is that building everything in a D&D game on perfect 5'-foot squares makes the game feel very video-gamish to me. Hexes create a slightly less grid-like playing field. I find it helps me to think outside the "boxes," both literally and figuratively, if that makes any sense.
But like I said, I know that's not the majority opinion, so I don't want to sound like I'm insisting on it.
-
But do go on! I see the advantages, I'm just trying to wrap my head around them.
-
I Think simpler rules make for a better game. There are a 3 main reasons why I feel this way.
1. I know the rules. When other players/DMs don't know the rules, I find that annoying, I also find it annoying to correct their mistakes often.
2. Over-complicated rules take time to interpret, often times at the table, this slows play, and hampers the story.
3. Simple rules keep the system from getting in the way of the game.
There are certainly cons to simple rules. Like a lack of options, but 4e is an exception based system. Simple rules, lots of exceptions. Options will come with source books, as they always have.
I'm pro 4e, but I have my worries. Is multi-classing going to feel like you have a second class, or is going to feel like you just got a weaker power from that other class, and gained nothing else.
As far as optimizing not being important. I highly doubt that will be the case. Multiple talent trees, feat selections based on class AND race, and presumably "spec" (IE tactical/inspirational warlord). Feats more often. 1st, 2nd, and probably every even level.
@Orion: I agree that this system, from a movement perspective, warrants hexes. I also don't think its' easy for 9 guys to get reasonable attacks on one guy. That being said, WOTC can't make D&D a hex game from a business perspective, too many products are already out with squares on them.
-
As one of the folks who was in Meg's review group (thanks, Meg!) here's my honest opinion:
I think a lot of people will enjoy 4e. I don't think I'll be one of them. It employs a design paradigm with which I simply don't agree.
To elaborate on that, they're pursuing a concept of "balance" in which all characters of X level be exactly as powerful as all other characters of X level.
I simply don't think that works, and I think trying to make it work results in a lot of unnecessary restrictions and makes it impossible to simulate a lot of very interesting scenarios.
I believe that the best "balance" paradigm to pursue is not "Are all the characters equally powerful?" but "Are all the players equally involved? Are they all having fun equally?"
Consider, for instance, the Buffy: the Vampire Slayer roleplaying game. Now: this game STARTS from the premise that the Slayer is more powerful. However, that doesn't mean the other characters are insignificant--each one of them has specialties the Slayer lacks. Every character has their role, and every player gets their chance to shine.
In applying the 4e paradigm, we'd have to say instead, "No. The Slayer must be exactly as powerful as every other character. She can have no abilities that don't precisely correlate to the abilities of her companions."
In so doing, we'd probably get a "balanced" game...but it sure as heck wouldn't capture the feeling of B:TVS.
-
I'm of a similar stance. I never use "balance," but I DO use "meaningfully contribute."
-
It just makes my head hurt trying to plot out maps on hexes, when you're dealing with buildings. Look around you! Most buildings are built in collections of rectangles. What happens to all those half-hexes or sub-hexes that get left on both sides of a wall ...? something just seems a bit ... off. Like you have places where you should be able to stand, but you can't stand there in the game world. :bigeye
I would allow someone to squeeze into a partial hex. Depending on the circumstances, they might take a minus to hit or dodge or something. It's actually not that hard to adjudicate, if you're willing to just make a call and your players are willing to roll with the punches.
As for the buildings, calling them collections of rectangles is a bit much, but I do see your point. What I think, though, is that building everything in a D&D game on perfect 5'-foot squares makes the game feel very video-gamish to me. Hexes create a slightly less grid-like playing field. I find it helps me to think outside the "boxes," both literally and figuratively, if that makes any sense.
But like I said, I know that's not the majority opinion, so I don't want to sound like I'm insisting on it.
I'd hate to bring this up if you guys wanted it closed, but I'd like to make a point.
I don't know how you guys will play it, but I'm going to have a lot more games that explore caves, ruins, forests, and other wild areas in 4th edition. I'm hoping to play on the "points of light" feel the new edition is supposed to have.
These sort of areas can be really well represented on a hex grid rather than a square grid.
Don't get me wrong, I very much preferred the square grid in 3.5, but I'm trying something new for 4th at least once... :)
-
Well, I like what I've seen so far (and I've seen the whole thing).
At the heart and core of the idea is: it's an entirely different game with some of the same fluff. Whether or not 3.5 needs replacing is an important debate, one that I'm not sure about. Whether or not WotC is being money-grubbing in their release plans also remains to be debated.
I will address my original qualm about 4e: that this was inching much closer (perhaps footing or yarding) to a veneer of RP window-dressing on top of a miniatures skirmish game. That qualm was misplaced. The game is indeed simpler in certain ways, and character development is necessarily simpler, but I think that the simplicity works out okay in the long run for the game, and character development has clear paths to continue with, especially if they start releasing more powers for each class.
I've only gotten a chance to read through the book a few times so far, but everything seems relatively balanced at first blush. I'm sure there will be some great combos either at the character or party level that will give us lots of grist to chew on, but I think that the classes themselves are fairly well-distributed. Each class seems pretty well-endowed, and I don't think that anybody is clearly overbearing. Even the wizard has some love - while it's possible to create an all-blasty wizard/evoker type, Treantmonk's god seems possible as well, with battlefield control and debuff spells. Not as many buffs, and most of the interesting spells got limited somehow. For example: fly is a daily power that lasts 5 minutes, as I read it. There is no overland flight. But then again, there might be a feat in there somewhere that lets you recover dailies or something, but right now, it looks like most wizards will be walking.
There's still some stupid stuff. The attribute generation system is just like the DMG 32-point buy system, except that a 16 is a little cheaper (9 points instead of 10), and you only get 22 points with starting attributes 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. I guess they didn't like people starting with more than one 8? With so many races that have attribute boosts, I guess that's a good thing, but I dunno if it's worth the confusion there.
So, this post is all over the place. Anyway, I think overall, if I read the book independent of my knowledge of 3.5 and 3e, I'd say, "wow, that's a neat game and it provides a lot of options".
-
I'd hate to bring this up if you guys wanted it closed, but I'd like to make a point.
Perhaps its time for a new thread?
-
I believe that the best "balance" paradigm to pursue is not "Are all the characters equally powerful?" but "Are all the players equally involved? Are they all having fun equally?"
Thank you! I've been trying to articulate that for months. That's exactly how I feel. Unfortunately, "powerful" for them seems to mean "can kill X number of monsters," as opposed to "contributes to the game in a significant way." The basic problem is assuming that you can quantify everyone's participation and make "perfect" balance, because as soon as you try to quantify to that degree, you're stuck with one unit of measure, and that unit seems to be HPs/round. If I want to play a character whose primary participation in the game isn't combat, then what the heck am I supposed to do?
-
I believe that the best "balance" paradigm to pursue is not "Are all the characters equally powerful?" but "Are all the players equally involved? Are they all having fun equally?"
Thank you! I've been trying to articulate that for months. That's exactly how I feel. Unfortunately, "powerful" for them seems to mean "can kill X number of monsters," as opposed to "contributes to the game in a significant way." The basic problem is assuming that you can quantify everyone's participation and make "perfect" balance, because as soon as you try to quantify to that degree, you're stuck with one unit of measure, and that unit seems to be HPs/round. If I want to play a character whose primary participation in the game isn't combat, then what the heck am I supposed to do?
I own the module, and if this is the unit of measure for "balance" then trust me, WotC failed miserably. The exact rules on saving throws are not elaborated on in the module. If they're easy at all to pass, then simply being a Dragonborn non-Wizard will be at least as effective as being any brand of Wizard.
Also, if you want to specialize in non-combat situations then there will likely be options for that in the core set. That said, playing D&D and acting like you'll never meet a combat encounter simply isn't practical thinking. The meat of D&D has always been combat because, as another poster said, mechanics do little more than get in the way during role-play. Interrupting dialog for a die roll simply isn't necessary if your group can act like their characters and you can act like the NPCs.
-
I own the module, and if this is the unit of measure for "balance" then trust me, WotC failed miserably. The exact rules on saving throws are not elaborated on in the module. If they're easy at all to pass, then simply being a Dragonborn non-Wizard will be at least as effective as being any brand of Wizard.
This really couldn't be further from the truth. A single Blast 5 with no lasting effects per encounter does not come close to being able to throw a Burst 1 every single turn. Wizards are also the only class that has easy access to both duration extending mechanics for their negative effects, and the ability to shape their AoE's around allies.
-
Speaking of wizards, I fail to see why anyone would take Scorching Burst over Cloud of Knives. Cloud deals force damage, lingers, making it a minion insta-kill, and has the same range, damage and area of effect. There can't be enough fire vulnerable monsters to make Scorching Burst a better choice.
-
While on the subject of obvious choices in 4th Edition, Power Attack seems to be a huge no-brainer now for any melee character so long as they can get the 15 Str needed for it. I won't be surprised to see Half-Elf Rogues picking up Ray of Frost and using it with Wintertouched and Lasting Frost to get Combat Advantage. And the Demigod epic path? Insanity.
-
Hmm, I was looking at the wizard at will powers, and I agree with you Imperious. I'm not sure why you'd pick scorching burst, except that it's a bigger AoE.
Also, there's this little gem in Prestidigitation: "Produce out of nothingness a small item or image that exists until the end of your next turn."
No limits on that that I saw. So I'll produce a ring of wizardry and use it on my next turn. Repeat until you're recharged. Whee! Or whatever.
-
Hmm, I was looking at the wizard at will powers, and I agree with you Imperious. I'm not sure why you'd pick scorching burst, except that it's a bigger AoE.
Also, there's this little gem in Prestidigitation: "Produce out of nothingness a small item or image that exists until the end of your next turn."
No limits on that that I saw. So I'll produce a ring of wizardry and use it on my next turn. Repeat until you're recharged. Whee! Or whatever.
Um, I see Scorching Burst as a definite options. Cloud of Daggers is not an AoE at all, is is simply "1 Square." Scorching Burst is a Burst 1 with the same range and same damage. It seems the one square Cloud would be rather easy for minions to walk around, so that aspect doens't seem huge to be either. Useful for blocking up choke points though.
As to prestidigitation:
"Nothing you create with this cantrip can deal damage, serve as a weapon or a tool, or hinder another creature’s actions. This cantrip cannot duplicate the effect of any other power."
All magic item abilities are Powers in their own right.
-
Oh, I simply can't read. I thought Cloud had the same area as Scorching. That makes them more balanced.
-
Um, I see Scorching Burst as a definite options. Cloud of Daggers is not an AoE at all, is is simply "1 Square." Scorching Burst is a Burst 1 with the same range and same damage. It seems the one square Cloud would be rather easy for minions to walk around, so that aspect doens't seem huge to be either. Useful for blocking up choke points though.
As to prestidigitation:
"Nothing you create with this cantrip can deal damage, serve as a weapon or a tool, or hinder another creature’s actions. This cantrip cannot duplicate the effect of any other power."
All magic item abilities are Powers in their own right.
Oho, and a burst 1 spell is actually a 3x3 block, so it's bigger than I thought originally. They have done away with targeting corners for area spells and are now just targeting squares. Easier that way.
I'm sure the ruling would be that item abilities are powers, but there seems to be a crack in there - the cantrip is not duplicating the effects of a power, but is creating an item that has a power. Of course an "item with a power" is probably a tool anyway. They should have just said "nonmagical" in there. :P
-
Um, I see Scorching Burst as a definite options. Cloud of Daggers is not an AoE at all, is is simply "1 Square." Scorching Burst is a Burst 1 with the same range and same damage. It seems the one square Cloud would be rather easy for minions to walk around, so that aspect doens't seem huge to be either. Useful for blocking up choke points though.
Cloud of daggers is the minion killer, sure it only kills one but it KILLs that one minion every time, even if you miss. because at the start of their turn the minion takes damage equal to your wis modifier (min 1). The only way to save the minion is to use a power to shift if out of the square before it acts.
Before everyone jumps on me saying something about how misses never hurt minions, this is an area effect that is static, it definetly kills minions.
From the MM glossary: A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage. Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn't require an attack roll also destroys a minion. However if minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage.
-
I'll agree with you Brislove, it will ensure that one minion dies. If you're sure what you're targeting is a minion. I'd rather throw an AoE and take my chances with missing.
-
You can also pop two minions a turn with the Warlock as a minor action by using Warlock's Curse, Rod of Reaving, and Twofold Curse.
-
I'll agree with you Brislove, it will ensure that one minion dies. If you're sure what you're targeting is a minion. I'd rather throw an AoE and take my chances with missing.
Ya I didn't take it on the wizard I built, I agree that a larger area is better and I would rather take the chance of missing. I was pointing that out as a balancing factor of the spell.
-
I own the module, and if this is the unit of measure for "balance" then trust me, WotC failed miserably. The exact rules on saving throws are not elaborated on in the module. If they're easy at all to pass, then simply being a Dragonborn non-Wizard will be at least as effective as being any brand of Wizard.
This really couldn't be further from the truth. A single Blast 5 with no lasting effects per encounter does not come close to being able to throw a Burst 1 every single turn. Wizards are also the only class that has easy access to both duration extending mechanics for their negative effects, and the ability to shape their AoE's around allies.
There are a lot of problems with this reasoning.
1) A Blast 5 is capable of taking out most, if not all, of the minions in a given encounter if timed properly. A Burst 1, on the other hand, is actually a significantly smaller area. You'd have to use it 3 times to get comparable coverage to the Blast 5 which is a waste of actions. Now granted, the Blast 5 might leave a couple minions left that you'd have to cleave down, but Burst 1's will allow the minions to attack more and work together with the meat of the encounter for an extended period of time, and you're probably going to be cleaving them down anyway.
2) Depending on how these duration extending effects work, they don't matter. If saving throws are easy to pass then the Wizard is only extraordinarily effective as a blaster, which is just as sub-par in 4.0 as it was in 3.5.
-
A 1st level Wizard gets acces to an Encounter power that is just as good as an 11th level Dragonborn's Dragon Breath with a feat invested.
At 13th level a Wizard gets access to an Encounter power which hits harder than level 21 Dragon Breath, and allows you to Push 4 anything hit.
At 27, a Wizard can obtain an Encounter power which by base hits harder than Epic feated Dragon Breath, does 2 damage type to help mitigate Resistance, and only hits enemies.
And perhaps the crowning glory of Wizardry AoE'edness, a level 23 Encounter power which strikes 1 creature for 4d6, 2 within 5 of that one for 2d6, and everything else within Close Burst 20 for 1d6.
Duration extension comes in two flavors. It's a once an encounter power, you can choose to either give a specific creature a penalty to Saves equal to your Wis modifier, or keep a Zone effect around an extra turn.
Near every single ability a Wizard has carries some sort of debuff with it.
I'm putting up large amounts of information on Wizard AoE's because I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. You've comparing one racial power to an entire class, when they don't even come close. If you're looking for debilitating effects, it seems most of them are along the lines of inflicting a specific condition until the end of the Wizard's next turn.
-
Duration extension comes in two flavors. It's a once an encounter power, you can choose to either give a specific creature a penalty to Saves equal to your Wis modifier, or keep a Zone effect around an extra turn.
This is good to know. My knowledge is limited to KotS, my core set won't arrive until June 10th. The pre-gen Wizard in KotS is seemingly quite terrible.
Near every single ability a Wizard has carries some sort of debuff with it.
This is also nice to know, and makes the name of the role being "controller" seem to make more sense.
-
I'm quite impressed with the Wizard class, it's still wizard-y, yes, compared to 3.5, the Wizard got nerfed, but there are a lot of fun powers.
My main annoyance is that a lot of Utility powers that are Daily, I want more frequently, or to be able to prepare multiple copies.
-
I'm really liking the ranger form what I've read so far. The way the powers are set up and such make "TWF" a very viable tactic.
-
I'm quite impressed with the Wizard class, it's still wizard-y, yes, compared to 3.5, the Wizard got nerfed, but there are a lot of fun powers.
My main annoyance is that a lot of Utility powers that are Daily, I want more frequently, or to be able to prepare multiple copies.
Yeah, I'd love for the wizard to have the ability to sacrifice a daily in order to prepare two copies of another daily. That's really the only base flaw I see in these classes, everything else seems downright interesting.
I made a very similar move in the GURPS campaign I'm working out: I got rid of the regular magic system (GURPS: Magic) in favor of just letting my players buy a limited number of unlimited use powers. Instead of learning fireball, the spell, they get a fire-based area attack superpower with magic fluff. It works out roughly the same, but has far less overhead. I've never particularly liked the Vancian system (which GURPS, admittedly, is not), and the idea of reusable powers makes a lot more sense to me.
I'm still doubtful I'd play much 4e: my two tabletop campaigns still have a long way to go, and it seems like my group isn't particularly interested in switching.
-
It is my firm opinion that anyone who is not happy with the current state of 4e, because of omitions and lack of options and etc, needs to just wait one year. That will give WotC time to get a few major splatbooks out and bring the PHB2. It's impossible for them to match the versatility of 3.x in 1 book, and foolish to expect it of them.
-
It is my firm opinion that anyone who is not happy with the current state of 4e, because of omitions and lack of options and etc, needs to just wait one year. That will give WotC time to get a few major splatbooks out and bring the PHB2. It's impossible for them to match the versatility of 3.x in 1 book, and foolish to expect it of them.
QFT.
Otherwise optimizers would be happy just optimizing the three 3e core rulebooks. Don't forget there were only what, 6 prestige classe? Couldn't that be considered a lack of options?
:)
-
It is my firm opinion that anyone who is not happy with the current state of 4e, because of omitions and lack of options and etc, needs to just wait one year. That will give WotC time to get a few major splatbooks out and bring the PHB2. It's impossible for them to match the versatility of 3.x in 1 book, and foolish to expect it of them.
The problem is not can it be done or can it be done more. The issue is that 4e has a much smaller range of choices than 3ed. If the variability of 3ed is 10 then the variability of 4e is 1. So yeah, next year it will be up to 10. At that time 3ed was up to 100.
Choice is extremely limited, that is an absolute fact.
The real question is, "is that really a problem?" You have less options, but do you have enough options to play? With the core books you have enough interesting stuff to make characters and play with them for some time.
-
This is an inherent problem with games in general, you can either achieve balance or options. The task is to find a way to have balance without limiting things to the point of Poker, everyone plays the same cards :).
The more options become available, the more possible interactions there are. More interactions means that it is harder to balance. Basically more options means less balance.
4e is an attempt at a middle ground, It is a much more balanced system then 3.5 I can see already that 4e fighters beat 3.5 fighters and 3.5 wizards still beat 4e parties lol.
-
It is my firm opinion that anyone who is not happy with the current state of 4e, because of omitions and lack of options and etc, needs to just wait one year. That will give WotC time to get a few major splatbooks out and bring the PHB2. It's impossible for them to match the versatility of 3.x in 1 book, and foolish to expect it of them.
The problem is not can it be done or can it be done more. The issue is that 4e has a much smaller range of choices than 3ed. If the variability of 3ed is 10 then the variability of 4e is 1. So yeah, next year it will be up to 10. At that time 3ed was up to 100.
Choice is extremely limited, that is an absolute fact.
The real question is, "is that really a problem?" You have less options, but do you have enough options to play? With the core books you have enough interesting stuff to make characters and play with them for some time.
An absolute fact, huh? Flip through the PHB. I don't see much more choice than in 4E, unless you count each spell selected and memorized as a choice.
-
Take fighter. In 4e you essential have two choices two handed weapon or weapon and shield. In 3e you have a range of different options based on feats. Then you can can add more options based on taking other classes.
It is like big O notation in computing. One of the two always has more options.
-
Take fighter. In 4e you essential have two choices two handed weapon or weapon and shield. In 3e you have a range of different options based on feats. Then you can can add more options based on taking other classes.
I actually disagree here. In 3e, you have two choices: 2H weapon, TWF, or I suppose Ranged. Weapon and shield wasn't even much of an option, due to its weakness. There are feats in 3.5 that open up options to the fighter during combat, but I think the range of powers that a fighter gets in 4e more-or-less cover a lot of the same bases. It looks like 4e archers really want to be rangers, but that's not too bad either, I thought it was weird that fighters made better archers than rangers in 3.5.
I think that the problem is the mapping function: in 4e, variability and choice look different from 3.5. You have to start from a different perspective before you see the options in the system, but I think they're there.
-
Two Weapon Fighting is actually a very viable Fighter choice. With the number of ways they have to cause extra Opportunity Actions and the Epic feat Two-Weapon Flurry, it can be a big potential boost. Two Weapon Defense is arguably better than a Heavy Shield, as it adds 1 to Reflex and saves you a -2 Check Penatly at the cost of 1 AC. It's also nice to have a second weapon on hand, and most of the Shield items aren't that great.
It's also nice that the various powers operate differently based on what weapon you're holding. I really see the 4e Fighter as having many more varied and intricate options than the 3e Fighter.
-
TWF on a 3.5 Fighter, given the lack of bonus damage? :/
With that said, the 4th edition books read like the guides to video games. The difference of course is that a guide to a video game is simply meant to be a source of technical information about said games. Whereas D&D rulebooks are supposed to present a complete game in and of themselves, not just talk about it. In other words, very generic, very bland.
"I cast Magic Missile 3 at the Darkness!"
-_-' :grave :wall
-
Sunic_Flames, I actually count that as a bonus for 4e. Too much time in 3.x I spend arguing that the fluff in the book is not the fluff in my game or the fluff for my character. 4e doesn't bog down the classes or abilities with useless RP prereqs that I always up having to change because they don't fit the homebrew world I'm in. The powers provide just enough of a suggestive description on each to spark my imagination without being restrictive. I RP to play my character in my DM's world, not something made by someone else for someone else.
-
TWF on a 3.5 Fighter, given the lack of bonus damage? :/
With that said, the 4th edition books read like the guides to video games. The difference of course is that a guide to a video game is simply meant to be a source of technical information about said games. Whereas D&D rulebooks are supposed to present a complete game in and of themselves, not just talk about it. In other words, very generic, very bland.
I agree in part with both the last two posts. I like the decoupling of fluff and crunch, and I think that location sourcebooks will give enough fluff for people to be able to say "Yeah, my fighter is actually a Knight of the Weave without people going "OMG!!! PLay a knight if u want a knight!!1!"
However, my reading of the books did leave me feeling a lot more confused about what the hell was happening in terms of how to play the game and what the hell is going on.
That said, I've not read the DMG yet, so i hope that'll be better.
-
Heffroncm beat me to the punch. I prefer my rulebooks to be entirely crunch. The fluff and flavor text often provide more troubles than needed. I can provide fluff and description, the crunch is there to make sure my imagination is mechanically compatible with someone else's.
Frankly, I like everything to work based on keywords and other stuff (like what they've done with 4e). Consider the age-old debate: does Protection from Evil protect you from Hold Person? Some say yes (HP is a mind-affecting compulsion), some say no ("ongoing control clearly refers to things like dominate"). Even the sage, in the FAQ, doesn't really clear things up. Most spell descriptions should be able to be reduced to a few short lines, PfE could include: negates the effect of any spell with the compulsion keyword, rather than the poorly-worded description.
As a gamer, I always boil things down to basics anyway. So why not start there and let me put on some window dressing? That ends up making the game even more universal: the less fluff in the system, the easier it is to make a weird steampunk wild-west adventure world with it.
-
That isn't what I meant. I mean terms like 'Daily powers', 'Push 3', 'Do [W] times 3' and so forth.
The items section and classes exhibit this the strongest.
About the nicest thing I can say about it is they made vorpal not suck horribly.
-
Mechanical descripton of mechanics is also a bonus in my mind. As pfooti said, having a consistent base of words used to describe the precise effects of an ability is better than the open-ended interpretation allowed by imprecise descripton (Ironheart Surge anyone?). I don't need my rules to impart flavor, that's what setting books are for.
-
Perhaps. But 'I Iron Heart Surge the Sun!' has quite the humor appeal.
-
Weapon and shield wasn't even much of an option, due to its weakness.
[Aelryinth]SAB IS BEST! IT IS BEST CAUSE I SAY SO![/Aelryinth]
-
Weapon and shield wasn't even much of an option, due to its weakness.
[Aelryinth]SAB IS BEST! IT IS BEST CAUSE I SAY SO![/Aelryinth]
Oh, don't start... :wall
-
Two Weapon Fighting is actually a very viable Fighter choice. With the number of ways they have to cause extra Opportunity Actions and the Epic feat Two-Weapon Flurry, it can be a big potential boost. Two Weapon Defense is arguably better than a Heavy Shield, as it adds 1 to Reflex and saves you a -2 Check Penatly at the cost of 1 AC. It's also nice to have a second weapon on hand, and most of the Shield items aren't that great.
It's also nice that the various powers operate differently based on what weapon you're holding. I really see the 4e Fighter as having many more varied and intricate options than the 3e Fighter.
1: Shields add to your ref defense also, so the heavy shield costs you 2 check penalty and a feat, and you get 1 less ac. It's not an unreasonable option, but it's not strictly better either way.
2: I agree that the power options, weapon options ect. Give the fighter a ton more options IMO. You can build a fighter that heals himself, or that always hits (even if he misses it does something!). Dex Fighters that are mobile and ignore armor with some attacks (hitting ref defense instead!).
3: With multi-classing the way it is, TWF is actually a pretty strong option, just grab a few of the ranger abilities and rock out!
-
Weapon and shield wasn't even much of an option, due to its weakness.
[Aelryinth]SAB IS BEST! IT IS BEST CAUSE I SAY SO![/Aelryinth]
Actually it is because his 'RAW' contains massive house rules boosting SAB, nerfing everything else, and treating all enemies as if they had an Intelligence or Wisdom of 3 regardless of their actual stats in that regard, ensuring that they actually stand there in front of the weakest character and be 'tanked'.
Yours has a better ring to it though.
-
Gotta say I'm not interested in 4E. Not after the announcement came about 2 days after I bought DotU. And the Fiendish Codexes.
Which are now irrelevant.
But your mileage my vary, and I'm certainly open to debate on the matter.
-
Gotta say I'm not interested in 4E. Not after the announcement came about 2 days after I bought DotU. And the Fiendish Codexes.
Which are now irrelevant.
But your mileage my vary, and I'm certainly open to debate on the matter.
DotU was always irrelevant.
You can play both 4E and 3.5. I probably will; they do different things.
-
It sucks that you didn't get those books until the quote-enqoute "last minute", but heres some things to consider:
1) Fluff is easily transferable between editions.
2) Nothing stops you from playing more 3/3.5 games.
3) Those books cited came out a good bit before two days before the announcement. DotU was 05/07, Codexes were 06/06 and 12/06. You have to acknowledge that even the most recent one: DotU, would have given over a year of playtime had it been bough when it was released.
4) Most of the more recent books like say Elder Evils are actually fairly edition proof. I'm actually planning to use a good bit of stuff from it for my 4E campaign when I get around to DMing. The stat blocks are obviously not straight out of the book usable, but the way they have the monsters set up is fairly similar thematically to some of the 4E concepts, and I don't imagine much trouble converting them.
If you feel that you've still got some play left in your 3/3.5 books, don't make 4e stop you from playing with them. Play 3/3.5 as long as you are still having fun. And if someone has all the 4E books and wants to DM a game, go in with an open mind and give it a whirl playing. If you like it, cool, you know have another game to get some fun out of it. If you don't, no harm no foul, you still have plenty of 3/3.5 stuff to last you for quite awhile.
-
4e is a different game then 3e, I think it is mechanically more clear, and better balanced. I think 3.5 is still a great game, I would pilfer some things from 4e. (Turn sequence, minor actions not eating immediate actions, and specifying reaction/interrupt, among others that would primarily be used for clarity).
-
Well, yeah, nothing's stopping me from using 3.X at all. In fact, I'm still DMing several games with it. :flirt
-
I appreciate that 4e is simpler, and I honestly think that's a boon, but I already have 3.5 memorized, you know? We just weren't the target market and I don't even feel like WotC was even trying to woo people like me, who are perfectly content with 3.5. Many aren't, due to balance issues, clunky-ness, and whatnot, but I lucked out and have a great group who self-regulates the most broken aspects (almost like an honor system). Our games are well balanced within the campaign and even our epic characters aren't out of control.