Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Enchanter_Tom 12-09-07, 01:02 AM	1. Write more errata for XPH. 2. Formally apologize for CPsi. 3. Fix CPsi. Everything in it. 4. Bring all the psionic classes--even those in the Mind's Eye articles--up to a reasonable level of power, completely rewriting trash like the metamind. 4. Remove useless classes (like the psychic rogue). 5. Get better artists to do psionics materials. And, finally... 6. Take 1-5, have it extensively playtested and critiqued by the CO Boards, hire a crack team of specialized monkey editors to fix even the slightest grammatical error in the material, repackage it into a new book, and sell it for $25.
archerpwr 12-09-07, 01:10 AM	Step 6 is a good step. It got us the current swiftblade. 4E sounds promissing though. Tempest doesn't lightly support things. I'm sure to try it if they keep OGL.
Enchanter_Tom 12-09-07, 08:57 AM	A lot of the things that they're trying in 4e sound promising, but I think that they'll do them wrong (as WotC is wont to do), and/or they'll purposely make 4e broken in some aspects so they can publish 4.5/5e.
InkBlot 12-09-07, 10:50 AM	Step 6 is also how they made the Rules Compendium. I can't believe that WotC will do everything wrong. They didn't do so bad with 3.5. Complete Psionics was the worst book from WotC that I've read, and I can find use for that too. I'm not saying "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade." I'm saying "when life hands you lemons, a bag of sugar, a pitcher of water, and five cups, make lemonade."
Enchanter_Tom 12-09-07, 03:15 PM	My fears about 4e are that it will mark the end of the traditional fighter. I know, I know, Tome of Battle isn't annie-may (kind of), but I still don't like it. There's no reason in particular; I just don't. I'm extremely hesitant about the mechanics that 4e promises to introduce, and there are so many things that could be done to perfect 3.5 without introducing an entirely new system. I like the way psionics does resource management, and I feel that it is the best thing that 3.5 has done. It just seems a shame to throw it all away and then, instead of merging it with the magic system, creating an entirely new system that has the sole purpose of generating revenue.
The_Mess 12-09-07, 04:17 PM	I'm not saying "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade." I'm saying "when life hands you lemons, a bag of sugar, a pitcher of water, and five cups, make lemonade." But what if I don't like lemonaide? Can't I make lemon pie instead? (I'd say lemon merang pie, but I don't know how to spell merang and I don't want to embarass myself. Thank goodness I avoided that pitfall!) I'm looking forward to almost everything they've announced about 4E. Here's hoping gnomes will be a psionic race when they're finally released!
Think0028 12-09-07, 05:14 PM	My fears about 4e are that it will mark the end of the traditional fighter. I know, I know, Tome of Battle isn't annie-may (kind of), but I still don't like it. There's no reason in particular; I just don't. I'm extremely hesitant about the mechanics that 4e promises to introduce, and there are so many things that could be done to perfect 3.5 without introducing an entirely new system. I like the way psionics does resource management, and I feel that it is the best thing that 3.5 has done. It just seems a shame to throw it all away and then, instead of merging it with the magic system, creating an entirely new system that has the sole purpose of generating revenue. Consider this. 3.5 is, at its heart, the 3 core rulebooks. As many books and errata Wizards releases, the 3 core rulebooks still stand, and will be played unchanged. The only way Wizards can stop that is if they release a new edition. And look at Vancian magic! Consider 4e as much about ripping out all of the bad stuff of 3.5 and starting anew as it is about making a new system. Like how rewriting a bad essay can only get you so far. Eventually, you just need to start from scratch and rewrite it, keeping the good stuff from the previous version in mind. They could perfect a lot of things about 3.5, but there are and will be things they cannot fix without a edition change. They chose to edition change now. And I'm as worried about the new mechanics as you are, but I believe that a good percentage of that worry is mystery: we don't know anything solid about it. That's plenty of cause for worry right there.
Salla 12-09-07, 05:31 PM	But what if I don't like lemonaide? Can't I make lemon pie instead? (I'd say lemon merang pie, but I don't know how to spell merang and I don't want to embarass myself. Thank goodness I avoided that pitfall!) I'm looking forward to almost everything they've announced about 4E. Here's hoping gnomes will be a psionic race when they're finally released! Meringue. :)
Slagger the Chuul 12-09-07, 07:27 PM	Meringue. :) It could also be the merengue, but that doesn't usually involve lemons or pie. :D
Nephlite 12-09-07, 11:33 PM	Step 6 is also how they made the Rules Compendium. I can't believe that WotC will do everything wrong. They didn't do so bad with 3.5. Complete Psionics was the worst book from WotC that I've read, and I can find use for that too. I'm not saying "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade." I'm saying "when life hands you lemons, a bag of sugar, a pitcher of water, and five cups, make lemonade." Dude, if life gives you lemons: you don't make lemonade. You should think. Think long and hard. If you can get an abstract concept like Life to give you real tangible lemons; you are close to finding out the secrets of the universe.
archerpwr 12-10-07, 12:40 AM	Dude, if life gives you lemons: you don't make lemonade. You should think. Think long and hard. If you can get an abstract concept like Life to give you real tangible lemons; you are close to finding out the secrets of the universe. That's good. I'm adding that to my funny pad.
Salla 12-10-07, 12:43 AM	That's good. I'm adding that to my funny pad. And here I was just thinking of quoting Ron White. "When life gives you lemons, find someone life gave vodka to and have a party."
archerpwr 12-10-07, 12:52 AM	And here I was just thinking of quoting Ron White. "When life gives you lemons, find someone life gave vodka to and have a party." 2/5 stars. You take a -2 penalty to coolness for the next 24 hours.
BlaineTog 12-10-07, 01:31 AM	1. Write more errata for XPH. 2. Formally apologize for CPsi. 3. Fix CPsi. Everything in it. 4. Bring all the psionic classes--even those in the Mind's Eye articles--up to a reasonable level of power, completely rewriting trash like the metamind. 4. Remove useless classes (like the psychic rogue). 5. Get better artists to do psionics materials. And, finally... 6. Take 1-5, have it extensively playtested and critiqued by the CO Boards, hire a crack team of specialized monkey editors to fix even the slightest grammatical error in the material, repackage it into a new book, and sell it for $25.How's Oz this time of year? 2/5 stars. You take a -2 penalty to coolness for the next 24 hours.Why?
Salla 12-10-07, 02:12 AM	Why? Doesn't matter, coolness is a nonability for me. :)
Enchanter_Tom 12-10-07, 04:13 AM	LemonAIDS.
hovnarr 12-10-07, 08:19 AM	Dude, if life gives you lemons: you don't make lemonade. You should think. Think long and hard. If you can get an abstract concept like Life to give you real tangible lemons; you are close to finding out the secrets of the universe. Whoa, this quote makes me wish I had one of those cool sigs with spoiler boxes (which I still haven't figured out how to do) for funny quotes and links and all. It's almost as funny as that old hungry jack quote. Anyway, back to topic. Basically, the original poster wants a commercial organization to ignore quantity (more products) in favor of quality (better support for existing products). Anyone got any examples from the Fortune 500 list of companies with similar business concepts? I mean, I'm all for it in theory, I just don't see it happening within the society structure we support today. I mean, imagine if Microsoft went out and said: "We're not releasing a new operating system this year. So there won't be 2 years of frustration before the worst bugs are sorted out, no need to buy new licenses and no compatibility issues. Instead, we've decided to fix everything that didn't work 100% correctly in our last OS and improve our on-line support and free downloadable features. Also, we're offering all this for almost no money at all." :rolleyes:
Think0028 12-10-07, 10:29 AM	Whoa, this quote makes me wish I had one of those cool sigs with spoiler boxes (which I still haven't figured out how to do) for funny quotes and links and all. It's almost as funny as that old hungry jack quote. Forum code lecture time! It works as thus: I'm invisible![/sblock ] remove the extra spaces to translate to: [sblock]I'm invisible!
archerpwr 12-10-07, 10:37 AM	Forum code lecture time! It works as thus: I'm invisible![/sblock ] remove the extra spaces to translate to: [sblock]I'm invisible! More like this: Don't look at me... removing the extra spaces: Don't look at me... Titles are good.
Fafnir 12-10-07, 10:43 AM	Dude, if life gives you lemons: you don't make lemonade. You should think. Think long and hard. If you can get an abstract concept like Life to give you real tangible lemons; you are close to finding out the secrets of the universe. The answer is 42.
archerpwr 12-10-07, 10:49 AM	The answer is 42. The answer is either 42, the holy grail, or has something to do with cats and sock puppets. One of the many reasons to keep a funny pad.
hovnarr 12-10-07, 11:17 AM	Thanks people. Lesson learned. Now I just have to overcome my laziness.
Kanachi 12-10-07, 11:27 AM	I'm going to go a bit off topic here so i'm sorry in advance: Basicly i just wanted to say that personally i suport 4th edition because, and lets all be honest here, 3.5 is a nice game, but its very far from perfect. There are alot of things that need fixing deep in the core mechanics of the game that simply cant be done with a splat book, new classes, additional feats or web based support. These systemic issues REQUIRE a new edition, this is how the game will move on and get better. Ultimatly all we want to do as players is enjoy a great game and have that feeling that when we walk away from the table we have spent the last 8 hours having as much fun as possible... not 4 hours of fun and 4 hours of talking about rules/mechanics/issues. Basicly what i'm trying to say is that if you want better psionics you should be supporting the new system, because if the core system gets better then surely that opens the door to any psionics additions being better also... Thats just my 2 coppers anyway. Sorry for going off topic once again.
Psionx 12-10-07, 12:31 PM	When life gives you lemons, you should find a way to repeat this process and make a fortune. Now, while I may not know what is entirely 4e yet, what I have heard I do not like. I would say that they are destroying D&D and making some stupid game for people with too many chromosomes. However, some people may like the new version and be reasonably intelligent, if not foolhardy and easily impressed. For them, I'll let them find out the hard way why this new system will suck. I had hopes for 4e, I had hoped for a system that would be like the improvement from diablo 1 to diablo 2, from warcraft to warcraft 3. Now however, it looks like it will be XP to Vista. What a wonderful way to advertise a piece of :D, by making it flashy yet still full of bull:D changes. Really :Ds up D&D IMO.
Lycanthromancer 12-10-07, 12:36 PM	When life gives you lemons, you should find a way to repeat this process and make a fortune. Now, while I may not know what is entirely 4e yet, what I have heard I do not like. I would say that they are destroying D&D and making some stupid game for people with too many chromosomes. However, some people may like the new version and be reasonably intelligent, if not foolhardy and easily impressed. For them, I'll let them find out the hard way why this new system will suck. I had hopes for 4e, I had hoped for a system that would be like the improvement from diablo 1 to diablo 2, from warcraft to warcraft 3. Now however, it looks like it will be XP to Vista. What a wonderful way to advertise a piece of :D, by making it flashy yet still full of bull:D changes. Really :Ds up D&D IMO.Lucy, you've got some 'splainin to do! No, seriously. What don't you like?
Psionx 12-10-07, 02:22 PM	Pretty much everything I've heard: reduction in save or die, who rolls the saves, removal of fluff, the power sources system in which fighters can cast and psions lose the power point system to become wizards, the artwork of the green dragon, monsters can't have feats, characters can't use monsters with level adjustment, no deep pits to fall off of, the speeding up of the game by minimizing the element of choice all for the sake of making it less "boring thinking", DDI charging a fee for what we used to get for free, collectable things for that DDI simulator, D&D truly becoming a hobby for rich kids only, the snobby elitist behavior of the "If you don't like it go away" 4e cannot be wrong group, the release of multiple "core" books so that you must buy them all just to get the classes you want, the inclusion of dragonborn (or whatever its called) as a core race, the way they are making an entirely new game system because somehow the old one just wasn't worth improving, just because fighters suck in some situations does not mean the suck in all situations (game balance isn't about equal power, it means everyone gets a chance to contribute and a good DM should be able to make sure that happens). There's more but I'll probably smack my forehead and think of it later.
The_Mess 12-10-07, 02:39 PM	Pretty much everything I've heard: {snip} characters can't use monsters with level adjustment, {snip} Quick correction: They're not saying players can't be monster characters if those monsters have a level adjust. They're saying that monsters will not have level adjusts. Basically, they're taking the next step from the "monster classes" introduced in Savage Species and used variously since then. By getting rid of the level adjusts, you'll be able to play a centaur psion in a campaign that starts at first level. Things that used to earn level adjusts will now be racial feats that the characters pick up later, allowing them to be equally powered to their base-race companions. In theory, at least. We'll see how it works in practice.
Psionx 12-10-07, 02:51 PM	Quick correction: They're not saying players can't be monster characters if those monsters have a level adjust. They're saying that monsters will not have level adjusts. Basically, they're taking the next step from the "monster classes" introduced in Savage Species and used variously since then. By getting rid of the level adjusts, you'll be able to play a centaur psion in a campaign that starts at first level. Things that used to earn level adjusts will now be racial feats that the characters pick up later, allowing them to be equally powered to their base-race companions. In theory, at least. We'll see how it works in practice. So... you have to use feats, to get what you would normally have through level adjustment (you also get the feats btw (from the bonus HD)) and they will also limit your choices on what monsters you can play (because only certain ones have been defined). Very nice, I'm liking 4e more and more.
The_Mess 12-10-07, 03:21 PM	I expect you're being sarcastic in that last sentence, but I spent all my skill points in Knowledge (Octopus), so my social skills are a bit lacking... Level adjusts and racial HD have always been problematic. They prevent you from playing some characters. I've never been able to play a centaur, despite a fondness for the archetype, because all the campaigns I've been in started at level 1 or 5 and they're +2 with 4 HD. And that's just the start of the problems. You can't play a Drow fighter at level 3 because their +2 LA means you'll have one hit die and be killed by the first 3rd level kobold you run into. You can almost get away with drow caster as long as you can somehow avoid area effects... And, if you start high enough that the LA HD penalty isn't going to kill you (my personal rule is your LA should be less than half your levels to make the character remotely viable, so no drow before level 5), the LA becomes a chain around your neck forever making you less powerful than you companions, even as the extra power that gave your race a LA to begin with becomes less and less relevant as the game advances. Sure, tieflings having unbalanced ability scores, Darkness, and some energy resistance is worth LA +1 below level 5, but by level 10, it's no longer worth it. Anything more than an LA of +1 is going to approach unplayable all the more rapidly at higher levels as you've traded high level abilities for what are now really small benefits. (LA buy-off rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/reducingLevelAdjustments.htm) from Unearthed Arcana help a little with some of these problems.) How it will be implimented isn't quite clear yet, but the idea is that all races will begin at the same level of strength and develop in RACIAL power as the character progresses. There will probably be something equivalent to racial feat slots in addition to racial feats. Early word was they were going to do full on 20-levels of features per race (a la "bloodline" traits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm) from Unearthed Arcana, but this seems to have been calmed down a bit. And it won't limit what monsters you can play anymore than you are currently limited to only the ones that they give you "X as Characters" sections for. But, then, I played a gelatinous cube once.
Psionx 12-10-07, 03:34 PM	You know, as long as it allows play of a white dragon, that's all I'd need. Still, only the ones they say you can play which means that without the right books you won't be able to do it.
TheKeyofE 12-11-07, 04:06 AM	the artwork of the green dragon, I definitely agree with this one, but in my opinion most of your other points are actually good things, not bad. But then, like I always say, everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion.
Omnirahk, half-Rahkshi 12-11-07, 10:27 AM	You know, as long as it allows play of a white dragon, that's all I'd need. Still, only the ones they say you can play which means that without the right books you won't be able to do it. No more than you currently won't be able to play something without a given LA. It's just different. Me, I'm going to wait for 4e to judge it. It's not like I've been around long enough to grow strong attachments to one edition. Heck, I bought half my collection after 4e was announced. Thank you Amazon, for the $2 MoI.
Hochiu 12-11-07, 11:42 AM	I'm going to go a bit off topic here so i'm sorry in advance: Basicly i just wanted to say that personally i suport 4th edition because, and lets all be honest here, 3.5 is a nice game, but its very far from perfect. There are alot of things that need fixing deep in the core mechanics of the game that simply cant be done with a splat book, new classes, additional feats or web based support. These systemic issues REQUIRE a new edition, this is how the game will move on and get better. Ultimatly all we want to do as players is enjoy a great game and have that feeling that when we walk away from the table we have spent the last 8 hours having as much fun as possible... not 4 hours of fun and 4 hours of talking about rules/mechanics/issues. Basicly what i'm trying to say is that if you want better psionics you should be supporting the new system, because if the core system gets better then surely that opens the door to any psionics additions being better also... Thats just my 2 coppers anyway. Sorry for going off topic once again. Do you honestly think that what you're saying will actually come true? People said the SAME thing about the 2e/3e switch, that 3e was going to be this great improvement over 2e and guess what? We got a revision in 3 years. You're never going to HAVE perfect. Its a hopeless, foolish concept if you think 4e is going to BE perfect. When it comes out, I'm going to look at it and try to decide how the relationship between it and 3e has: for instance, 2e and 3e are different enough that I consider them different game systems. But, in all honesty, I'm going to trim off the lard of the 3.5 system that I don't like Fixing 4 hours of fun/4 hours of mechanic problems solved in two (the third is optional) easy steps: 1. Have a DM know what he's doing. 2. Have all the players know the rules of the mechanics in the books you're using in the game. 3. (Optional) Agree NOT to have an issue with the rules interpretation until AFTER the game session, unless its utterly important to the survival of the party or to prevent the DMs or PCs from exploiting rules in a negative way. It works for my games, we don't have even 5 minute long arguments about mechanic issues. Human ignorance or a lack of knowledge isn't an excuse to blame the system.
Omnirahk, half-Rahkshi 12-11-07, 01:00 PM	Do you honestly think that what you're saying will actually come true? People said the SAME thing about the 2e/3e switch, that 3e was going to be this great improvement over 2e and guess what? We got a revision in 3 years. You're never going to HAVE perfect. Its a hopeless, foolish concept if you think 4e is going to BE perfect. It didn't sound to me like Kanachi was expecting perfect. Just better. Like most people* feel about the 2e to 3e transition. *At least according to what I've heard. I could be wrong.
Bacris 12-11-07, 01:04 PM	It works for my games, we don't have even 5 minute long arguments about mechanic issues. Human ignorance or a lack of knowledge isn't an excuse to blame the system. It is when there are as many complex mechanics as 3.5 has. Each one in and of itself isn't an issue, it's the compilation of all of them together that leads to "rules bloat" and an unwieldy system. Between the special combat actions, Turn Undead, and those style of rules, you have gameplay slowdown. And having played in a few different gaming groups, not everyone is fine with memorizing all the rules or expecting a single person to do it all. Minimizing rules complexity is a good thing.
CrimsonDeath 12-11-07, 01:38 PM	Fixing 4 hours of fun/4 hours of mechanic problems solved in two (the third is optional) easy steps: 1. Have a DM know what he's doing. 2. Have all the players know the rules of the mechanics in the books you're using in the game. 3. (Optional) Agree NOT to have an issue with the rules interpretation until AFTER the game session, unless its utterly important to the survival of the party or to prevent the DMs or PCs from exploiting rules in a negative way. I agree, with the caveat that you don't necessarily need to know the rules quite so well if you have the courtesy to go ahead and start investigating the rule as soon as you have the idea that you might want to try it, so that there's a good chance you'll have it worked out by the time your turn comes around.
archerpwr 12-11-07, 01:59 PM	Heck, I bought half my collection after 4e was announced. Thank you Amazon, for the $2 MoI. Wow. That's a steal. MoI has some great fluff, good quality writing, and mechanics that can be put in almost any game. Steal.
InkBlot 12-11-07, 02:59 PM	Yeah. Amazon. Seriously. I just bought Tome Of Magic for $6.
archerpwr 12-11-07, 03:10 PM	Yeah. Amazon. Seriously. I just bought Tome Of Magic for $6. *goes off to browse amazon*
Fafnir 12-11-07, 03:42 PM	*goes off to browse amazon* *follows archerpwr* :D
Lycanthromancer 12-11-07, 03:50 PM	Oooh. I'll be after you guys sometime Friday. I'll actually have MONEY then!
Omnirahk, half-Rahkshi 12-11-07, 04:34 PM	*follows archerpwr* :D Follows them all. Last time I checked, ToM cost a bit more than that. Mind you, MoI was a bit more expensive after shipping and handling. Like almost four times as much.
Vadin 12-11-07, 05:26 PM	reduction in save or die Why do you hate so much the near elimination of an unfair and game-breaking rule? who rolls the saves Is this really an issue? There's no way for them to sneak up behind you and take your babies because the DM or the player rolled a save (in my group we switch it up as necessary depending on the situation-wasn't even aware that there were rules about it). removal of fluff Removal of things that restrict game material to one specific setting and limit DM's creativity? Fluff is nice and all, but all too often it got in the way. For example: maybe I don't want githyanki and githzerai to be some ancient feuding race. Maybe I just want them to be subspecies. Unfortunately, almost all available material for those two races revolves around this one piece of fluff. Darn. the power sources system in which fighters can cast and psions lose the power point system to become wizards You dislike classes being on near-equal footing in terms of combat ability? Tell me, sir, what are your feelings on Tome of Battle? And the psion thing was just a quick character conversion done by one of the developers in name only. He was still playing a wizard, just a thematically different one. Also, in no way does this mean that "psions lose the power point system to become wizards", it just means that they haven't made 4th Edition psionics (yet-point based casting is pretty nice). the artwork of the green dragon Would you honestly discount an entirely new system because of one bad piece of artwork? Is an author's entire body of work bad because of one foul book? Are all of the Star Wars movies bad because of Episode 3 (which I actually rather enjoyed)? monsters can't have feats Because they have combat options already written into them. characters can't use monsters with level adjustment Says who? no deep pits to fall off of See the save or die point at the top. the speeding up of the game by minimizing the element of choice all for the sake of making it less "boring thinking" I have yet to see anything about limiting choice. Indeed, I've seen quite a lot that indicates the exact opposite. DDI charging a fee for what we used to get for free, collectable things for that DDI simulator No, they aren't. There is only (ONLY) a fee for the online tabletop, which is not (I repeat, NOT) necessary to play the game at home in any way, shape, or form. D&D truly becoming a hobby for rich kids only How so? the snobby elitist behavior of the "If you don't like it go away" 4e cannot be wrong group I'm not saying that 4e will be infallible, but you should definitely wait until more (read: any) concrete and final rules are posted before declaring the entire system corrupt and unbearable. the release of multiple "core" books so that you must buy them all just to get the classes you want Please explain, then, the DMG, PHB, and MM. the inclusion of dragonborn (or whatever its called) as a core race You dislike the system because it plans to give players a new option? the way they are making an entirely new game system because somehow the old one just wasn't worth improving Not because its "not worth improving", but because there are deep-seated and fundamental flaws in the system that can't be fixed with a few more classes and another splatbook or two. just because fighters suck in some situations does not mean the suck in all situations Not in all situations, no, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't use a boost whenever he's on the same stage as a full-caster. (game balance isn't about equal power, it means everyone gets a chance to contribute and a good DM should be able to make sure that happens) Leaving game balance solely in the hands of the DM (who may or may not be skilled-would you really want to shut out new players who've never rolled a d20 before?) is a rather bad idea. Sure, some DMs are able to do this, but if he isn't or the players are rather insistent on all being casters and the like, what then? Where now is the game balance for those DMs without an encyclopedic knowledge of all things Dungeons And Dragons?
awaken_D_M_golem 12-11-07, 06:34 PM	the original poster wants a commercial organization to ignore quantity (more products) in favor of quality (better support for existing products). Anyone got any examples from the Fortune 500 list of companies with similar business concepts? I'll bite. Toyota vs. General Motors My family subscribed to Consumer Reports back in the 70's, and has continuted since. Toyota took the quality approach. GM took the quantity approach. As of 1980, GM had 50% of the US auto market, and now it has 22%. Toyota just passed GM this last year, on the worldwide scale, and passed Ford for #2 in America. Any individual consumer of cars can have a bad result with Toyota or a good result with GM, but ... in aggregate, Toyota has won, is winning, and will continue to win. Consumer Reports has Toyota's new big honking tru-uck { ... pronounce it like Ron White ;) ... } being only average in it's reliability. And they don't recommend it. They finally got too big for their 1st year britches. They'll fix it soon enough. Usually I like D&D's quality, but it's had a few ... ... stinkers ...
Deinos 12-11-07, 06:59 PM	Instead of crying about fourth edition and supposedly underpowered psionics, you should stop crying and stop acting like Wizards owes you. God, I'm so tired of whiney psionics fanboys who are upset that psions don't outclass every other class ever in everything. I've been playing an erudite for like... 11 levels now, and so far I've not noticed a weakness. Its really nice that a psion's FIRST LEVEL POWERS still are excellent at high levels. I'm kinda curious by what you mean by "traditional fighter," btw. The 3rd edition fighter was not remotely a traditional fighter. Tome and Battle's warblade is closer, since they can hold their own against equal CR monsters. Oh, and interestingly, this campaign has a drow PC AND a drow cohort, plus a centaur knight. We've already had one encounter in which the only chars able to function AT ALL were the drow due to SR, and the centaur knight's been destroying everything with a lance very nicely.
Tinari 12-11-07, 09:13 PM	Instead of crying about fourth edition and supposedly underpowered psionics, you should stop crying and stop acting like Wizards owes you. God, I'm so tired of whiney psionics fanboys who are upset that psions don't outclass every other class ever in everything. I do apologize, but I don't think I have ever seen a good example of what you're talking about. Most of what I've ever read is people complaining Psionics is TOO powerful, and then "fanboys" defending it by saying "No, it's not, and here's an example why/link to examples why." I've been playing an erudite for like... 11 levels now, and so far I've not noticed a weakness. Its really nice that a psion's FIRST LEVEL POWERS still are excellent at high levels. It is nice that first level powers are still excellent at high levels. Too bad you're not paying first level (1 power point) price to make them that way. You're probably paying 6th level power (11 power points) price.
ArcTan 12-11-07, 09:35 PM	I'm just going to pick a few egregiously wrong ones here: the power sources system in which fighters can cast and psions lose the power point system to become wizards The 4e Psion does not yet exist. Bruce Cordell is currently playing a Wizard character that he *calls* a Psion in the ongoing internal R&D campaign they all play to test various mechanics. Him calling it a Psion is probably just for a sense of continuity with the 3.5 campaign they were playing, and doesn't reflect anything mechanics-wise (since, again, the Psion has explicitly not been written). no deep pits to fall off of They said that stuff like deep pits would be factored into the challenge rating of the encounter -- that's not the same as banning deep pits, it's just common sense (that if I put the PCs in an environment where they're likely to fall into pits, I should give them more XP for beating the encounter). DDI charging a fee for what we used to get for free You used to get .PDFs of Dragon and Dungeon for free? WotC used to have a virtual gaming table you could use for free? the way they are making an entirely new game system because somehow the old one just wasn't worth improving I see the connection between 4e and 3.5 pretty strongly. Both are clearly still d20 games. In what way is 4e *more* new than 3e was? just because fighters suck in some situations does not mean the suck in all situations (game balance isn't about equal power, it means everyone gets a chance to contribute and a good DM should be able to make sure that happens) Oh, come on. That's like saying it's okay to have a level 1 Commoner in your level 20 party because a "good DM" can always find a way to make sure he contributes. "Oh my! A magical doorway through which only level 1 characters can pass!"
ArcTan 12-11-07, 09:38 PM	Fixing 4 hours of fun/4 hours of mechanic problems solved in two (the third is optional) easy steps: 1. Have a DM know what he's doing. Depending on what you mean by this, this involves the investment of weeks or months of time on the part of the DM before he becomes a "good DM". 2. Have all the players know the rules of the mechanics in the books you're using in the game. With a really complex game system, this involves a similar combined weeks or months of effort on the part of the players before they become D&D rules-competent (it really is hard, people -- those of us who've gotten there don't appreciate how long it takes some people). 3. (Optional) Agree NOT to have an issue with the rules interpretation until AFTER the game session, unless its utterly important to the survival of the party or to prevent the DMs or PCs from exploiting rules in a negative way. Yes, one can evade the problem with on-the-fly patches, but they tend to create inconsistent situations and bring unfairness into the game (which is why we have a ruleset in the first place). It works for my games, we don't have even 5 minute long arguments about mechanic issues. Human ignorance or a lack of knowledge isn't an excuse to blame the system. Sure it is. A system that requires an *unreasonable* degree of knowledge in order to relax and have a good time is not a good system. "This damn thing is too hard to use!" is *always* a valid complaint that doesn't deserve to be smacked down by an elitist "Well *I* can do it" argument, especially when we're talking about an *entertainment product*.
ArcTan 12-11-07, 09:41 PM	Anyway, back to topic. Basically, the original poster wants a commercial organization to ignore quantity (more products) in favor of quality (better support for existing products). Anyone got any examples from the Fortune 500 list of companies with similar business concepts? I mean, I'm all for it in theory, I just don't see it happening within the society structure we support today. What do you mean by "support"? I'm still a bit annoyed at people going on and on about "supporting" D&D 3.5 when "supporting" a set of paper books that already exists is basically a meaningless concept (as opposed to, say, "supporting" software in the sense of having a technical support line or something). If you mean releasing errata and such, the problem is that the problems with 3.5 are too far-ranging to fix simply by releasing errata. If they did, they basically *would* be creating 4e, only releasing it for free instead of charging money for it.
Deinos 12-12-07, 02:01 AM	I do apologize, but I don't think I have ever seen a good example of what you're talking about. Most of what I've ever read is people complaining Psionics is TOO powerful, and then "fanboys" defending it by saying "No, it's not, and here's an example why/link to examples why." Oh, I was referring to the OP, who seemed like he was saying BAWWW psionics are too weak! It is nice that first level powers are still excellent at high levels. Too bad you're not paying first level (1 power point) price to make them that way. You're probably paying 6th level power (11 power points) price. True enough.
Hochiu 12-12-07, 09:46 AM	Sure it is. A system that requires an *unreasonable* degree of knowledge in order to relax and have a good time is not a good system. "This damn thing is too hard to use!" is *always* a valid complaint that doesn't deserve to be smacked down by an elitist "Well *I* can do it" argument, especially when we're talking about an *entertainment product*. What's so unreasonable about knowing the rules? If you have a rule you're not familiar about, like turning, you read up on it before hand, maybe write a simplified little "how to" chart, if you need to. How is that being elitist? I expect players who have played regularly for more than a year to know the rules*. That is not too much to ask. I understand that learning the rules is difficult, and that it takes a while for this to happen with new players, but that's ANY kind of game you play. Be it Monopoly, Risk, D&D, M:tG, or Football. I suppose you grasped every aspect of Magic the Gathering on your first try, too? Just because D&D is entertainment it doesn't need to fall under this erroneous, "Oh god! The rules need to be stupid simple or else WE'RE NOT DOING IT FOR FUN!" concept. I'm sick of this "I can't grasp the rules, so I need to force the majority to shift and accomodate my needs" crap that goes on in EVERY aspect of life I'm seeing today. You either learn the rules or you don't get picked to play. It's that simple, and is the same for ANY other game out there. D&D is no different. Does d20/3.5 need some trimming? Yes. I agree. It's gotten really clunky and unwieldy in some areas. Is d20/3.5 imperfect? Yes. No human creation is infallible. Turning, as worded in the PhB, for example, is annoying as hell to read and figure out. But guess what? I did. And I'm no genius. Is 4th edition going to solve anything? Nope. Same crap, different day, new shiny package. Once the sparkle of a freshly opened edition fades, people will be complaining about the SAME things, and have JUST as many problems with 4e as they did in 3.5 with people having problems with the rules. The more things change, the more they will stay the same. Both games will have their merits, just like 2e and 3e had their pros. But they will have their cons, too. You cannot tell me that in playing 2e you didn't have nearly as many rules-related questions? And contrary to the always misperceived tone of this post, I'm not intending to be snippy. *: This applies to CORE only. Any additional material that is included is allowed purely on the DM's authority. In this instance, the DM should know the rules in question when the players who may not have the supplemental material to become familiar with. This falls in with my general philosophy that the DM has the position of a participant-referee.
Bacris 12-12-07, 10:03 AM	The difference between 3.5 and 2E is that 2E didn't have mechanical rules for a lot of situations - it relied on DM adjudication. 3.5 has rules for pretty much everything - it's a matter of knowing what they are. The only problem there is that some of the rules are unnecessarily complex, turning in particular. Refer to a chart? Are you kidding me? What happened to "d20 + modifier" when it comes to turn undead? And, having played in some rather large groups (I think my biggest group was around 10 people), combat came to a crawl, where each round could take 10 minutes or more to get through everything, especially when you start factoring in full attacks, power attack, buffs, and the like. Streamlining these things are what I look forward to, because while I enjoy combat, I also like the exploration / social encounters, as well. If you're going to streamline, might as well streamline everything, and not do it halfway. Hence 4E.
Hochiu 12-12-07, 10:21 AM	And, having played in some rather large groups (I think my biggest group was around 10 people), combat came to a crawl, where each round could take 10 minutes or more to get through everything, especially when you start factoring in full attacks, power attack, buffs, and the like. Streamlining these things are what I look forward to, because while I enjoy combat, I also like the exploration / social encounters, as well. True. My largest game has been eight players + DM NPCs, combat would take us hours. However, the D&D game system was designed for 4 players. It's marketed as a 3-5 player game. Eight or ten is an unreasonable amount of usage for the system to be expected to handle. Too many people, one server, to so speak. It is another reason, in particular, one should know the rules they will implement - especially in combat. I assert that you'll have the same bogged-down nature in 4e with a party of eight to ten people, forcing combat to crawl to a halt.
Bacris 12-12-07, 10:46 AM	Except combat is still slow with 4 players (that's my current group). While it's not unbearably slow, anytime something like Grappling, Bull-Rushing, Tripping, Turning, etc get introduced, it becomes "how does that work again?" You can't memorize Turn Undead, because you have to refer to a chart. Minimizing those sorts of situations is a good thing, IMO.
Nephlite 12-12-07, 12:13 PM	The difference between 3.5 and 2E is that 2E didn't have mechanical rules for a lot of situations - it relied on DM adjudication. 3.5 has rules for pretty much everything - it's a matter of knowing what they are. The only problem there is that some of the rules are unnecessarily complex, turning in particular. Refer to a chart? Are you kidding me? What happened to "d20 + modifier" when it comes to turn undead? And, having played in some rather large groups (I think my biggest group was around 10 people), combat came to a crawl, where each round could take 10 minutes or more to get through everything, especially when you start factoring in full attacks, power attack, buffs, and the like. Streamlining these things are what I look forward to, because while I enjoy combat, I also like the exploration / social encounters, as well. If you're going to streamline, might as well streamline everything, and not do it halfway. Hence 4E. Actually, 2 E did have a lot of rules for most things just like 3.5. I noticed it because I read the 2E players handbook which have a lot of rules. I've never read the DMG, but I be surprised that the PHB had more rules than the DMG.
Hochiu 12-12-07, 12:53 PM	Except combat is still slow with 4 players (that's my current group). While it's not unbearably slow, anytime something like Grappling, Bull-Rushing, Tripping, Turning, etc get introduced, it becomes "how does that work again?" You can't memorize Turn Undead, because you have to refer to a chart. Turning Undead: It's very easy to write the turning chart on your character sheet, or stapling it to your character sheet for easy reference. The chart is not that different than the ability modifier chart, and follows the same basic pattern. The only thing that slows down combat in my group is the other people DMing not knowing how to properly (or reasonably) challenge level 10+ characters - they always throw an insane number of low level monsters at us erroneously thinking that its a suitable challenge - either that or they just go for a TPK and we manage to survive. Combat thus takes a long time because of the number of bodies on the board, not with any lack of mechanical knowledge.
Ecalsneerg 12-12-07, 03:08 PM	psions lose the power point system to become wizards That playtest report involved an existng paty being converted so they can carry on their story and still playtest. There are no Psions in the initial elease, so the Psion had to convert to a Wizard.
CrimsonDeath 12-12-07, 03:31 PM	The more often I see that complaint, the more I think that particular playtester should've just sucked it up and played a wizard...
Ecalsneerg 12-12-07, 03:50 PM	The more often I see that complaint, the more I think that particular playtester should've just sucked it up and played a wizard... Well, he was. Only using different fluff.
CrimsonDeath 12-12-07, 04:20 PM	Well, he was. Only using different fluff. And the decision to change the fluff has confused a lot of people into thinking that 4e will be the death of psionics, which seems to be having a negative impact on their marketing.
awaken_D_M_golem 12-12-07, 05:21 PM	I've been playing an erudite for like... 11 levels now, and so far I've not noticed a weakness. (1) ... Have you noticed you have 1/4th the # of spells (powers) available per day ? (2) ... Have you noticed you have 1/10th the # of spells (powers) to choose and/or learn per level ? (3) ... optional with Spell to Power, problem (2) disappears, but two levels later, problem (1) still in effect. Have fun.
BlaineTog 12-12-07, 05:33 PM	Turning Undead: It's very easy to write the turning chart on your character sheet, or stapling it to your character sheet for easy reference. The chart is not that different than the ability modifier chart, and follows the same basic pattern.Ok, you're not going to sit there and tell me that Turn Undead isn't more complicated than it should be.
Salla 12-12-07, 06:11 PM	Ok, you're not going to sit there and tell me that Turn Undead isn't more complicated than it should be. I know I won't. That's why I use the Complete Divine version. :)
Salla 12-12-07, 06:14 PM	they always throw an insane number of low level monsters at us erroneously thinking that its a suitable challenge - Sweet Inari, I hate that... That happened to me a couple of weeks ago ... 25 2nd level Orc fighters against 3 5th level characters on a twinky stat allocation (I believe we each had at least 2 18s). Add to the fact that the DM was completely nondescriptive (the monster's rounds, very literally, amounted to him rolling d20s behind his screen, saying 'They all whiff', then calling on a PC made it a snorefest).
Tinari 12-12-07, 06:27 PM	Sweet Inari, I hate that... Aww, my name was used as a term of endearment! That was really sweet of you, Salla, I didn't know that yo... u.. Inari... oh... I... I see. I'm sorry... I... *sniff* I thought... *runs off crying.* Also, a lot of low level characters who swarm up and use aid another properly CAN actually do a little damage, but the real fun comes in when you have an army of little guys supplied with cheap but effective magical devices they are trained in the use of. A little mass of Kobold Magictypes flinging scores of magic missiles while running away on worgish mounts. Even better if they're supplied with wands of magic missiles to harass. Even MORE fun if the 20-30 of them all take off in different ways, forcing PCs to have to split up after them or go after different groups one at a time. Ahh....
CrimsonDeath 12-12-07, 07:27 PM	I know I won't. That's why I use the Complete Divine version. :) You actually waste actions on that?
Hochiu 12-12-07, 08:19 PM	Ok, you're not going to sit there and tell me that Turn Undead isn't more complicated than it should be. I've already stated that parts of 3.5e need a trim. Turning could be neatened fixed. My post was in regards to the chart one has to consult to figure out who you can turn - its simple to just write it on part of your character sheet, or make a second sheet for it, thus preventing a muck up for having to check it. :P
Khadmus 12-12-07, 08:33 PM	I would like to take the moment that I dislike the player of the psion playtester. 1) The bad PR he created 2) If I believe correctly, this fellow has a minimal grasp of 3.5 rules and is not the man I want anywhere near fourth edition. Carry on.
InkBlot 12-13-07, 01:39 AM	It was Bruce Cordell, in Castle Smoulderthorn, with "a wizard with the serial numbers filed off." http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070816a Bruce Cordell is the man who wrote the Expanded Psionics Handbook, by the way.
CrimsonDeath 12-13-07, 02:55 AM	It was Bruce Cordell, in Castle Smoulderthorn, with "a wizard with the serial numbers filed off." http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070816a Bruce Cordell is the man who wrote the Expanded Psionics Handbook, by the way. And I totally understand why he wanted to call his Wizard a "psion". I just don't think he should've mentioned it to us.
BlaineTog 12-13-07, 06:47 PM	And I totally understand why he wanted to call his Wizard a "psion". I just don't think he should've mentioned it to us.I don't think there could be a more inconsequential criticism than that.
CrimsonDeath 12-13-07, 06:50 PM	I don't think there could be a more inconsequential criticism than that. Really? After all the people who have complained about how Psionics won't exist in 4e, or that 4e Psions will just be "wizards with the serial numbers filed off" (the exact phrase Bruce used to refer to his "psion")?
BlaineTog 12-13-07, 07:16 PM	Really? After all the people who have complained about how Psionics won't exist in 4e, or that 4e Psions will just be "wizards with the serial numbers filed off" (the exact phrase Bruce used to refer to his "psion")?He was extremely clear about what he was doing, and that it didn't have anything to do with how psionics will work in 4e. He can hardly be blamed when people straight up don't read most of what he said, particularly given that what he said really wasn't very much to read to begin with. So in other words, ya, rly.
Think0028 12-13-07, 10:44 PM	In my case, I’ve thrown together a “psion.” It’s because prior to the shift to the new playtest rules, I was playing a psion elan named Infandous. You wonder, why the scare quotes? Well, just between you and me, updated-Infandous-the-psion is actually a wizard with the serial numbers filed off. That's all he says about it. While I'm not wholly blaming the man, he could've added a line of explanation along the lines of "we haven't worked out an official psionics system yet." Thankfully, it was handled as well as it could have been afterwards, and I don't think anyone still believes that there won't be psionics in 4e.
DarkTouch 12-14-07, 01:15 PM	It made sense to me. I had an OD&D "psionicist" whose class was cleric. Honestly, the mechanical aspects of fluff are probably closer. You don't have to carry around a spell book for instance.
CrimsonDeath 12-14-07, 02:08 PM	It made sense to me. I had an OD&D "psionicist" whose class was cleric. And I'm guessing he was a cleric because there weren't any actual psionic classes.
DarkTouch 12-14-07, 02:13 PM	The would be correct. Unless you count the OD&D Mystic.. but that was more 'Monk' thank I wanted to be.
CrimsonDeath 12-14-07, 08:28 PM	Which is the exact thing people reading that particular article were afraid of. You were plaing a Cleric and calling him a Psionicist, because there were no actual psionic classes. Bruce was playing a Wizard and calling him a Psion, because there were no actual psionic classes.
DarkTouch 12-14-07, 10:32 PM	Untrue. People aren't afraid of playing a wizard because there isn't a psionicist class. They're afraid that there will be a sidebar on the Wizard class that says: AKA Psion, Psionicist, Magic-User, Wizard, Thaumaturge, etc. All of which strikes me as silly given the amount of importance being placed on 'Power Sources'.
CrimsonDeath 12-14-07, 10:37 PM	Untrue. People aren't afraid of playing a wizard because there isn't a psionicist class. They're afraid that there will be a sidebar on the Wizard class that says: AKA Psion, Psionicist, Magic-User, Wizard, Thaumaturge, etc. All of which strikes me as silly given the amount of importance being placed on 'Power Sources'. That's probably closer to what I meant than what I actually said was. And I agree that it's a pretty silly conclusion to draw.