Hopefully this new forum will be better then C&C.
I doubt they smashed all those threads out of existence. I'm not sure where to look for them though.
All of those threads are in the legacy D&D forum at the bottom. That's where the C&C is now and its closed.
I doubt they smashed all those threads out of existence. I'm not sure where to look for them though.
At the bottom of the forums page you'll see "Legacy D&D Forums (closed)" they are there.
I guess the C&C was getting so bad they had to lock the whole forum :P
And how.
I guess the C&C was getting so bad they had to lock the whole forum :P
"I say we take off, and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I guess the C&C was getting so bad they had to lock the whole forum :P
Really, it was no worse than before
I was just thinking this morning (it's morning here) that they would soon replace "C&C" with a general forum, since they'd just moved the Rules and Magic forums to the legacy section. Now it's happened, sooner than I thought.
I guess this is our new hangout, then...
I guess this is the new place to go for that?
[sarcasm]You just don't understand. The newest and greatest DnD edition ever, 4E, is going to be so good and be so universally accepted, that no one could possibly criticise it. Thus the old forum was unneeded.
[/sarcasm]
-Polaris
[sarcasm]You just don't understand. The newest and greatest DnD edition ever, 4E, is going to be so good and be so universally accepted, that no one could possibly criticise it. Thus the old forum was unneeded.
[/sarcasm]
-Polaris
Hi, Polaris. Nice to see you. Weather good where you are?
wonder why they decided to nuke the old forums
*hopes to get this in before the conspiracy theories start*
The time for concerns and criticisms being the primary discussion of 4e is over, and has been for a while - concerns aren't going to be addressed (game's at the printers) and criticisms - at least in the form most were expressed - likely never were. Now, the game's about to come out, and people are already playing Keep on the Shadowfell in their living rooms and at game stores.
It's time to discuss the game, rather than our guesses about the game.
I mean, there's no forum for airing complaints (in the guise of criticism)...so it's all sunshine and butterflies from here on in...right?
I guess this is the new place to go for that?
I was just about to make a thread about this.
So...are we done with the complaining about 4e in the forum, then?
I mean, there's no forum for airing complaints (in the guise of criticism)...so it's all sunshine and butterflies from here on in...right?
We can only hope.
The complaints will come, though, and we'll deal with them the way we always have. Only this time, we won't have the "This is WHAT THIS FORUM IS FOR!" defense tacked onto the ends of a bunch of them.
Should be fun times, although I doubt I'll bother posting during them as no one will be listening, just ranting.
So, it may be, critiques are to be in their relevant locations?
I would have prefered, like, a whole day offline for complete reworking, but well... WOTC work quicker than Montreal's blue collars, so...
*points own post*
I guess this is the new place to go for that?
Let's not.
Let's not.
I mostly just felt lonely here with no threads so I thought it needed one. I personally have enjoyed debating in the C&C forums, but I am glad to see them go.
to that effect, I may be starting a tread dealing with that.
Ding dong, the witch is dead?
I guess this is our new hangout, then...
Actually I'd recommend that if you have a complaint about something you post it in the appropriate subforum if there is one. For example, a complaint related to races, classes, powers, magic, skills, or feats should probably be posted in the new Character Building forum. Complaints about monsters would go in the Monsters forum. And so on. That way if you have a complaint it is more likely to be heard and discussed by people interested in those subtopics.
Just my suggestion, but posting complaints to this general discussion that could instead go elsewhere forum might increase the chance your post gets lost in the shuffle.
Actually I'd recommend that if you have a complaint about something you post it in the appropriate subforum if there is one. For example, a complaint related to races, classes, powers, magic, skills, or feats should probably be posted in the new Character Building forum. Complaints about monsters would go in the Monsters forum. And so on. That way if you have a complaint it is more likely to be heard and discussed by people interested in those subtopics.
Just my suggestion, but posting complaints to this general discussion that could instead go elsewhere forum might increase the chance your post gets lost in the shuffle.
I think what Trailfoot was trying to say was that a lot of us pro-4E didn't really have anywhere to go for general discussion and thus went to the C&C as it had a fast paced environment. Now that we have an actual General Forum this is our main home.
At least that's how I feel. I might be projecting.
I think what Trailfoot was trying to say was that a lot of us pro-4E didn't really have anywhere to go for general discussion and thus went to the C&C as it had a fast paced environment. Now that we have an actual General Forum this is our main home.
At least that's how I feel. I might be projecting.
Thanks. Took the words right out of my mouth.
[really bad chemistry joke] They probably should have done it a bit slower, though. Suddenly dumping enough base to neutralize that concentrated of vitriol isn't exactly the safest thing. [/really bad chemistry joke]
I shall greatly miss the C&C boards, but hopefully with them gone some of the vitriol will die down a bit.
[really bad chemistry joke] They probably should have done it a bit slower, though. Suddenly dumping enough base to neutralize that concentrated of vitriol isn't exactly the safest thing. [/really bad chemistry joke]
I'm in a class in college right now about alchemy and it's connections to chemistry, so that was the best joke ever. :D
I'm in a class in college right now about alchemy and it's connections to chemistry, so that was the best joke ever. :D
I would have loved such a class, but unfortunately never saw one offered.
I think what Trailfoot was trying to say was that a lot of us pro-4E didn't really have anywhere to go for general discussion and thus went to the C&C as it had a fast paced environment. Now that we have an actual General Forum this is our main home.
At least that's how I feel. I might be projecting.
Time to set up camp!
Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
I... didn't think I had seen any of these in this thread. Was this a pre-emptive strike? If so, that was probably a really good idea.
Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Well it does the soul good to know that the first thread on the general forums (mine no less) required this kind of warning. ;)
Although seriously, I am hoping we can all get along and talk about things constructively.
I... didn't think I had seen any of these in this thread. Was this a pre-emptive strike? If so, that was probably a really good idea.
I was actually wondering that myself, but I decided to ignore it. :D
All of those threads are in the legacy D&D forum at the bottom. That's where the C&C is now and its closed.
Yep, and looks like we came through without a scratch, well, at least I did. I can hope a couple of posters take this as a cue to leave, but it probably won't happen (hint - the entire "$ed" crowd). Anyway, as it is, this 4ed Avenger is good to go.
In before "Wizards hates us and won't let us complain anymore, the fascists!"
Hehehehehehehehehe...I'm waiting for that, too.
So if 4th edition is $E then does that mean that 5th edition will be using a fully percentile system? That way it can be %E.
Stop. You're making me have bad Rifts flashbacks.
:raincloudShow
:D
Does this mean its time to stop complaining and let other people play the game?
Well I'm still complaining about the switch from 2E so.... :D
The time for concerns and criticisms being the primary discussion of 4e is over, and has been for a while - concerns aren't going to be addressed (game's at the printers) and criticisms - at least in the form most were expressed - likely never were. Now, the game's about to come out, and people are already playing Keep on the Shadowfell in their living rooms and at game stores.
The time when Concerns and Criticisms was actually relevant has been over for many many months. The C&C boards served their purpose and kept most of the negativity to a single area, and now that the game is out its indeed time for WotC to try and help create an actual community of gamers instead of warring factions.
I actually had a chance to play KotS last weekend as someone was able to convince our local B&N to sell the module early. But alas, our GM found a number of problems with the module that required errata.
Kind of a sad testimony on the entire 4E launch when the very first official 4E product to be sold, has enough errors in it that it requires errata to play.
Welcome to 4E.
The time when Concerns and Criticisms was actually relevant has been over for many many months. The C&C boards served their purpose and kept most of the negativity to a single area, and now that the game is out its indeed time for WotC to try and help create an actual community of gamers instead of warring factions.
I actually had a chance to play KotS last weekend as someone was able to convince our local B&N to sell the module early. But alas, our GM found a number of problems with the module that required errata.
Kind of a sad testimony on the entire 4E launch when the very first official 4E product to be sold, has enough errors in it that it requires errata to play.
Welcome to 4E.
Can you... tell us the errata? I've not seen anything official on it, and it could be that your GM jumped the gun on fixing problems that weren't actually problems.
can't believe I found it
http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1387&p_created=1210711343&p_sid=Iv1sDZ3j&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD03NTksNzU5JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1
lemme know it it works...
BTW anyone else noticed Gleemax loading up stuff faster since the shuffle??
Kind of a sad testimony on the entire 4E launch when the very first official 4E product to be sold, has enough errors in it that it requires errata to play.
Welcome to 4E.
Yep. All hail the new boss; same as the old boss. It looks like whatever Wotc has done, improving their QC (quality control) hasn't been one of them.
-Polaris
That being said, the tone of Taurren's original post implied that the "errata" he was talking about went beyond what was on Wizards errata page for KotS. I am curious to get more specifics on that and whether what he was talking about was "errata", "house rules", or "making stuff up because it wasn't in the quick start rules".
I've run a session of KotS, and I've read the Errata. Most of the Errata is very minor, with the exception of the Half-Elf racial omission, which was a space issue. I saw nothing that required errata.
That being said, the tone of Taurren's original post implied that the "errata" he was talking about went beyond what was on Wizards errata page for KotS. I am curious to get more specifics on that and whether what he was talking about was "errata", "house rules", or "making stuff up because it wasn't in the quick start rules".
You didn't?! I just got done reading the errata and it's moderately serious, and that's just the stuff that Wotc has posted.
The fact is that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. Wotc has a golden opportunity to prove the cynics (like me) wrong by getting KotS largely right the first time. They failed to do this and in so doing reinforced what I (and I think it's fair to say many others) think about Wotc's (lack of) quality control (and it's been an issue for years).
I think the rules for healing a dying character are pretty darned critical and you shouldn't have two rules for it. I think that core half-elf racial abilities are spaceworthy enough to include in the rules. Rules for using healing potions should be clear and in one place. Shall I go on? This is not minor errata.
-Polaris
If you are trying to play a game, there is more than enough there to do it, and nothing that seriously prevents this.
If you are trying to find fault with 4E and WotC, there you go.
It mostly depends on whether you are trying to play a game or trying to find fault with 4E and WotC.
If you are trying to play a game, there is more than enough there to do it, and nothing that seriously prevents this.
If you are trying to find fault with 4E and WotC, there you go.
If you go by that standard then Wotc may as well not print errata at all. After all, a 'competant' GM can make anything playable no matter how flawed. [It's called the Oberani Fallacy for a reason]
The errata is quite serious, and it's perfectly fair to hold Wotc accountable for it especially given their serious lack of errata and QC in recent years and especially since this was their one chance to make a good first impression.
-Polaris
If you go by that standard then Wotc may as well not print errata at all. After all, a 'competant' GM can make anything playable no matter how flawed. [It's called the Oberani Fallacy for a reason]
The errata is quite serious, and it's perfectly fair to hold Wotc accountable for it especially given their serious lack of errata and QC in recent years and especially since this was their one chance to make a good first impression.
-Polaris
Most people aren't as **** as all that. Most people also don't have an internal jihad against 4E and WotC that they have to dig up little details to complain about to post on message boards. I like the "one chance to make a good first impression" part. You take things way to seriously. You should really lighten up.
And while I DO expect a certain proficiency in proof-reading from an established company... its not a deal-breaker for me...
what's the big deal?
Lets not forget that the module isn't technically available for public consumption till tomorrow/today. The fact that they have errata up already gives me some confidence in the support aspect..
And while I DO expect a certain proficiency in proof-reading from an established company... its not a deal-breaker for me...
what's the big deal?
this,
folks make mistakes, at least they fixed it.
next.
Lets not forget that the module isn't technically available for public consumption till tomorrow/today. The fact that they have errata up already gives me some confidence in the support aspect..
And while I DO expect a certain proficiency in proof-reading from an established company... its not a deal-breaker for me...
what's the big deal?
Aye. I too am a little disappointed that mistakes slipped through. I don't know if they are planning on adding more QA folks, but maybe that's something the folks at WotC should think about. They have a LOT of projects going on all at once right now. One or two more pairs of eyes might make the results a bit better. Still, none of the errata I've seen are fixes for anything cripplingly awful.
EDIT: For those who need to know, errata are currently here.
Q:The Quick-Start Rules and the Adventure Book have different rules for healing the dying, which one is correct?
A:The rules in the Adventure Book have the correct information for healing the dying on page 12.
Q:When setting up the encounter on page 16 it asks you place the heroes within two squares of the east side of the map. This puts the character right next to the kobolds. Is this right?
A: The illustration only shows the half of the map that you place monsters on but the encounter does use the entire map.
Q: On page 78 Kalarel has "(see also shadow form below)" listed next to his armor class, what is this?
A: Kalarel does not have this ability, it should be ignored.
Q: Why doesn't the half-elf cleric have another class's at-will power as an encounter power?
A: The power was removed for space, if you would like to include it we recommend Bolstering Strike.
Q: Are the half-elf's racial bonuses included in his final skill modifiers?
A: They are not; you should play his diplomacy and insight as +5 instead of +3.
Q: Pages 38, 40 and 65 of the Adventure Book mention using a bull rush, how do you do that?
A: Page 65 of the Adventure Book has the rules for attempting a bull rush.
Q: Page 59 of the Adventure book says a healing potion takes a standard action to use and page 57 says it takes a minor action, which is right?
A: Drinking a potion is usually a minor action but administering a potion to an unconscious creature is a standard action.
The errata seems extremely minor to me, and not even bothering with the errata shouldn't hinder your play at all. Unless new things have been added since last time I checked, it is mostly discrepancies between the quick start rules and other rules printed in the module itself. Being that the module is effectively a preview for 4th Edition and doesn't include all the rules within, it seems like hardly a problem -- no one is going to need the errata once they have their Player's Handbook. How is that a failure at all?
I wouldn't put too much stock into what he says. As I said before, some people are just trying to play the game, and some people are looking to find fault with 4E and WotC.
Wheee! The C&C is dead! Does this mean the Flame Wars of '08 are over now?
Not by the looks of this thread.
Perhaps...or perhaps they have just begun.
~cue ominous music~
I got home, walked my dog and fired up my computer (which by this point had the C&C forum as it's homepage). I noticed that there had been no new posts, and thought that was odd. I then spent the rest of the night refreshing and wondering why no one had posted.
I'm a genius.
That said, I'm glad we've finally got someplace for general discussion where we won't automatically get flamed for being positive. That was getting pretty old. Now it's just a matter of waiting until I get 4E in my hands and decide if it's everything I hoped it would be, or if I should pick back up on developing my homebrew system.
That said, I'm glad we've finally got someplace for general discussion where we won't automatically get flamed for being positive. That was getting pretty old.
Yep. Since we have the new home for General Discussion, howzabout three cheers for optimism and positivity!
Yep. Since we have the new home for General Discussion, howzabout three cheers for optimism and positivity!
I would, but I'm already bickering with Polaris again.
I am a bad person.
I would, but I'm already bickering with Polaris again.
I am a bad person.
You can be a bad person and still be one of the "good guys."
Think of yourself as our Wolverine, or Deadpool.
Or Lady Shiva, if you swing that way.
Well, at least I haven't seen PsionX here yet, so that's a good sign...(knock on wood).
Nor the most recent incarnations of Grognard_ThacO and Psychic_Robot.
@ Batshido: you are a genius, sir! :D
I do what I can. In my defense, I had spent a good chunk of the evening rubbing caustic sludge onto wine glasses so that they would say "bridesmaid."
I blame the fumes.
no but im sure the trolls will show up at some point. Still for now long live the home of the 4e avengers.
But what's light without dark?!
But what's light without dark?!
Happy.
But what's light without dark?!
Tanning Bed?
In gaming product, Errata Happens. If anything, the fact that the errata for KotS being out so quickly is a good sign - it shows that WotC is doing better on errata than they were during the 3.x era.
d20 rolls that looked very much like it was about to settle into a 20 (well he swears it was) and sent it accross the table where it settled on a roll of 1.
I was threated with having my face "fist errated" if I ever kicked the table during a roll again. every one got a good laugh out of it
,a nd I kicked the table during every roll my pal made for the next two weeks, just to show my devotion to our friendship.have a cherry flavored day,
malkav
No, you're not. I always start laughing when I see him (and myrtlesaur and hellmute and the others) making complete fools of themselves.
;)No, you're not. I always start laughing when I see him (and myrtlesaur and hellmute and the others) making complete fools of themselves.
Oh, you too? :evillaugh
In all seriousness, do you plan on keeping this up indefinitely? Just curious.
It will be interesting to see how the anti crowd deals with everyone having all the information to check up on.
It's one thing to spout hyperbole and baseless speculation when that's all anyone can do, but it's quite another to do it when your audience can just open their books and call you on your BS.
The dynamic will also be interesting when you consider that for the anti crowd to remain anywhere near as informed about the "issues" as the people who actually play 4E, they'll have to buy the books. I predict a lot of cognitive dissonance in the next couple of months.
It will be interesting to see how the anti crowd deals with everyone having all the information to check up on.
It's one thing to spout hyperbole and baseless speculation when that's all anyone can do, but it's quite another to do it when your audience can just open their books and call you on your BS.
The dynamic will also be interesting when you consider that for the anti crowd to remain anywhere near as informed about the "issues" as the people who actually play 4E, they'll have to buy the books. I predict a lot of cognitive dissonance in the next couple of months.
Hmm, good point. The rules-skimming complaints will make even less sense once we can sit down and read stuff through. Will the angries ante up for some 4e books? Time will tell.
these sessions should be recorded and the audio streamed accross the internet for the amusement of the entire D&D community. Hell I might even pay for that.
Love,
malkav
I think all the avengers, and all of the serious anti kids, should be forced to game together for period of no less than 6 months with a gaming schedule that contains at least one session a week.
these sessions should be recorded and the audio streamed accross the internet for the amusement of the entire D&D community. Hell I might even pay for that.
Love,
malkav
I call not-DM. I'll definitely want to play a tiefling warlock for this one.
I call not-DM. I'll definitely want to play a tiefling warlock for this one.
I'm calling Female Dragonborn Cleric of Toplessness.
Sign me up.
That or I could volunteer to be the heavy handed tyrant of a DM.
I'm calling Female Dragonborn Cleric of Toplessness.
I see you will be one-upping me from the start
I think all the avengers, and all of the serious anti kids, should be forced to game together for period of no less than 6 months with a gaming schedule that contains at least one session a week.
these sessions should be recorded and the audio streamed accross the internet for the amusement of the entire D&D community. Hell I might even pay for that.
Love,
malkav
Maybe they should make this an integral part of the DDI. Two birds, one stone, and all that. :D
Somebody has to play the Kender.
I've always held my girlfriend on a short leash, when it comes to playing a Kender... but I might just let her loose for this one... and she can and will play a Kender to its fullest!
In all seriousness, do you plan on keeping this up indefinitely? Just curious.
Depends, to be honest. As of late, I've found that reading a good book offers far more entertainment value, but a good...posting sure livens up the day.
Depends, to be honest. As of late, I've found that reading a good book offers far more entertainment value, but a good...posting sure livens up the day.
Here you go. That should keep you entertained until after the edition switch has settled. ;)
Actually I've been tailing off on my posting recently waiting for the rulebooks to arrive. I can confidently predict (just based on some of the design decisions) that I will find more to point out in 4E after the books are released than before. One such thing that's becoming apparent is the lack of 'replayability' of character classes due to severely restricted choices (when you only have 4 "at wills" in your class, and you get two, then there are only 6 actual combinations....and some will clearly be suboptimal). I'll speak more of this when I have the books in front of me.
-Polaris
I think all the avengers, and all of the serious anti kids, should be forced to game together for period of no less than 6 months with a gaming schedule that contains at least one session a week.
these sessions should be recorded and the audio streamed accross the internet for the amusement of the entire D&D community. Hell I might even pay for that.
Love,
malkav
Please no. Such would surely cause ancient ri'yel to rise from the depths and ragna rok to be brought upon the earth.
I see you will be one-upping me from the start
It's what I do.
Guys,
Actually I've been tailing off on my posting recently waiting for the rulebooks to arrive. I can confidently predict (just based on some of the design decisions) that I will find more to point out in 4E after the books are released than before. One such thing that's becoming apparent is the lack of 'replayability' of character classes due to severely restricted choices (when you only have 4 "at wills" in your class, and you get two, then there are only 6 actual combinations....and some will clearly be suboptimal). I'll speak more of this when I have the books in front of me.
-Polaris
And it will be just as biased, speculative and doomsaying as what you have been saying before.
You are basically saying that you are buying the core books so you can find fault with them.
Are we supposed to take you seriously?
You are basically saying that you are buying the core books so you can find fault with them.
Are we supposed to take you seriously?
Well, it shows a definite dedication to the eradication of 4E by using online ranting to lower book sales. Or the exact opposite of that.
Either way, like I said; cognitive dissonance.
And it will be just as biased, speculative and doomsaying as what you have been saying before.
You are basically saying that you are buying the core books so you can find fault with them.
Are we supposed to take you seriously?
Not at all. I will take part in a 4E campaign (a test one) in June. I am buying the first three 4E books (and to this point the first three only) to give the system a fair opportunity to prove me wrong.
Unlike some, I am at least open minded enough to allow myself to be convinced that I was wrong.
-Polaris
Guys,
Actually I've been tailing off on my posting recently waiting for the rulebooks to arrive. I can confidently predict (just based on some of the design decisions) that I will find more to point out in 4E after the books are released than before. One such thing that's becoming apparent is the lack of 'replayability' of character classes due to severely restricted choices (when you only have 4 "at wills" in your class, and you get two, then there are only 6 actual combinations....and some will clearly be suboptimal). I'll speak more of this when I have the books in front of me.
-Polaris
On the other hand . . . ;)
Perhaps the choices aren't as restrictive as we believe. For instance, there could be more choices described in the books. Preview material is notorious for holding back on complete lists of things. I'd be surprised if this wasn't true with 4e. I'm only aware of a fraction of what is available for preview however, so if there is a complete list out there, I'm talking out of my seat cushion ;).
My reasoning is based on the idea that (as part of their job) the game designers would be aware of how many combinations are available to each class and (at least try) to equal things out between the classes (to the best of their ability, at least-- even 4e designers are only human ;)).
I do agree that we will find out more after the books are released than before. Speculation is quite different than fact.
Just thought I'd offer an alternate view
.Guys,
Actually I've been tailing off on my posting recently waiting for the rulebooks to arrive. I can confidently predict (just based on some of the design decisions) that I will find more to point out in 4E after the books are released than before. One such thing that's becoming apparent is the lack of 'replayability' of character classes due to severely restricted choices (when you only have 4 "at wills" in your class, and you get two, then there are only 6 actual combinations....and some will clearly be suboptimal). I'll speak more of this when I have the books in front of me.
-Polaris
Don't forget to multiply by the number of daily and encounter powers. And then compare that to the number of class-based options you had in any previous edition at level one.
Not at all. I will take part in a 4E campaign (a test one) in June. I am buying the first three 4E books (and to this point the first three only) to give the system a fair opportunity to prove me wrong.
Unlike some, I am at least open minded enough to allow myself to be convinced that I was wrong.
-Polaris
You mean unlike the rest of us who proclaim 3e inferior even though we haven't tried it out yet?
Wait, what?
Not at all. I will take part in a 4E campaign (a test one) in June. I am buying the first three 4E books (and to this point the first three only) to give the system a fair opportunity to prove me wrong.
Unlike some, I am at least open minded enough to allow myself to be convinced that I was wrong.
-Polaris
If you go into a test 4E campaign with a negative attitude and looking to find fault with 4E, you will not enjoy it and you will find fault with 4E. This will happen regardless of any objective qualities of the situation.
Its called bias.
I shouldn't ask, but I really wanna hear your point on this:
You say 4e will have low replayability value because every character has only 4 at-wills, so you can only make 6 combinations. That argument is itself wrong (you get two-different styles for the classes we've seen, plus encounters plus dailies), but assuming that you only have 6 valid (as in not contraproductive) builds for each class...
How is it worse than 3.5 where you had a set-in-stone class progression for most classes, and a set-in-stone spell progression for casters?
So yes, 4e wizards have reduced variability, in a sense. But 4e fighters, rogues and rangers are much more adaptable.
So, what's your point?
PS: And now I must leave for work. Catch ya nerds later! :D
You mean unlike the rest of us who proclaim 3e inferior even though we haven't tried it out yet?
Wait, what?
Actually yes. You can't call 3E an 'inferior' system unless you have something to compare it against (in this case 4E), and right now you do not. So yes, the criticism does apply to you and those like you.
-Polaris
If you go into a test 4E campaign with a negative attitude and looking to find fault with 4E, you will not enjoy it and you will find fault with 4E. This will happen regardless of any objective qualities of the situation.
Its called bias.
It's called life, guy. Everybody has bias. If the system is as good as you claim, then it should be able to win over even those with a negative bias unless that person is completely dead set against it. Contrary to what you want to believe, I am not. If I were, I wouldn't even bother to play it and give it a fair chance. I am.
-Polaris
On the other hand . . . ;)
Perhaps the choices aren't as restrictive as we believe. For instance, there could be more choices described in the books. Preview material is notorious for holding back on complete lists of things. I'd be surprised if this wasn't true with 4e. I'm only aware of a fraction of what is available for preview however, so if there is a complete list out there, I'm talking out of my seat cushion ;).
Actually the information I posted is based on the books. The actual books are in the hands of the book sellers and retailers, and some of that info was leaked on EN world. All classes except the wizard have 4 "at will" powers and four only (wizards have five). The other powers (daily, ultility, and encounter) have similiarly restricted choices.
As for 3E, it is a vast step backwards. While it's true in 3E there are optimal builds, the possible combinations of effective builds in 3E even accounting for optimization was literally in the millions. It doesn't look like 4E is going to come close to this variety of character types. That's a damn shame and definately (as I say again) a step backwards in gaming. It's also going to hurt efforts to draw in new players IMHO (but I think it's a reasonable prediction).
-Polaris
Actually yes. You can't call 3E an 'inferior' system unless you have something to compare it against (in this case 4E), and right now you do not. So yes, the criticism does apply to you and those like you.
-Polaris
I can call 3E 'inferior' to games I have played and can compare it against, games like Vampire: the Requiem and 2E AD&D.
I can do that all day long, though it isn't exactly on topic.
It's called life, guy. Everybody has bias. If the system is as good as you claim, then it should be able to win over even those with a negative bias unless that person is completely dead set against it. Contrary to what you want to believe, I am not. If I were, I wouldn't even bother to play it and give it a fair chance. I am.
-Polaris
Given your posting history, you don't have a lot of credibility towards claiming to be unbiased. Neither do I, but I've never claimed otherwise.
Actually the information I posted is based on the books. The actual books are in the hands of the book sellers and retailers, and some of that info was leaked on EN world. All classes except the wizard have 4 "at will" powers and four only (wizards have five). The other powers (daily, ultility, and encounter) have similiarly restricted choices.
As for 3E, it is a vast step backwards. While it's true in 3E there are optimal builds, the possible combinations of effective builds in 3E even accounting for optimization was literally in the millions. It doesn't look like 4E is going to come close to this variety of character types. That's a damn shame and definately (as I say again) a step backwards in gaming. It's also going to hurt efforts to draw in new players IMHO (but I think it's a reasonable prediction).
-Polaris
Of coarse everyone should keep in mind that this is just 4 at will powers at level 1 and at higher levels there are more to be gained. As has been mentioned many times already this is an imporovment for non-spellcasting classes over 3rd edition. However, this is an argument for another thread.
Realistically, there's no reason for anyone to be posting "concerns" about the game after it's out. By then they can look at the bloody books. You are no longer concerned about how the books will turn out, you have them.
As for criticism, do we really need a separate forum for that? Anyone who wants to complain can just complain in the relevant forum. Hell, the only reason the C&C forums existed at all, I'd imagine, was to keep all the complaining segregated to one place so other kinds of discussion could take place in the necessarily lower-trafficked forums.
(Why do I say they're necessarily lower-trafficked? Because we didn't have enough information to do much other than post our concerns and criticisms. Those posts would have made up the entirety of the forums, almost, if they hadn't been segregated.)
Meh. The 3e forums never had a Concerns and Criticism forum.
Realistically, there's no reason for anyone to be posting "concerns" about the game after it's out. By then they can look at the bloody books. You are no longer concerned about how the books will turn out, you have them.
I don't disagree with you, but I do want to say that with a new book released every month there is still plenty of room for concern after the edition is released. I don't think we really need a separate forum for it, but there is still room.
I can call 3E 'inferior' to games I have played and can compare it against, games like Vampire: the Requiem and 2E AD&D.
I can do that all day long, though it isn't exactly on topic.
Which is exactly my point. When you say that 3E is an inferior system (a point I do not agree with even with regard to the aforementioned games...especially ADnD 2E), it's implied on these forums that you mean in comparison with 4E. Any other comparison is off-topic of the entire forums, and my point stands. You have no basis to make that comparison.
Given your posting history, you don't have a lot of credibility towards claiming to be unbiased. Neither do I, but I've never claimed otherwise.
I never claimed to be unbiased. What I am saying is that I am willing to give the system a fair chance to prove my bias wrong and that I am aware of my own bias. You, sir, don't seem to fit either of those categories. For example I have yet to see you admit that Wotc might have made a wrong decision about anything regarding 4E. Perhaps you might want to reconsider that.
-Polaris
I don't disagree with you, but I do want to say that with a new book released every month there is still plenty of room for concern after the edition is released. I don't think we really need a separate forum for it, but there is still room.
Granted, but my interpretation of the C&C forums was that it was primarily meant as general concerns about the system as a whole, rather than more specific concerns about splatbooks and their contents.
If there are concerns about the content of, say, Martial Power, it makes more sense to me to put it in the Character Building forums now, rather than a bloated concerns forum :D
Polaris - Could you go into more detail as to what you mean by "replayability"?
Sure. Simple enough. In MMOs and CRPGs, a problem is called the 'replayability' factor. When you have a limited number of options either in character creation, the campaign, or (especially in a CRPG) both, the most 'effective' options are quickly found (in both) and requickly replayed and the game dies because of player boredom. Now DnD as a true RPG can avoid the latter (campaign replayability problems) because of the inherent nature of a human DM, but character replayability is an issue.
In 3E, one could play a lifetime and not even come close to exhausting all the options (and I mean "valid" and "potent" options) that the system permitted. The combinations were literally in the millions (and perhaps even much higher).
In 4E, however, with extremely restricted choices and number of options per character, I'd be suprised if the number of "viable" choices numbered much above the hundreds of thousands, and of those you'd see a handful that are clearly the best all the time. This is exacerbated with the 4E retraining rules which actually permits a player to try multiple combinations in a single character in a single campaign.
Basically it's burning the character replayability candle at both ends. Result: Soon (definately within a couple of months let alone a year), all characters of a given type will look and play pretty much the same....which kills 'replayability'.
-Polaris
Actually the information I posted is based on the books. The actual books are in the hands of the book sellers and retailers, and some of that info was leaked on EN world. All classes except the wizard have 4 "at will" powers and four only (wizards have five). The other powers (daily, ultility, and encounter) have similiarly restricted choices.
Ah, I hadn't realized things had been leaked.
As for 3E, it is a vast step backwards. While it's true in 3E there are optimal builds, the possible combinations of effective builds in 3E even accounting for optimization was literally in the millions. It doesn't look like 4E is going to come close to this variety of character types. That's a damn shame and definately (as I say again) a step backwards in gaming. It's also going to hurt efforts to draw in new players IMHO (but I think it's a reasonable prediction).
The *millions* of builds available in 3e is really gonna make 4e seem like slim pickin's (at least at first). I wouldn't necessarily call this a vast step backwards, though it is a definite drawback. Some of the more interesting combinations in 3e didn't really open up until several years down the line; I expect the same will happen with 4e ;).
I understand what you're saying: Multiclassing in 4e (for example) does feel like a step backwards. I don't much care for what I've seen of it myself, especially considering the practically unlimited choices availabe in 3e ;).
At this point, I guess I should go on the record and admit: I'm hopeful that 4e will (ultimately) prove to be a fun and playable game system. Different from previous editions, yes, but still (hopefully) fun and playable. There's going to be some difference of opinion between the two camps (for sure), but it's interesting to get different takes on things ;).
In 4e you have:
-Race (actually means something this time)
-Racial Power
-Class Features
-Class Powers (with tons of options there to change things up)
-Paragon Path
-Epic Destinies
-Multiclassing (both normal and PP) (I also personally prefer new multiclassing since it allows for much more fine-tuned customization, compared to the massive class splat you got with 3e)
-Feats
-Skills
-Magic Items (with unique powers of their own)
-Builds
-Weapons
-Rituals (also can't forget other things will be based off Rituals, our first example being Alchemy)
That to me is a lot of customization. Also with Retraining I would say that allows even more, since you can then truly make a character as you see fit. I don't think people would simply swap out everything all the time.
Actually yes. You can't call 3E an 'inferior' system unless you have something to compare it against (in this case 4E), and right now you do not. So yes, the criticism does apply to you and those like you.
-Polaris
Forgive my ambiguous word choice. I meant it in the absolute sense (as in, mediocre) not in the relative sense (as in, specifically worse than 4e).
http://www.dictionary.net/inferior
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Which is exactly my point. When you say that 3E is an inferior system (a point I do not agree with even with regard to the aforementioned games...especially ADnD 2E), it's implied on these forums that you mean in comparison with 4E. Any other comparison is off-topic of the entire forums, and my point stands. You have no basis to make that comparison.
I can say I'm frustrated with 3E to the point I don't want to play it anymore. I can say that my frustration with 3E began before 4E was announced and likely would have gone past the point of no return without the launch of 4E. I can say that at this point in time, in a world without 4E, I would much rather play Vampire or 2E.
There is more to the world than 3E and 4E, and other games do have a place in this discussion. Calling my opinion off-topic, and saying that because my point is off-topic it does not challenge yours is arrogant.
I never claimed to be unbiased. What I am saying is that I am willing to give the system a fair chance to prove my bias wrong and that I am aware of my own bias. You, sir, don't seem to fit either of those categories. For example I have yet to see you admit that Wotc might have made a wrong decision about anything regarding 4E. Perhaps you might want to reconsider that.
-Polaris
I've been playing 3E for years. Its had its chance. I also have been running 4E demos and a session of Keep on the Shadowfell. Best time I've had running a game since the last time I ran Vampire. I thought I claimed to be aware of my own bias in my previous post.
Disputing your biased assumptions does not tell the whole story about my opinions of WotC being right/wrong about 4E.
But are you doing a valid comparison??
3.5 has had how many years worth of splatbooks out that have all added to the potential feats/classes available for a first level character. 4E has only the Core books coming out in a couple of weeks. To be fair, you would have to compare the number of builds available in the 4E PHB to the number of builds available in the 3.5 PHB. You would also have to determine how many of the differences in each build are differences that actually make a difference in how the character is played, and how many are simply cosmetic differences that have no real effect at all.
Result: Soon (definately within a couple of months let alone a year), all characters of a given type will look and play pretty much the same....which kills 'replayability'.
A couple of problems with your replayability postulate here;
First, roleplaying games aren't necessarily dependent upon mechanical diversity to drive replay value. 3E certainly embraced that paradigm with both arms, but earlier versions of D&D had next-to-zero mechanical differentiation between members of the same race/class combination and there are still folks playing them to this very day. If the underlying system is strong enough, or if the player population decides that variation just isn't a priority, then it doesn't have the same effect on a game like D&D that it would on a computer game or an mmorpg where the storyline is likewise static.
Second, the goal of the 4E mechanics was to allow every available character build to stand on relatively equal footing with every other potential set of choices. With that in mind, each option that is entered into that paradigm increases the number of potential mechanical character types exponentially. Unlike the 3E mindset of; "ok, so that's Divine metamagic, how can we plug that into my warrior Cleric build?", with the 4E paradigm (if it works, I'm willing to concede that it has the possibility of not) those new abilities become options for at least every member of the class it was meant for, and likely even more through multiclass feats and such. With less focus being on cohesive "builds" and over-specialization, more options are going to be considered by the population at large. That leads to a lot more variation in character types over the long haul, especially if they are putting out new support in the form of powersource books every couple of months.
Third, the number of variables available in 4E is not going to remain stagnant. It's not just going to be these three books forever. As new material is published, people will try out the new material, and even if we assume that there are options that are far and away better than others it will still take a decent amount of time for those to be tested and become abusive over the course of actual campaigns. By the time this kind of stuff becomes an issue, there will be new things out to play with. Their publishing schedule means that while there may be a fairly anemic number of options available at the beginning (though this is debatable when compared to earlier editions), that number will expand fairly rapidly and likely keep up with demand by consumers.
This is all without even considering the fact that a 1st level Fighter (or any non-spellcaster, really) in 4E has more options than he did in 3E. When you take that into account, any handwringing over "replayability" seems pretty silly.
Which is exactly my point. When you say that 3E is an inferior system (a point I do not agree with even with regard to the aforementioned games...especially ADnD 2E), it's implied on these forums that you mean in comparison with 4E. Any other comparison is off-topic of the entire forums, and my point stands. You have no basis to make that comparison.
I never claimed to be unbiased. What I am saying is that I am willing to give the system a fair chance to prove my bias wrong and that I am aware of my own bias. You, sir, don't seem to fit either of those categories. For example I have yet to see you admit that Wotc might have made a wrong decision about anything regarding 4E. Perhaps you might want to reconsider that.
-Polaris
I can't speak for TCO, but I have certainly said more than once that I *expect* 4e to do certain things, specifically the things that it promises. That isn't extraordinarily biased. I'm not predicting per se; I'm just trusting that the game is what the designers and playtesters say it is.
Not believing those promises or thinking that they aren't good promises is fine, I suppose, but I wonder why someone who feels that WotC is lying or incompetent or misguided is doing here. If 4e isn't streamlined or balanced, then either we've been lied to or the 4e team is a bunch of idiots who can't execute their main goals. If those are bad foundations for a game, well, they're right out there in the open. If you're not into those things, why stress over them? Play something based on principles you agree with.
After spending the last few years dealing with things like clunky subsystems, unbalanced classes, tedious monster customization, and progression barriers, I'm ready for a game that plans to address those specific concerns. If those aren't your concerns, why bother considering the switch?
Finally, certain claims are indicative of bias in one direction or another. When someone says, "There will be X optimal combos, pushing all 4e characters into cookie-cutter builds," or, at the other end, "Every combination of abilities will be equally viable in 4e," I just laugh. It's totally baseless conjecture. How the hell would any of us be able to reasonably claim this? It's not a theoretical claim, but an empirical one. We may as well be guessing power names or the word count on page 73 of the DMG.
When you make claims like the above, it induces a lot of sighing and eye-rolling. It's one thing to have a hypothesis, but pushing it constantly like it *has* to be true is a great way to turn your viewpoint into a joke. That isn't meant as an insult.
Unlike some, I am at least open minded enough to allow myself to be convinced that I was wrong.
Can't...stop...laughing...
Neither of you have the rules, all of your conjecture and opinions are baseless. Its cool to disagree and engage in pointed debate. But it really sucks to see the same 4-10 Pro 4e's and the same 4-10 anto 4e's argue back and forth and back and forth, over and over, and then over some more, about books no one has yet. been reading it for months.
Can't you guys just agree to disagree or something? or limit this BS arguement to like 10 posts per thread? Because if there turns out to be like the C&C forums where every single topic turns out to be the same few people bickering about he exact same thing is lame. None of you have the books
Save the venom until after the books hit the street. Pretty please with a cherry on top.
malkav?
It is also just baseless conjecture to assume that there isn't "just a few choices and cookie cutter builds". See how that works?
Neither of you have the rules, all of your conjecture and opinions are baseless. Its cool to disagree and engage in pointed debate. But it really sucks to see the same 4-10 Pro 4e's and the same 4-10 anto 4e's argue back and forth and back and forth, over and over, and then over some more, about books no one has yet. been reading it for months.
Can't you guys just agree to disagree or something? or limit this BS arguement to like 10 posts per thread? Because if there turns out to be like the C&C forums where every single topic turns out to be the same few people bickering about he exact same thing is lame. None of you have the books
Save the venom until after the books hit the street. Pretty please with a cherry on top.
malkav?
I realize it may be hard to see, as I am on a "team" and all that, but that was my point, too.
LOL...
Not many (if any) anti-4E guys have posted anything negative, and yet...LOL, you still can't stop talking about us!! LOL
Do you miss us? LOL
It is also just baseless conjecture to assume that there isn't "just a few choices and cookie cutter builds". See how that works?
Neither of you have the rules, all of your conjecture and opinions are baseless. Its cool to disagree and engage in pointed debate. But it really sucks to see the same 4-10 Pro 4e's and the same 4-10 anto 4e's argue back and forth and back and forth, over and over, and then over some more, about books no one has yet. been reading it for months.
Can't you guys just agree to disagree or something? or limit this BS arguement to like 10 posts per thread? Because if there turns out to be like the C&C forums where every single topic turns out to be the same few people bickering about he exact same thing is lame. None of you have the books
Save the venom until after the books hit the street. Pretty please with a cherry on top.
malkav?
People like me get yelled at for taking bait and feeding the trolls, but I don't see anyone else doing anything about it. As long as cooler heads are not prevailing, I'll find it necessary to do things my way.
I'm in a class in college right now about alchemy and it's connections to chemistry, so that was the best joke ever. :D
How go your efforts to find the Rosetta Stone?
Wheee! The C&C is dead! Does this mean the Flame Wars of '08 are over now?
There will always be flame wars. The only question is, what will the next big divide be?
There will always be flame wars. The only question is, what will the next big divide be?
Lightsabers
Lightsabers
Hmmm...Lightsaber wielding Paladin of Slashiness...
in the background: ZOMG! teh brokenz!
People like me get yelled at for taking bait and feeding the trolls, but I don't see anyone else doing anything about it. As long as cooler heads are not prevailing, I'll find it necessary to do things my way.
That is my point entirely. If you don't feed the trolls they go elsewhere and find folks that will argue with them. I know sometimes it sucks to hop onto a forum and see other folks trashing something you may like a great deal. But riling you up and getting you to argue with them is exactly what they intended int he first place when they posted ont he forums to begin with. By giving them what they crave (arguement just for arguements sake) you feed them and thusly give thema very valid reason to stick around.
just sayin
malkav
Obviously, I didn't get an answer.
I guess the C&C didn't go far enough...
I should have known better. Attempting to put an end to pointless argueing on an internet forum is about as pointless as many of the arguements in most cases.
woe be me!
malkav
There will always be flame wars. The only question is, what will the next big divide be?
Psionic, especially if this is even better mechanicaly and fitting?
OK.
But are you doing a valid comparison??
3.5 has had how many years worth of splatbooks out that have all added to the potential feats/classes available for a first level character. 4E has only the Core books coming out in a couple of weeks. To be fair, you would have to compare the number of builds available in the 4E PHB to the number of builds available in the 3.5 PHB. You would also have to determine how many of the differences in each build are differences that actually make a difference in how the character is played, and how many are simply cosmetic differences that have no real effect at all.
Actually, while I didn't state it explicitly, I was comparing core material to core material. Consider that 3.5 has more base classes (11 as opposed to 8) and add to that the 6 PrCs in the DMG. In addition, just from spellcasting alone, the 3.5 has more diversity let along the multiclassing options excluding those that cost a character spell casting ability.
Yes, I think it is fair to say that 4E will have a character replayability problem given what I know now.
-Polaris
Actually, while I didn't state it explicitly, I was comparing core material to core material. Consider that 3.5 has more base classes (11 as opposed to 8) and add to that the 6 PrCs in the DMG. In addition, just from spellcasting alone, the 3.5 has more diversity let along the multiclassing options excluding those that cost a character spell casting ability.
Yes, I think it is fair to say that 4E will have a character replayability problem given what I know now.
-Polaris
8 classes, at least 2 build options each = 16 things comparable to 3.x's classes.
Significantly more than 6 paragon paths.
Powers for every class.
I'm not seeing your problem.
Its a different game with different priorities. If you want to discuss the merits of these priorities, that is one thing. Calling 4E inferior because it lacks the character creation customizability of 3E is a matter of opinion, not a fact, and ignores the conscious choice of the designers to sacrifice character creation to make other parts of the game better.
I can say I'm frustrated with 3E to the point I don't want to play it anymore. I can say that my frustration with 3E began before 4E was announced and likely would have gone past the point of no return without the launch of 4E. I can say that at this point in time, in a world without 4E, I would much rather play Vampire or 2E.
Thecasualoblivion, I like what you have to say, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
8 classes, at least 2 build options each = 16 things comparable to 3.x's classes.
No way. It's not even close. In the first place a lot of the 3.5 classes also had what is called "build paths" in 4E. The ranger of course, we all know. It has an explicit TWF path and Archery path. It also has distinct and choosable paths depending on your favored enemy. The wizard has a path for each school of magic (save general) [called specialization] in addition to remaining a general wizard. Clerics have two domains (which are clearly different paths with different abilities and different spells). Even if you choose from a restricted diety list (if your DM enforces diety restrictions which is not required RAW), that's going to be upwards of thirty paths (or often more) per diety.
That's not even accounting the fact that in 3.5 you can multiclass as much as you like and for martial classes it's often a great move to make (and spashing some martial levels even for spellcasters is not always a bad option either).
So when you compare that with the (lack of) options in 4E, it's not even close. 3.5 allows for vastly more variety and flexibility of characters. Yes, I do regard this as a serious weakness. Flexible systems in the 1990s killed DnD in the market place for much this reason (to the point where many serious gamers at the time regarded any class/level system as a dinosaur.....something that DnD 3E stopped or at least curtailed).
-Polaris
No way. It's not even close. In the first place a lot of the 3.5 classes also had what is called "build paths" in 4E. The ranger of course, we all know. It has an explicit TWF path and Archery path. It also has distinct and choosable paths depending on your favored enemy. The wizard has a path for each school of magic (save general) [called specialization] in addition to remaining a general wizard. Clerics have two domains (which are clearly different paths with different abilities and different spells). Even if you choose from a restricted diety list (if your DM enforces diety restrictions which is not required RAW), that's going to be upwards of thirty paths (or often more) per diety.
That's not even accounting the fact that in 3.5 you can multiclass as much as you like and for martial classes it's often a great move to make (and spashing some martial levels even for spellcasters is not always a bad option either).
So when you compare that with the (lack of) options in 4E, it's not even close. 3.5 allows for vastly more variety and flexibility of characters. Yes, I do regard this as a serious weakness. Flexible systems in the 1990s killed DnD in the market place for much this reason (to the point where many serious gamers at the time regarded any class/level system as a dinosaur.....something that DnD 3E stopped or at least curtailed).
-Polaris
Wow, someone's setting definitions to specifically favor his argument.
If those are all "options," then EVERY LAST COMBINATION OF POWERS POSSIBLE FOR A LEVEL 30 CHARACTER is an "option." They don't even have to be viable - the TWF Ranger isn't in a Core-only 3.x game.
And, in that case, 4e wins full-out.
Wow, someone's setting definitions to specifically favor his argument.
If those are all "options," then EVERY LAST COMBINATION OF POWERS POSSIBLE FOR A LEVEL 30 CHARACTER is an "option." They don't even have to be viable - the TWF Ranger isn't in a Core-only 3.x game.
And, in that case, 4e wins full-out.
No. It's not even close.
First of all, I am using the term "path" in exactly the way 4E does. I.e. character choices made at the beginning of your career that define your character and character options for the rest of his career and are not changeable. The TWF/Archery forms are certainly paths by 4E standards, but so are all the other things I mentioned as well (such as clerical domains and wizard specialization).
Moreover, the wizard alone has more options than 4E put together if you just want to count combinations of powers because the wizard can pick and choose as many selections (repeatable) combinations of spells per day as he has slots. The cleric is the same way if not even more so (since the cleric is given his spell knowledge gratis).
Do the counting and you will find I am right.
-Polaris
Better a more rethought and carefully designed set of options....
D&D (regardless of edition) is a role-playing game. The only limit to the options your character has is in your imagination. Thus, the replayability factor is nigh infinite.
That isn't universally true. A lot of people play DnD with the emphasis on GAME rather than "roleplaying" (or what some call method acting) and quite frankly from what I've seen 4E is catered directly to those that don't value strict RPing (in Forge terms it's a painfully 'gamist' RPG....even more than 3.5 which is very gamist itself). As such if you just consider your character to be the sum of his options (esp combat options) which is the design paradigm that 4E is using, replayability is a real issue.
-Polaris
That isn't universally true. A lot of people play DnD with the emphasis on GAME rather than "roleplaying" (or what some call method acting) and quite frankly from what I've seen 4E is catered directly to those that don't value strict RPing (in Forge terms it's a painfully 'gamist' RPG....even more than 3.5 which is very gamist itself). As such if you just consider your character to be the sum of his options (esp combat options) which is the design paradigm that 4E is using, replayability is a real issue.
-Polaris
i disagree - maybe leaner, streamlined rules will not boggle down as much players and dm, so peoples focus on rping.
Polaris, Polaris... please give the thing a chance...
4E is going to have less customizability than a system that puts the highest priority on character creation. He invokes a fallacy that character creation will kill(or to a lesser extent detract from) 4E because character creation was one of the things dragging AD&D down. While the statement on AD&D is true, 4E compares favorably in terms of options and customizability with most other game systems on the market(aside from 3.5E), and totally blows AD&D away.
This being said, a lot of the focus on character creation of 3.5E ended up detracting from the actual play of the game. It just slowed things down and led to a lot of balance issues.
4E sacrifices some(though far from all) pure customizability to be more playable at all levels, and a more smoothly running game. This is a good trade IMO.
Polaris states that 4E having less options is automatically and inherently a bad thing. This is opinion, not fact. An opinion I dispute.
That isn't universally true. A lot of people play DnD with the emphasis on GAME rather than "roleplaying" (or what some call method acting)
Then these people are putting the limitation of options on themselves.
and quite frankly from what I've seen 4E is catered directly to those that don't value strict RPing (in Forge terms it's a painfully 'gamist' RPG....even more than 3.5 which is very gamist itself). As such if you just consider your character to be the sum of his options (esp combat options) which is the design paradigm that 4E is using, replayability is a real issue.
-Polaris
4E is catered to people who want to play the next evolution of D&D. Whether or not they choose to role-play is up to them. The rules neither force nor restrict the option of rp.
4E is catered to people who want to play the next evolution of D&D. Whether or not they choose to role-play is up to them. The rules neither force nor restrict the option of rp.
That's a matter of opinion. Given what we've seen thus far, I'd have to say (and I dare say I am far from alone) that 4E represents a regression more than an evolution of the game. Certainly RPing (and simulation) is something that 4E seems to discourage (at least rules as written from what we know).
-Polaris
That's a matter of opinion. Given what we've seen thus far, I'd have to say (and I dare say I am far from alone) that 4E represents a regression more than an evolution of the game. Certainly RPing (and simulation) is something that 4E seems to discourage (at least rules as written from what we know).
-Polaris
of course.
That's a matter of opinion.
-Polaris
No, it is not. It is a statement of fact. The rules are unable to control whether or not you roleplay.
That's a matter of opinion. Given what we've seen thus far, I'd have to say (and I dare say I am far from alone) that 4E represents a regression more than an evolution of the game. Certainly RPing (and simulation) is something that 4E seems to discourage (at least rules as written from what we know).
-Polaris
This is the first time I've heard you mention simulation. Are you one of those people who can't separate RPing and simulation? Your hatred of 4E would make more sense if it was.
I'll certainly admit that 4E moves away from the "realistic" simulation. I'd also call that a positive change, since "realist" simulation isn't worth the trouble it takes to achieve it.
No, it is not. It is a statement of fact. The rules are unable to control whether or not you roleplay.
If you dislike the rules and don't enjoy playing the game, you really can't roleplay. If you walk into the game with the attitude that the game sucks and I'm not going to enjoy myself, you are either not going to roleplay or make everyone else at the table wish you weren't. Possibly a combination of the two.
I think there is a lot of the above statement in what Polaris is saying.
Wow, someone's setting definitions to specifically favor his argument.
If those are all "options," then EVERY LAST COMBINATION OF POWERS POSSIBLE FOR A LEVEL 30 CHARACTER is an "option." They don't even have to be viable - the TWF Ranger isn't in a Core-only 3.x game.
And, in that case, 4e wins full-out.
It was pretty funny to see things like wizard specialties and cleric domains as meaningful options. We should also remember to factor in the number of ways skill points can be distributed over 20 or more levels. Then there are more combinations than stars in the sky!
Again, a lot of people want a new edition because they see the variety in 3.5 characters as largely trivial. If someone feels that the variety available then was meaningful and enjoyable, I really can't see why such a person is looking for a game that *specifically advertises* that it will cut out options that were often seen as trivial. I really can't see why anyone would bother "warning" potential 4e players about the removal of these non-options. It's like going on the Amber boards to tell everyone that there are no dice in the game. Or telling the WoD kids, "You'll hate the new Vampire- it's totally emo!"
From the top of my head, only the rogue had a secondary At Will ability, and that was conditional, Sneak Attack. All the other abilities (most of which were hardwired, at each level you got a set ability or possibly a choice between two (Ranger), ignoring spells) can only be considered Encounter/Daily abilities.
So simply taking the number of combinations of At Will abilities available, the ‘replayability’ of a 4th Edition character is higher than a base 3rd Edition character.
This ignores the racial ability, racial feats, higher number of feats, that Fighters gain Encounter and Daily abilities beyond feats and that there is for everyone, except possibly the Wizard and Cleric, a greater equivalent choice of Daily/Encounter abilities.
Oh and lets be nicer to each other, come on you know you want to!
So much for my premature optimism. The Flame Wars have begun anew in a different battleground. *sigh*
Yep...it was fun while it lasted.
Stiffling all criticism is not really in their benefit. Personally they probably should have left the C&C or just open a new one once the books are available. One of SOE's greatest mistakes in the NGE rollout for SWG was the way they stifled all criticism and that in turn is probably what really led to the firestorm that practically stripped them of 70% of their playerbase at the time.
They aren't stifling a thing. They're encouraging rationality.
If I wanted to play FFXI, I'd play FFXI. And that's what 4e's "multiclassing" really is--swiped from FFXI. Just like in FFXI, you get some benefits from multiclassing, but they aren't strong enough to break the game. Unlike in FFXI, you suffer for "multiclassing" in 4e, having to waste a feat for a weak power.
Wasting a feat is cheap in 4E. Have you seen 4E feats? There are no Divine Metamagics or Natural Spell type feats. All of the ones I've seen are pretty minor. You also gain 18 of them over your career(19 for humans).
P.S. It would be nice if you could post criticisms without the attitude--"swiped from FFXI" "suffer for 'multiclassing' in 4E"
Wasting a feat is cheap in 4E. Have you seen 4E feats? There are no Divine Metamagics or Natural Spell type feats. All of the ones I've seen are pretty minor. You also gain 18 of them over your career(19 for humans).
That not really accurate on several accounts:
1. You are directly equating a thirty level 4E career to a twenty level 3E career. Foul. Let's compare level by level shall we?
2. According to the information we have, you get a feat in 4E every even level plus one every first level. (I am not including paragon feats because those are restricted). That's only 6 feats by level ten versus 4 in 4E in the heroic (level 1-10) tier....and this is the most important tier because this is where most of the games will be played. What that means is that feats are almost as valuable in terms of scarcity in 4E as in 3E and you certainly can't afford to "waste" them.
3. A lot of the feats I've seen for 4E are pretty spiffy-keen, at least on the level of most 3E feats (and I mean the good ones) if not better in many cases. I also note that apparently little effort was made to balance feats in 4E since 4E also (at this time) seems to have more than it's fair share of stinker feats (something I thought was supposed to be eliminated).
-Polaris
That not really accurate on several accounts:
1. You are directly equating a thirty level 4E career to a twenty level 3E career. Foul. Let's compare level by level shall we?
2. According to the information we have, you get a feat in 4E every even level plus one every first level. (I am not including paragon feats because those are restricted). That's only 6 feats by level ten versus 4 in 4E in the heroic (level 1-10) tier....and this is the most important tier because this is where most of the games will be played. What that means is that feats are almost as valuable in terms of scarcity in 4E as in 3E and you certainly can't afford to "waste" them.
3. A lot of the feats I've seen for 4E are pretty spiffy-keen, at least on the level of most 3E feats (and I mean the good ones) if not better in many cases. I also note that apparently little effort was made to balance feats in 4E since 4E also (at this time) seems to have more than it's fair share of stinker feats (something I thought was supposed to be eliminated).
-Polaris
1. 20 levels of 3E is equivalent to 30 levels of 4E. This has been stated by the designers. 18 feats vs 7 feats is a valid comparison.
2. You gain feats at every even level and levels 1, 11, and 21. That adds up to 18. If you take into account that 30 levels of 4E = 20 levels of 3E, the comparison is level 10 3E vs. level 15 4E. At level 15, you will have nine feats in 4E, compared to four feats in 3E.
3. The big difference is that there are not trash feats like those found in 3E. In 3E, feats were critical to character creation and a major part of a character's power. They are now a minor boost and flavor, as class abilities and powers are now the core of what a character can do. The 4E multiclass feats are completely in line with other 4E feats, since an increase in versatility is valuable.
4E is a different game. Stop trying to define it in 3E terms to show nonexistant faults to prove your fallacy that 4E is an inferior game and will fail.
That not really accurate on several accounts:
1. You are directly equating a thirty level 4E career to a twenty level 3E career. Foul. Let's compare level by level shall we?
2. According to the information we have, you get a feat in 4E every even level plus one every first level. (I am not including paragon feats because those are restricted). That's only 6 feats by level ten versus 4 in 4E in the heroic (level 1-10) tier....and this is the most important tier because this is where most of the games will be played. What that means is that feats are almost as valuable in terms of scarcity in 4E as in 3E and you certainly can't afford to "waste" them.
3. A lot of the feats I've seen for 4E are pretty spiffy-keen, at least on the level of most 3E feats (and I mean the good ones) if not better in many cases. I also note that apparently little effort was made to balance feats in 4E since 4E also (at this time) seems to have more than it's fair share of stinker feats (something I thought was supposed to be eliminated).
-Polaris
Hmm, I don't know about that. Getting +2 to damage with axes and hammers or upgrading your Sneak Attack to 2d8 from 2d6 is nice, but it isn't *necessary* like Weapon Finesse or Power Attack or Natural Spell or DMM was to so many 3.5 builds. Can you give examples of feats in 4e that are as build-defining as the big ones in 3.5?
P.S. It would be nice if you could post criticisms without the attitude--
Too ironic, coming from you.
No. It's not even close.
First of all, I am using the term "path" in exactly the way 4E does. I.e. character choices made at the beginning of your career that define your character and character options for the rest of his career and are not changeable. The TWF/Archery forms are certainly paths by 4E standards, but so are all the other things I mentioned as well (such as clerical domains and wizard specialization).
Moreover, the wizard alone has more options than 4E put together if you just want to count combinations of powers because the wizard can pick and choose as many selections (repeatable) combinations of spells per day as he has slots. The cleric is the same way if not even more so (since the cleric is given his spell knowledge gratis).
Do the counting and you will find I am right.
-Polaris
Well, you are forgetting several things here:
First off, we really don't know the mechanics behind the wizard's powers, how much of their powers they can swap out, and what they can't yet. What we do know is that the demo characters they have shown only had an extra daily power, and that was the only one capable of being swapped because of it. If any spell can be swapped out by the Wizard, that could significantly increase the versatility of the class, and put it at least on par with 3rd Edition's rendition (and that's ignoring the fact that 4E Wizards have abilities they can use all day, potentially allowing them to exceed the 3E rendition in usefulness for that reason, despite some of the literally broken powers of 3E Wizards).
Secondly, we also do not know much about how clerics work, about what effect their choice of god will have on their abilities, or whether they too can swap powers out. Anything said about them is also conjecture, and largely pointless until we get more info.
Lastly, there is the possibility that certain classes may have several "premade path ideas", rather than just two like has been shown with the rogue.
That's a matter of opinion. Given what we've seen thus far, I'd have to say (and I dare say I am far from alone) that 4E represents a regression more than an evolution of the game. Certainly RPing (and simulation) is something that 4E seems to discourage (at least rules as written from what we know).
-Polaris
Considering that the last remaining roleplaying mechanics (alignment-based mechanics) in D&D have been divorced, I'd say that the rules of D&D don't en- or discourage roleplaying at all... because there are no mechanics either way. By any other respect, no game can really discourage roleplaying. I've seen people play Vampire without roleplaying, and that's considered a game completely based around it; I got into roleplaying because of Risk, and I don't remember reading the RP rules in the book.
If I wanted to play FFXI, I'd play FFXI. And that's what 4e's "multiclassing" really is--swiped from FFXI. Just like in FFXI, you get some benefits from multiclassing, but they aren't strong enough to break the game. Unlike in FFXI, you suffer for "multiclassing" in 4e, having to waste a feat for a weak power.
You can take every single class in 4E and swap between them anytime you go inside a Mog House? Seriously?!
Too ironic, coming from you.
Pot calls the kettle black?
The big difference, and the point Polaris is missing is that the entire game of 3.5E D&D is focused on character creation. It is what the whole game is built around. 4E is built on a different paradigm, that of focusing on the actual play instead of character creation.
You have summed up, more or less, the core of what I disliked about 3e. It was a game that *encouraged* you to sit around for a week in between sessions fine-tuning your character, and *required* you to at least spend a day doing this if you wanted your character to be any good.
For a supposedly "social" game a lot of the game involved sitting around outside of the session with a bunch of books open and a pile of notes, working out calculations for a character progression. And it had the corresponding letdown feeling of any game too focused on prep time -- you spend weeks on your "uber build", spend several sessions waiting for the chance to achieve that capstone ability, then use it once or twice in the great big finale session and that's it. (And if, God forbid, the game is interrupted or ended prematurely, all that time is effectively wasted.)
It's just not good for the game to have a game so focused on looking forward, on "tweaking" and on prep rather than on the experience of actually playing the game. A lot of the dysfunctions common to D&D groups came about as a result of this -- players trying to one-up each other, lack of communication within a player group, players coming up with Master Plans outside of game time that conflict directly with the DM's Master Plan, etc. It's all the result of having a game you have to study for like a test.
1. 20 levels of 3E is equivalent to 30 levels of 4E. This has been stated by the designers. 18 feats vs 7 feats is a valid comparison.
Facts not in evidence. I challenge you here and now to show me ANY designer that says that a 30th level 4E character is equivalent to a 20th level 3E character. Yes several have said they want to expand the so-called "sweet spot", but that's not at all the same thing. OTOH, I can point out that Epic characters start at 21st level in both editions (and the only difference here is that Epic character rules are defined in 4e from the start...a change I actually approve of). Likewise Paragon paths are clearly meant to be the successors to PrCs and the best/most defining PrCs started around 10th level....so again there is more evidence that a level in 3E should be considered a level in 4E.
Not comparing level by level is not doing an honest comparison.
2. You gain feats at every even level and levels 1, 11, and 21. That adds up to 18. If you take into account that 30 levels of 4E = 20 levels of 3E, the comparison is level 10 3E vs. level 15 4E. At level 15, you will have nine feats in 4E, compared to four feats in 3E.
I already accounted for level 1. IIRC that 11th level feat is a specific paragon feat and the 21st level feat is a specific epic feat which have restrictions and thus I explicitly excluded from the discussion. That means that feats are not as common a commodity as you want to believe especially in the heroic tier where most play will happen.
3. The big difference is that there are not trash feats like those found in 3E. In 3E, feats were critical to character creation and a major part of a character's power. They are now a minor boost and flavor, as class abilities and powers are now the core of what a character can do. The 4E multiclass feats are completely in line with other 4E feats, since an increase in versatility is valuable.
There is at least as much power-delta in 4E feats as 3E feats and that means that some will be "trash" feats. Just wait a month, and we'll know what they are in July. Already some come to mind (such as getting one sneak attack [i]per encounter???? What kind of garbage is that?)
-Polaris