The owner of my FLGS came back this night from the states with a surprise in his backpack, a copy of the 4ed PHB, DMG and MM. He just told me two minutes ago. I asked him to prove it, so he is going to send me a couple scanned pages. As soon as I can I'll confim this.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MINE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: BTW. Why does this always happen? All the pre-release crap comes out of South America. My brother-in-law is Peruvian and I always get pre-released DVD's from his family.
Americans suck!
I have the advancement tables. Here it is:
more lameness from this crappy company called WotC
For such a lame and crappy company, you sure have posted nearly three times a day, every day, for the last three years on their message boards.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MINE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: BTW. Why does this always happen? All the pre-release crap comes out of South America. My brother-in-law is Peruvian and I always get pre-released DVD's from his family.
Americans suck!
Guess you haven't heard. More then a few people have gotten copies early. Apparently Buy.com went and started shipping earlier "accidentally" (Accident my eye. ;) The Player's Handbook went from being ranked #3,057 on their site to being ranked #2, a 152,750% increase according to them. The Core Rulebook set went from #41 to #1, a 4,000% increase). There're people in the 4E General Board and ENWorld who've been posting info from the books all day.
At 30th level just 2/4/4/7 powers. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME, sounds more and more like WoW.
Actually I'm very happy they limited the powers that can be used. What you don't seem to realize is that as near as I can tell, a wizard will have more options than 4 daily powers, it's that they can only prepare 4 of their spells (daily powers) per day. I was actually concerned that they would wind up with a ridiculous amount of powers that could be used every encounter, and enough daily powers that they wouldn't have to worry about blowing all of their dailies too early.
Actually I'm very happy they limited the powers that can be used. What you don't seem to realize is that as near as I can tell, a wizard will have more options than 4 daily powers, it's that they can only prepare 4 of their spells (daily powers) per day. I was actually concerned that they would wind up with a ridiculous amount of powers that could be used every encounter, and enough daily powers that they wouldn't have to worry about blowing all of their dailies too early.
It's both Daily Powers and Utility Powers that are memorized from spellbooks, actually. Every time a Wizard would gain a Daily or Utility Power, he can choose two and inscribe them into his spellbook. So a Level 30 Wizard can cast 4 Daily Spells and 7 Utility Spells, but his spellbook has 8 Daily Spells and 14 Utility Spells to choose from. Rituals are also inscribed in spellbooks.
And while the variety for the Wizard may be cut down, the choices for every other class has been beefed up immensely. The Fighter, for instance, gets the following.
At 1st-level, he has four At-Will Powers, four Encounter Powers, and three Daily Powers to choose from. At 2nd-level he has four Utility Powers to choose from. At 3rd-level he has six Encounter Powers to choose from. At 5th-level he has three Daily Powers to choose from. At 6th-level he has three Utility Powers to choose from. At 7th-level he has five Encounter Powers to choose from. At 9th-level he has three Daily Powers to choose from. Three Utilities at 10th. Six Encounters at 13th. Three Daily's at 15th. Three Utilities at 16th. Six Encounters at 17th, and so on. Nevermind Paragon Path, Epic Destiny, and Feats (18 by 30th-level). That's a ton of choices for every class. Personally, I'm salivating at the prospect of playing a Fighter, again. Nevermind a Paladin. And Wizard's finally look interesting to me.
That's just more similar to what we had in 3E, but I don't know if that's balanced with it.
It's possible that the sum of powers a 4E characters know is lower than the sum of spells a 3E characters knew... but 4E characters do not only have powers.
Yep. A Wizard who has Nature, Arcane, and Religion trained (all three are Class Skills for him) can have up to 45 Rituals. And if he burns a Feat for Skill Training: Religion, then he can have them all.
I looked through the books, quickly
I wonder why other people play D&D, man, e.g. look at the ranger, 1[W] damage, 1[W] damage + Str, 1[W] damage + Dex, 1[W] damage, 1[W] + Str damage, 2[W] + Str damage, shift (whoa), 1[W] + Str damage, 2[W] + Str damage, 2[W] + Str damage, 2[W] + Dex damage ...
I've not read the rituals yet (since they are useless in combat anyways) but except for very few spells (which I can count with miy fingers) all spells are damage spells. So much for a "CONTROLER", the wizard sounds more like a Blaster. And the spells feel more like: I use my sword that instead of slashing damage does fire damage. Not even counting the Bow & Arrow Magic Missile (that does only one missile no matter your level). They don't feel like spells but like an array of weapons the character wields and uses.
Except for the effects of the spells themselve they have killed any kind of out-of-the-box thinking a Spellcaster player could do with them.
The differences between characters are this: Save Defense, Hit Points, Class Skills and the Flavor of Powers, for the rest they are the same generic crap with the same BAB, same number of feats, same number of powers. They killed all the fun in learning how to play a new class. In their efforts to "balance" the classes they killed what made them fun. There is no point in playing one class over the other because they all have mostly the same things to do. 99% of the time you'll use the At-Will powers (that suck very badly), once per encounter you can do something a little better and you can only once-per-day cast a spell (you can't prepare the same spell twice, meaning that a Wizard can't cast two Meteor Swarms for example, which suck major time because it forces you to rely on at-wills that have the same damage that normal weapons, *vomits*).
The artwork is not even that good. I thought they were going to be better than the preview books.
Current Score: -10
Current statement: I preffer to play a Pathfinder Fighter before a 4ed Wizard (and that says a lot about me, somebody who loves arcane classes), it has more fun and it's not nerfed to appease a group of whiniers who don't have the intelligence to play anything more complex than a 3.5 Fighter. I'm not going to play $ed. As soon as I finish reading these books I'll give them back to the person who gave it to me and we'll make a nice fire with them, that's all they deserve. He is only going to deal with Pathfinder material from now on.
And I'll also appologise to WoW, at this moment it's a better system than 4ed.
I've not read the rituals yet (since they are useless in combat anyways)
You're not happy with the number of combat spells... but aren't interested in the non-combat spells?
So much for a "CONTROLER"
Role: Controller. You exert control through magical effects that cover large areas—sometimes hindering foes, sometimes consuming them with fire.
The Wizard does that and more. The Wizard is the master of area effect powers. Legion's Hold stuns or dazes all the targets within the area of effect. Greater Ice Storm immobilizes or slows all the targets within the area of effect. Forcecage imprisons a target. Confusion outright controls a target. Prismatic Spray slows and stuns the targets. Necrotic Web immobilizes the targets. Maze traps the target. Elemental Maw pulls the targets towards the maw. Thunderclap stuns the target. Acid Storm blocks line of sight. Evard's Black Tentacles immobilizes the targets and creates a zone of difficult terrain. Wall of Ice creates a 60 foot long wall right amongst the enemy. Web immobilizes all the targets and any who step within it. All of that is battlefield control. So yes, the Wizard is a Controller.
but except for very few spells (which I can count with miy fingers) all spells are damage spells
You have 27 fingers?
You're not happy with the number of combat spells... but aren't interested in the non-combat spells?
They aren't Wizard only, even Fighters can use them, so much for """"""""""""""SPELLS"""""""""""""". Fighters aren't supposed to use Ritual Scrolls. And I'm not happy about the way the nerfed the spells themselves, or that they destroyed most forms of stopping enemies without killing them. Forcecage should only cage the enemy, not do damage, the same with Maze, it traps it, but it does damage too. Prismatic Spray was so nerfed that I almost vomited. And Magic Missile still rubs me in a very wrong way.
The Wizard does that and more. The Wizard is the master of area effect powers. Legion's Hold stuns or dazes all the targets within the area of effect. Greater Ice Storm immobilizes or slows all the targets within the area of effect. Forcecage imprisons a target. Confusion outright controls a target. Prismatic Spray slows and stuns the targets. Necrotic Web immobilizes the targets. Maze traps the target. Elemental Maw pulls the targets towards the maw. Thunderclap stuns the target. Acid Storm blocks line of sight. Evard's Black Tentacles immobilizes the targets and creates a zone of difficult terrain. Wall of Ice creates a 60 foot long wall right amongst the enemy. Web immobilizes all the targets and any who step within it. All of that is battlefield control. So yes, the Wizard is a Controller.
That's the secondary effect, the main effect is always damage, and except for Sleep there is nothing to stop an enemy without killing it. Those spells are the usual spells for BLASTER Wizards. A Blaster is not a Controller. In 3ed a Druid would be a controler (altering the terrain, not damaging the enemy and doing something else)
You have 27 fingers?
No, I didn't counted Utility Spells, I counted the few non-damaging spells that aren't listed as Utility.
Like somebody else said in the General Boards, every class feels like a Wizard, and therefore they don't feel like what they are supposed to do. There is no difference (other than very bland flavor) between a Wizard doing Magic Missile (his 99% of the time spell) and a Fighter "Swinging Hard". It's TOO DAMN GENERIC.
And I was hoping that the rules would at least redeem something about the new edition. WotC killed so many sacred cows that this is not D&D.
That's the secondary effect, the main effect is always damage, and except for Sleep there is nothing to stop an enemy without killing it.
From the PHB, pg. 295.
Knocking Creatures Unconscious
When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it.
No, I didn't counted Utility Spells, I counted the few non-damaging spells that aren't listed as Utility.
Well, as long as we're shifting the goal posts to suit the argument. Because after all, Utility Spells aren't spells...
From the PHB, pg. 295.
Knocking Creatures Unconscious
When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it.
Wow, after cutting all his members and bleed him I can decide to just knock him down like nothing happened?
How realistic, it's amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, as long as we're shifting the goal posts to suit the argument. Because after all, Utility Spells aren't spells...
They aren't combat-only spells, which was what I was talking about.
Wow, after cutting all his members and bleed him I can decide to just knock him down like nothing happened?
How realistic, it's amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shifting goal posts again? You wanted a way to stop an enemy without killing them. You can do that. Still not happy? Well, at least you're consistent.
They aren't combat-only spells, which was what I was talking about.
Most of them are combat oriented, or are only really useful in combat. And once again, shifting the goal posts. You're complaining about the lack of spells which don't deal damage. And yet when it's pointed out that there's a whole slew of spells which don't deal damage, then they somehow don't count. Oh well.
So...I recieved a package today...
Wizmon's Q&A
I also have the books [merged] (info on upcomming Power sources and more)
Shifting goal posts again? You wanted a way to stop an enemy without killing them. You can do that. Still not happy? Well, at least you're consistent.
I preffer non-lethal damage, it's way more realistic.
This way there is no difference between them, you just do damage and after you left him to 0 HP you decide at that moment (and not before) that all the fireballs (that really burn) and sword slashes and arrow hits never did damage to important organs that would kill the target.
And I was complaining about the lack of "Magic".
Most of them are combat oriented, or are only really useful in combat. And once again, shifting the goal posts. You're complaining about the lack of spells which don't deal damage. And yet when it's pointed out that there's a whole slew of spells which don't deal damage, then they somehow don't count. Oh well.
No, I complain about the lack of non-damage spells that can be strategicaly used in combat, like the way Forcecage and Maze are in 3rd edition. Damage spells are not always the best solution to end a combat. And I only have Sleep for that, or decide that the single Meteor Swarm, Fireball and at-will Magic Missiles I used to hit the target suddenly only knocked it instead of doing lethal damage.
Even my girlfriend went WTF? with the rule you just posted about 0HP. And she doesn't cares about rules, she can play with anything she wants.
I preffer non-lethal damage, it's way more realistic.
We're talking about a system which uses hit points. No edition of D&D has ever dealt with damage realistically.
Hit Points are an abstraction. 'Damage' is an abstraction, and a lot of times isn't actual physical damage, but the character being worn down, tired out, or demoralized. In that light, is it really weird to see a Magic Missile strike a guy and KO him instead of kill him? Or for a Fighter to hit a guy with the flat of his blade and KO him? Etc?
No, I complain about the lack of non-damage spells that can be strategicaly used in combat, like the way Forcecage and Maze are in 3rd edition
Maze is an example of the above. What's listed as "damage" can easily be described as a character getting demoralized, panicky, and frantic. No actual physical harm, though. Or just a few scrapes and bruises.
We're talking about a system which uses hit points. No edition of D&D has ever dealt with damage realistically.
But this edition is the less realistical of all.
Hit Points are an abstraction. 'Damage' is an abstraction, and a lot of times isn't actual physical damage, but the character being worn down, tired out, or demoralized.
They have a difference, non-lethal damage equals to worn down, tired out or demoralized. Lethal damage is that, lethal. That'w why WoD diferentiates Bashing Damage from Lethal and Agravated Damage.
In that light, is it really weird to see a Magic Missile strike a guy and KO him instead of kill him?
Yes it is, because spells do lethal damage, there are metamagic feats to convert them to non-lethal.
Or for a Fighter to hit a guy with the flat of his blade and KO him? Etc?
Not at all, that's what anybody does when they decide to do non-lethal damage. But it's specifically declared BEFORE you do it, not after you leave the enemy at 0 HP and noticing that your companions wanted to capture the enemy rather than kill him, and you stabed it to death before realizing that.
Maze is an example of the above. What's listed as "damage" can easily be described as a character getting demoralized, panicky, and frantic. No actual physical harm, though. Or just a few scrapes and bruises.
Then it should do NON-LETHAL damage. If it's not declared as non-lethal then it's lethal, period. I don't want Maze and Forcecage doing lethal damage because it completely breaks my suspension of disbelief, I want them to simply stop the actions of the enemy.
But this edition is the less realistical of all.
Compared to a guy who can get stabbed 20 times with a longsword and not die? Or fall 100 feet and not die?
Yes it is, because spells do lethal damage, there are metamagic feats to convert them to non-lethal.
Assume the metamagic feats are already built in. Simple. Any reason to think otherwise?
Not at all, that's what anybody does when they decide to do non-lethal damage. But it's specifically declared BEFORE you do it, not after you leave the enemy at 0 HP and spontaneously decide that your companions wanted to capture the enemy rather than kill him and you stabed it to death.
Then say the whole time that you're doing nonlethal damage? You're complicating the whole thing unnecessarily. The whole thing goes does exactly the same whether you say you're doing nonlethal damage the whole time or not. So what does it matter if you say at the end of the fight "Ok, I want to KO him, instead?".
Then it should do NON-LETHAL damage. If it's not declared as non-lethal then it's lethal, period. I don't want Maze and Forcecage doing lethal damage because it completely breaks my suspension of disbelief, I want them to simply stop the actions of the enemy.
That's your assumption. Nowhere does it state that it's lethal. You just assume it to be as such, but an assumption is not fact. And given that there's a rule stating that you can choose to either KO an opponent or kill him, and that hit points are specifically pointed out as not being solely an indicator of raw physical damage taken, the truth of the matter is that all damage is clearly not considered lethal.
Compared to a guy who can get stabbed 20 times with a longsword and not die? Or fall 100 feet and not die?
That's going to happen in this edition too, with the added problem that we don't have mechanics for non-lethal damage.
Assume the metamagic feats are already built in. Simple. Any reason to think otherwise?
Yes, a Fireball does Fire damage, it causes burns, you can't say that they are non-lethal because it breaks any kind of logic you can think.
Then say the whole time that you're doing nonlethal damage? You're complicating the whole thing unnecessarily.
But I don't have non-lethal damage mechanics, it'll still be the same.
The whole thing goes does exactly the same whether you say you're doing nonlethal damage the whole time or not. So what does it matter if you say at the end of the fight "Ok, I want to KO him, instead?".
It's because it's unrealisticaly beyond belief. I stab the enemy 100 times with the point, I cut his arms with the edge of a sword (I do a lot of that stuff in my games). And suddenly I say at the end of the combat he is just knocked out and with his arms attached?
That's your assumption. Nowhere does it state that it's lethal. You just assume it to be as such. An assumption is not fact.
Nowhere does it states that it's not lethal either. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. And just by having slashing, fire, acid and other kinds of lethal damage supports more my side than yours, there is no non-lethal damage type, they are ALL lethal.
There is even a Bloodied status that happens when you get too low on HP for God's sake, and you are going to tell me that you aren't bleeding to death at that point? Be serious. 4th edition killed the few logical things about the HP mechanics that prior editions had. If it's not reflected in the mechanics then it doesn't exists (and don't bring houserules and interpretation, those are irrelevant in this conversation), since there is nothing written about non-lethal damage (with the exception when it reaches 0 HP) then non-lethal damage is not contemplated as a game mechanic and it's just an illogical option you get when the enemy is bleeding to death (Bloodied status always happens, it means you always bleed)
So what does magic missile do now? It requires an intelligence attack on the will of the target for 1d4+1 force damage? Thats it? No multiple missiles kinda sucks. But I prefer the missile as an attack. This philosophy is clean an simple and makes a fast targetting mages actually care about their accuracy with them. Force slinging takes skill now.
And it's completely unrealistical. A blot of energy that strikes unerringly should not be targeted as if it was an arrow. Rays do, but they require minimum presision in the way of a Ranged Touch attack (not an attack to full AC), and it's almost irrelevant, I've never missed a Ranged Touch Attack in my life. Magic Missile is like a Maverick Missile. Fire and Forget.
Magic should not be treated like an attack, it cheapens it and turns it into just a different type of sword.
Something a mage can be proud of as well (especially if he crits!).
A Wizard's pride is in the power of the spells he can cast, not how well he aims (that's the rangers pride). Alediran is proud with his ability to cast high-level spells and his dominion over them, not if he fails or hits a Disintegration on a target.
Nowhere does it states that it's not lethal either. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. And just by having slashing, fire, acid and other kinds of lethal damage supports more my side than yours, there is no non-lethal damage type, they are ALL lethal.
The PHB states that "Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation." So yes, I do have evidence that not all damage is lethal. Because when you lose hit points, it isn't just physical damage or solely physical damage. It's demoralizing the character, wearing him down, and tiring him out, too, or his luck simply running out. Physical damage is only a part of that, and even then, that damage isn't automatically lethal.
As for the damage types, once again, demoralization or luck. Someone freaking out because their armor got splashed with acid, or because they barely avoided getting incinerated by a dragons breath weapon. They got lucky this time and weren't eviscerated, but next time they might not be so lucky. Mechanically, they lose hit points, but that doesn't mean they were actually damaged.
That's going to happen in this edition too, with the added problem that we don't have mechanics for non-lethal damage.
Hit Points aren't solely described as physical damage, so getting hit 20 times by a longsword doesn't mean you were stabbed 20 times in the stomach. It means one longsword swing came in close, unnerving you. Another one you deflected with your shield, but the blow was hard enough to cause your knees to buckle. Etc. That's how D&D fights work, and how they've always been assumed to work, in order for them to make sense. Nobody takes any real damage until pretty much the last hit which takes them down.
There is even a Bloodied status that happens when you get too low on HP for God's sake, and you are going to tell me that you aren't bleeding to death at that point? Be serious. 4th edition killed the few logical things about the HP mechanics that prior editions had.
Bloodied can mean as little as simply having a broken nose. It doesn't mean you're bleeding to death. It's simply a point in the fight at which one side senses they have the advantage and the other side realizes they're losing. And yeah, I'd say it 4E fixed the issues with hit points, by explicitly stating that hit points aren't physical damage, but a measure of numerous factors.
The PHB states that "Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation." So yes, I do have evidence that not all damage is lethal. Because when you lose hit points, it isn't just physical damage or solely physical damage. It's demoralizing the character, wearing him down, and tiring him out, too. Physical damage is only a part of that, and even then, that damage isn't automatically lethal.
As for the damage types, once again, demoralization. Someone freaking out because their armor got splashed with acid, or because they barely avoided getting incinerated by a dragons breath weapon. Mechanically, they lose hit points, but that doesn't mean they were actually damaged.
Hit Points aren't solely described as physical damage, so getting hit 20 times by a longsword doesn't mean you were stabbed 20 times in the stomach. It means one longsword swing came in close, unnerving you. Another one you deflected with your shield, but the blow was hard enough to cause your knees to buckle. Etc. That's how D&D fights work, and how they've always been assumed to work, in order for them to make sense. Nobody takes any real damage until pretty much the last hit which takes them down.
Bloodied can mean as little as simply having a broken nose. It doesn't mean you're bleeding to death. It's simply a point in the fight at which one side senses they have the advantage and the other side realizes they're losing. And yeah, I'd say it 4E fixed the issues with hit points, by explicitly stating that hit points aren't physical damage, but a measure of numerous factors.
I have to say, this philosophy for HP is garbage at best. While it is ok for hp to not fully/directly correlate to physical damage, it is damage none-the-less. Whether that damage is mental, spiritual, or physical really only depends on the method of attack. All those other factors you describe are better handled by other means, be it ability damage, bonuses/penalties, condition effects, or non-lethal damage. This "one mechanic to rule them all" is garbage...
The PHB states that "Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation." So yes, I do have evidence that not all damage is lethal. Because when you lose hit points, it isn't just physical damage or solely physical damage. It's demoralizing the character, wearing him down, and tiring him out, too. Physical damage is only a part of that, and even then, that damage isn't automatically lethal.
A stab in the gut isn't lethal.
. That list is again an abstraction, it doesn't reflects any mechanic that deals with non-lethal damage, something that 3rd edition did with special rules for non-lethal damage that covered tiring, wearines and exessive physical effort that are appart from real damage. Without a mechanic for non-lethal damage all that list is useless from a mechanical point of view, it's just fluff, an abstraction that has no real impact on the game.As for the damage types, once again, demoralization. Someone freaking out because their armor got splashed with acid, or because they barely avoided getting incinerated by a dragons breath weapon. Mechanically, they lose hit points, but that doesn't mean they were actually damaged.
And again, the splash of acid doesn't just sticks in the armor, it bypasses it and damages the body of the target, that's another reason I find the magic system of this edition as pure crap, they are just weapons with different flavor, it doesn't respects the fact that armor doesn't protects against magic at all. The splash of acid is actually energy that directly attacks the target's body.
And what about Electrical spells, can you honestly say that you just "freak" when a lightning bolt hits you? No, unless you are completely isolated, that lightning bolt is going to fry your entrails and there is no way you can justify it as non-lethal damage (and Electricity spells are my favorite).
Hit Points aren't solely described as physical damage, so getting hit 20 times by a longsword doesn't mean you were stabbed 20 times in the stomach. It means one longsword swing came in close, unnerving you. Another one you deflected with your shield, but the blow was hard enough to cause your knees to buckle. Etc. That's how D&D fights work, and how they've always been assumed to work, in order for them to make sense.
And I do, but any kind of damage that isn't declared as non-lethal is going to make cuts and very small holes in your body. That's they way it's dealt by most groups.
Nobody takes any real damage until pretty much the last hit which takes them down.
It's actually when you reach 10% of your max HPs, at that point you begin to bleed a little faster than just a surface cut.
Bloodied can mean as little as simply having a broken nose. It doesn't mean you're bleeding to death. It's simply a point in the fight at which one side senses they have the advantage and the other side realizes they're losing.
That's only your interpretation.
And yeah, I'd say it 4E fixed the issues with hit points, by explicitly stating that hit points aren't physical damage, but a measure of numerous factors
Great, then I can't cut the arms of the enemy because hit points aren't physical damage and if I do I'm breaking the rules because I can't justify a simple knockdown with all the bleeding a cut arm does. More reasons for not playing 4th edition at all. Each post you made only convinces me of how crappy 4ed is.
I have to say, this philosophy for HP is garbage at best. While it is ok for hp to not fully/directly correlate to physical damage, it is damage none-the-less. Whether that damage is mental, spiritual, or physical really only depends on the method of attack. All those other factors you describe are better handled by other means, be it ability damage, bonuses/penalties, condition effects, or non-lethal damage. This "one mechanic to rule them all" is garbage...
You've said it all bro, that's the way I think too.
And it's completely unrealistical. A blot of energy that strikes unerringly should not be targeted as if it was an arrow. Rays do, but they require minimum presision in the way of a Ranged Touch attack (not an attack to full AC), and it's almost irrelevant, I've never missed a Ranged Touch Attack in my life. Magic Missile is like a Maverick Missile. Fire and Forget.
Magic should not be treated like an attack, it cheapens it and turns it into just a different type of sword.
That intelligence of the mage determines the accuracy now is more realistic. A magic ball of force can miss in all kinds of ways, like a really fast dodging target should get a chance to get away from it. Even maverick missiles can slam into objects before it hits home.
A Wizard's pride is in the power of the spells he can cast, not how well he aims (that's the rangers pride). Alediran is proud with his ability to cast high-level spells and his dominion over them, not if he fails or hits a Disintegration on a target.
I love the Force Missile Adept prc from a dragon mag. The force slinging mage gave me that billy the kid of the specialist mages feel. If I want to play that archetype character I would prefer to use the targeting one, giving me a more active feel in the combats. He would look more badass to me *shrugs*
The fun of casting high level spells has never been my privilage as all my wizards died in 2nd edition before reaching high level. Look I am talking about getting fun out a low level spell here. In 2nd edition my mage had to really savor the moment he casted that magic missile, as he was done after that for the day. Now. Look I have at will abilities like magehand and magic missile that capture my archetype immediately. Not untill at high levels like in 2nd or 3rd edition.
That intelligence of the mage determines the accuracy now is more realistic. A magic ball of force can miss in all kinds of ways, like a really fast dodging target should get a chance to get away from it. Even maverick missiles can slam into objects before it hits home.
Magic missile is a no-miss spell that moves at a speed that nobody can match.
I love the Force Missile Adept prc from a dragon mag. The force slinging mage gave me that billy the kid of the specialist mages feel. If I want to play that archetype character I would prefer to use the targeting one, giving me a more active feel in the combats. He would look more badass to me *shrugs*
I don't, because Wizards aren't gun-slingers, they manipulate reality to shape it to their will. If their will determines that the Magic Missile is faster than the target and doesn't misses then Magic Missile works in that way.
The fun of casting high level spells has never been my privilage as all my wizards died in 2nd edition before reaching high level..
And I have played lots of High-Level Wizards.
Now. Look I have at will abilities like magehand and magic missile that capture my archetype immediately. Not untill at high levels like in 2nd or 3rd edition.
And then you fail every single magic missile you throw because the spell is not a spell anymore but just a mundane attack disguised as magic. I'm sorry but spells that are always forced to be "targeted" doesn't gives me an impression of magic, more like an array of weapons. A wizard then becomes a Fighter with nice lights.
But yeah, did they bump up the level of grease? Or is it still available at first? What happened to the wizard schools?
I like fighting with lights. ^^ Blaster Gishes are great.
But yeah, did they bump up the level of grease? Or is it still available at first? What happened to the wizard schools?
Grease doesn't exists. Wizard Schools are dead. The only similar spell is Web, and only Web.
Grease is gone? Or is it a ritual? The most FUNNY spell of D&D is gone? I guess we'll have to wait for the Arcane Power tome to come out for it...
No ritual either.
Examples:
Wizards with limited at will spells.
Fighters with slightly more to do than a basic attack.
Clerics/Druids that aren't super tanks (good magic, armor, bab progression).
Rogues able to affect more things with their Sneak Attack.
Warlocks with a slightly better selection of abilities.
A grapple system that doesn't suck.
Personally, I wouldn't be so up in arms over these issues if wizards were able to switch out their at-will/encounter powers just like with utility/daily powers. It wouldn't have bothered me so much to have less access to spells on a DAILY level if we could switch out those at-will/encounter powers. Just knowing that the greater versatility is available would have been enough for me. Wizards collect spells and knowledge, and utility/daily/rituals just aren't enough of a carrot for me; the collection should include all aspects of the power scheme. Before someone says, "you do collect knowledge when you level" its not the same and you know it...
I cringed when I read Book of Nine Swords because I realized that the book not only murdered fighters, but nerfed wizards. Now to see the spawn of that book manifesting itself into an entire system that forces every class to conform to it just makes me want to puke.
I've signed up for a 4e trial game with two of the players in my group on "Worldwide Try to Sell 4e Game Day", and that's me giving it a chance, but from everything I've heard and everything I know that I dislike about the "binding" sense you get from playing video games, I believe I will not like it. Also, the post-apocalyptic realms with uber fantastic half dragons and demons is a little too "dig into the sugar cereal with the colorful cartoon tiger on the front in order to find the prize" -ish for me. In other words, all fantastic but no substance.
And it's completely unrealistical. A blot of energy that strikes unerringly should not be targeted as if it was an arrow. Rays do, but they require minimum presision in the way of a Ranged Touch attack (not an attack to full AC), and it's almost irrelevant, I've never missed a Ranged Touch Attack in my life. Magic Missile is like a Maverick Missile. Fire and Forget.
Magic should not be treated like an attack, it cheapens it and turns it into just a different type of sword.
It's a game where you use magic. One spell is that a "Magic Missle" leaps from your hands to strike your enemy. NONE OF THAT IS REALISTIC AT ALL!!!!!!!! Complaining because the new version of the spell is unrealistic is mind-boggling. It cannot possibly be less realistic than the original version. I'm not saying it's more realistic, but all of your arguments equate to, "I hate the phoenix because it is soooo unrealistic when compared to the unicorn." If you don't like the game, that's fine. However, there has never been a single version of Dungeons and Dragons, not since the early adaptation of Chainmail that has ever been in any way shape or form even remotely realistic. Stop trying to use realism as an argument.
Sorry, couldn't help it. :D
It's a game where you use magic. One spell is that a "Magic Missle" leaps from your hands to strike your enemy. NONE OF THAT IS REALISTIC AT ALL!!!!!!!! Complaining because the new version of the spell is unrealistic is mind-boggling. It cannot possibly be less realistic than the original version. I'm not saying it's more realistic, but all of your arguments equate to, "I hate the phoenix because it is soooo unrealistic when compared to the unicorn." If you don't like the game, that's fine. However, there has never been a single version of Dungeons and Dragons, not since the early adaptation of Chainmail that has ever been in any way shape or form even remotely realistic. Stop trying to use realism as an argument.
Realism is in the context of what we are discussing. From the POV of D&D Magic Missile unerringly strikes at the enemy. It's unrealistic that now it needs an attack roll.
Realism is in the context of what we are discussing. From the POV of D&D Magic Missile unerringly strikes at the enemy. It's unrealistic that now it needs an attack roll.
Oh, you mean consistency. There is no realism in the issue, but I can see the argument that 4ed lacks consistency with previous versions, because it does. However, none of this has anything to do with reality, and thus is not realistic.
Guess you haven't heard. More then a few people have gotten copies early. Apparently Buy.com went and started shipping earlier "accidentally" (Accident my eye. ;) The Player's Handbook went from being ranked #3,057 on their site to being ranked #2, a 152,750% increase according to them. The Core Rulebook set went from #41 to #1, a 4,000% increase). There're people in the 4E General Board and ENWorld who've been posting info from the books all day.
I heard about that same thing, from lurking on enworld.com.
By the way, Alediran, while I appreciate hearing bits about the 4E books, I'd be careful about copying and pasting them too much here--it could be considered a copyright violation.
As for myself, I preordered the core rulebook set on Amazon for 40% off.;)
Corellon and Sehanine are unaligned, wtf initially I was shocked
I was a bit surprised about Corellon (though in retrospect, it makes some sense), but I kinda expected Sehanine to be Unaligned based on some snippets in the preview material. The whole "elves are CG!" trope seems to be gone. In fact, I got the impression that all the player races were more or less neutral, but Moradin (as a core god) is LG from what I've heard.
Current Score: -10
I can't say I agree, as I don't even have these books yet, but...this is so over-the-top it made me laugh out loud!
That's only your interpretation.
I like GK's interpretation though--I had the sense that HP didn't always stand for physical damage even back before 4E was announced. For me, that was the only way D&D combat really made sense (that is, how can you be cleaved with an axe several times and not die?).
(Dont get me wrong I have no problems with porn, but to download the rules.:rolleyes
-Yeah Spellslingers got hit with a big nerf stick, while melee got powered up. I was telling one of the guys I game with that all classes would be balanced against each other and...well his reaction is kinda like Alediran's a big WTF?!?!?!?!
18D;)
-Magic Missile does 2d4+Intelligence mod of dmg. It increases at epic, how much I dont know. I went looking for the 4E Pdf, when I found it, I was like WTF. I would have to sign up for a porn account, just to download it.
18D;)
High fantasy = High porn. Duh.
High fantasy = High porn. Duh.
Hahahaha, I almost puked.
Seems to cover all the previous archetypes and more when combined with the roles of defender, striker, controller or leader. This makes controllers of the elemental, psionic, primal and shadow a bit like the old specialist mages of yore, the elemental savant, psion, druid and illusionist.
As for myself, I preordered the core rulebook set on Amazon for 40% off.;)
ditto
Hahahaha, I almost puked.
Well, I certainly hope you weren't 'bout to puke on the high fantasy of porn. 'Cause, I think you would be in a league of your own in many perspectives.
-Yeah Spellslingers got hit with a big nerf stick, while melee got powered up. I was telling one of the guys I game with that all classes would be balanced against each other and...well his reaction is kinda like Alediran's a big WTF?!?!?!?!
Hey, if you prefer a game where the classes aren't balanced, then it exists.
I like GK's interpretation though--I had the sense that HP didn't always stand for physical damage even back before 4E was announced. For me, that was the only way D&D combat really made sense (that is, how can you be cleaved with an axe several times and not die?).
Yep. That's how we played it back during AD&D, too. As an abstract notion of fighting spirit, luck, etc. The Wizard shoots a Lightning Bolt at you, and you barely dodge out of the way. You got lucky this time, although you're not as concerned as you might otherwise be, as you know you're resistant to electric attacks (reduced from 20 to 14 hit points), but maybe next time you might not be so lucky. The Fighter swings his sword at you and you parry it with your shield. You're not actually hurt, but you had to exert yourself to deflect his blow away (reduced from 14 hit points to 8). The Thief tries to backstab you, but your full plate deflects his dagger. Once again you're unharmed but that attack from an unexpected character rattled you and threw you off balance (reduced from 8 hit points to 2), leaving you open for the Wizard who shoots another lightning bolt at you. This time your luck ran out and you're actually struck (reduced from 2 to -4). So after all that, you've only really taken one actual injury, despite your hit points being worn down.
Though to be honest, I don't really like class balance simply for its own sake... come up with a good in-game reason why they are and I don't have a problem, but I don't really like the idea of arbitrary 'fairness' on principle. Just rubs me the wrong way in anything, not just gaming.
Usually the way I looked at HP... nice summation there GK.
Sankeeyoo.
Though to be honest, I don't really like class balance simply for its own sake... come up with a good in-game reason why they are and I don't have a problem, but I don't really like the idea of arbitrary 'fairness' on principle. Just rubs me the wrong way in anything, not just gaming.
Well, as I pointed out, there're plenty of games which don't put a lot of thought into class balance, so there's plenty of options in that regard. Even in 4E, if you really feel the need to have one character more powerful then another, then simply houserule that Character X is always two levels higher then Character Y, or similar. Easy change, there.
Here're quotes from two posters elsewhere who I think made great points, though, and pretty much sum up my feelings on the subject.
Class balance at all levels of play exists for ultimately for one reason:
Fun. :D
By establishing an even of spectrum of "fairness" between classes of the same relative level, a more pleasurable gaming experience OVERALL is more or less ensured. Tabletop RPGs are games that revolve around a cooperative group effort (emphasis on the word group).
If one is only playing a wizard so that his or her character is mechanically superior to the other party members, then perhaps s/he is playing D&D for all the wrong reasons.
Furthermore, a high-level fighter can be just as dramatically compelling and combatively formidable as a high-level wizard. That is, at least, in a balanced system. ;)
PS. 80% of all my D&D characters have been wizards- and not just arcane spellcasters, but wizards.
True, but power level should never be used as a means of differentiating classes. There are plenty of legitimate ways to make classes mechanically distinct while keeping Wizards on the same level as Fighters.
If power level is used to differentiate classes, then the entire point of creating different classes is undermined. The point of having both a Fighter and Wizard is to have choice in the game. If there is a class that is clearly superior to either, then that ability to make a reasonable choice is removed.
18D
I can appreciate the idea of trying to mechanically fix that, but not when it comes at the expense of undermining the core concept of a given class, if you see my point there.
Yeah, I see your point. Although I think that the problem when it comes to the Wizard is that it had become so bloated that it encompassed all sorts of things. It's core concept was way to open and allowed it to do way to much. The end result being that the Wizard was essentially "Wizard Class Concept + X Other Class Concepts". ;) It was suffocating most of the other classes. Shame it had to be redefined, but if the end result is all the other classes prospering, then I think it's a good result. Just my opinion, of course.
Yeah, I see your point. Although I think that the problem when it comes to the Wizard is that it had become so bloated that it encompassed all sorts of things. It's core concept was way to open and allowed it to do way to much. The end result being that the Wizard was essentially "Wizard Class Concept + X Other Class Concepts". ;) It was suffocating most of the other classes. Shame it had to be redefined, but if the end result is all the other classes prospering, then I think it's a good result. Just my opinion, of course.
And it was perfect that way. Wizards are the most intelligent people alive. Magc is the shaping of reality at the Caster's own will. Therefore there was nothing bloated about the wizard., it's all perfectly possible. This arbitrary reduction of spells in 4th edition has no realism from that POV. If a Wizard needs to create a spell to open locked doors because nobody else can do it then he will create it and nothing can stop it.
The WoD Mage can cast spells that not even a 90th lvl wizard with every PrC available and with Epic Spells and the full ISC list can. I preffer Mage's method of limiting magic over 4th edition, at least makes sense.
You can't tell me that a smart person who knows his weaknesses is not going to solve them, especially when he can create a spell that does it. This pruning of spells and lots of other things that Wizards had is one of the most horrible aspect of this $ed, it lacks any bit of logic internal consistency. It goes beyond balance. Paizo did a MUCH BETTER, by light years, work of improving the boring classes (which is what a fighter is, boring because he only hits things, well, not anymore with Pathfinder, and I'll play only Pathfinder fighters before playing any 4ed game)
BTW: if anybody wishes to convert spells from 3rd to $th edition and restore the wizard to what it trully means I'll gladly support it.
4th edition will tank big time with all these crappy changes, the only people who will play it are Fighter fanatics. Spellcaster players will stay with 3rd edition.
And it was perfect that way. Wizards are the most intelligent people alive. Magic is the shaping of reality at the Caster's own will. Therefore there was nothing bloated about the wizard., it's all perfectly possible. This arbitrary reduction of spells in 4th edition has no realism from that POV. If a Wizard needs to create a spell to open locked doors because nobody else can do it then he will create it and nothing can stop it.
It's very probable that the vast majority of non-combat spells will be accessible via rituals, so it's probable that with the adequate skill (Arcana) that will be similar to the previous edition.
The WoD Mage can cast spells that not even a 90th lvl wizard with every PrC available and with Epic Spells and the full ISC list can. I preffer Mage's method of limiting magic over 4th edition, at least makes sense.
When the new edition was announced, I also hoped that something similar to Mage's method of spellcasting was acquired. In fact, d20 had something that could be used... Epic Spells had a very good mechanic, and I don't see any reason to not use it at lesser levels.
You can't tell me that a smart person who knows his weaknesses is not going to solve them, especially when he can create a spell that does it. This pruning of spells and lots of other things that Wizards had is one of the most horrible aspect of this $ed, it lacks any bit of logic internal consistency. It goes beyond balance. Paizo did a MUCH BETTER, by light years, work of improving the boring classes (which is what a fighter is, boring because he only hits things, well, not anymore with Pathfinder, and I'll play only Pathfinder fighters before playing any 4ed game)
Let's not forget that wizardry magic has to be learned first. It doesn't come to you by... well, magic. :P And if it does, there's no reason to go adventuring to improve yourself! And sorry for you, but I think that Paizo's fighter will still be blowing things. Is 4e's fighter who has now more options.
BTW: if anybody wishes to convert spells from 3rd to $th edition and restore the wizard to what it trully means I'll gladly support it.
I think that will happen, eventually. Look at all those changes that had 3rd respect 2nd and many things eventually have been updated.
4th edition will tank big time with all these crappy changes, the only people who will play it are Fighter fanatics. Spellcaster players will stay with 3rd edition.
Spellcaster players that want to be superior to others... This game is about fun for everyone. I've witnessed myself how overpowered characters make the game boring for others -- but luckily for you, there wasn't a wizard.
In fact, I think that 4E will bring balance to the fact that novice players played martial characters while veteran players played spellcasters. Now all mechanics are quite similar and I will enjoy this variety (as a player and as a DM as well).
Talking about realism, I should notice that it's been admitted by the designers themselves that they've sacrificed realism to promote speed of play and, eventually, fun. I don't know if that's the right way, I will know when I play that, but let's not use it as an excuse to defame the game.
In my group we've never had any problems with the rules, we even know the grapple rules by memory. We only stop to read the descriptions of spells we don't use often.
It's very probable that the vast majority of non-combat spells will be accessible via rituals, so it's probable that with the adequate skill (Arcana) that will be similar to the previous edition.
Still it's no solution, because the Ritual Scrolls can be used by Fighters without any magical training. Homogeneization just went way overboard.
When the new edition was announced, I also hoped that something similar to Mage's method of spellcasting was acquired. In fact, d20 had something that could be used... Epic Spells had a very good mechanic, and I don't see any reason to not use it at lesser levels.
What I was hoping was that at least you could choose which spell would be at-will, encounter or day, but no, they have to force you to a very small selection, and you can't prepare the same spell twice, it means you can only have one meteor swarm and 3 other different spells in the once-per-day slots. And there is no single spell that motivates me to even try them, they are so weak that when I read them I remember Rincewind from Discworld.
I've already made some numbers and a wizard must go nova with everything it has to kill just one enemy with half-maximum hitpoints and standar salvations. After that he only has Magic Missile (I attack with my sword, wait for my next turn, repeat until death). Masive battles with lots of enemies have gone the way of the dodo.
Let's not forget that wizardry magic has to be learned first. It doesn't come to you by... well, magic. :P
Sorcerers :D
And sorry for you, but I think that Paizo's fighter will still be blowing things. Is 4e's fighter who has now more options.
And I don't have any problem with Fighters having more options, that's why I allow Tome of Battle Classes in my games. What I can't stand for is that for Fighters to look "cool" (base fighters don't have style, I always enter a PrC that fits the character for it's flavour) Wizards have to be nerfed so much. I'm currently playing a Tethyrian Swashbuckler 2 of Torm at a friend's campaign and I'm having the same fun I have with Wizards. Instead of using spells for tipping the battle to my party's side I use flanking, feints, disarms, grapples and other tactical movements to acomplish the same. Satisfaction comes when a tactic or plan goes well, not from the "power" of the character. Wizards who only get to Fireball things without thinking are as boring as fighters who only hit things.
Spellcaster players that want to be superior to others...
No, spellcaster players who feel the 4th edition spellcasters are fighters with different names. Because that's what they are.
This game is about fun for everyone. I've witnessed myself how overpowered characters make the game boring for others -- but luckily for you, there wasn't a wizard.
And at my table everyone has fun. Both me with a Wizard/Elemental Savant and the Fighter/Champion of Corellon Larethian. The key is not put the fun just in combat, but in other aspects. Roleplay doesn't needs numbers, it's the same for a 1st level Wizard or a 40th level Fighter. If somebody needs to feel his character 0wnZ then he is not playing the game as it's supposed to be played.
In fact, I think that 4E will bring balance to the fact that novice players played martial characters while veteran players played spellcasters. Now all mechanics are quite similar and I will enjoy this variety (as a player and as a DM as well).
That's not true, my first D&D character was a Wizard and I never had any problem with it's rules. Yeah, that's right, my first character was a WIZARD. I knew it was hard to play and I didn't cared and I never feared that my character would be killed (he wasn't) or any of the other things most people feel when they start playing Tabletop RPGs, I'm not the kind of person that stops doing something just because somebody tells me it's hard. I left my parent's home (in excelent terms) to live in Buenos Aires (1200 miles away) when I was just 20 years old and next sunday it will be 3 years from that day, I never had any fear, I simply did what I chose to do.
It's not the novice players who play martial characters, it's the weak minded player who has as much INT as the fighter he plays. During my years I've seen lots of new players who chose Wizards and Sorcerers as their first class and handle them well (for their level of experience).
And rituals can make a wizard still fill the roles of others.. polymorph to become a defender, scry to become a scout, find hidden doors and traps and fill the trapspinger role... I hope the new rules make adding new rituals easy. This way the wizard still get to step on the toes of his partymembers by stealing their jobs, albeit at a more deliberate slower pace.
I dont think the problem you have with the new wizards aren't fixable. Both the rules you have problems with, the high end wizard that cant prepare the same spell again and that has to scrap spells from its spellbook, can be handwaved. I dont think it'll have that much of an impact, as a proper DM limits the spells in the spellbook of his player wizard by banning broken ones or not making them easily accessable.
It's the power of the spells what most rubs me the wrong way, they are so weak that they aren't spells, they are just sword with different shapes. They fail to reflect their magic power. On every fantasy world where wizards can use magic to kill magic is the most powerful force, it's the reward for years of practice and lots of weaknesses. Anybody can swing a sword and kill something, but magic requires a special kind of people and if you force magic to be as powerful as a sword I don't see the point of being a Wizard when a Fighter that doesn't requires as much training can "affect the world" (and I mean that in terms of damage + tactical effect) the same way a Wizard can. If I'm told that I can kill somebody with a knife with the same effect that with a fireball (forget the colored effect) and it takes me 1/10 of the time to learn to kill with a knife I would chose the former always because there is no limit of kills I can do with a knife, but I'm limited if I use magic.
And rituals can make a wizard still fill the roles of others.. polymorph to become a defender, scry to become a scout, find hidden doors and traps and fill the trapspinger role... I hope the new rules make adding new rituals easy. This way the wizard still get to step on the toes of his partymembers by stealing their jobs, albeit at a more deliberate slower pace.
And any class can use Ritual Scrolls and step in the ribs of Wizards, and without years of magical training
. The other classes where given WAY TO MUCH and the Wizard was nerfed to the point of useless.Wizards can learn far more rituals than other classes as they are the masters of them... Use magic device for everyone is a bit odd I agree. But arcana skill requires magical schooling so fighters wont be doing any rituals unless they invest by multiclassing if I understand it right.
Well, I need the books in hand to make a proper estimate of the relative power of a high level mage and a fighter. But it'll take a good look at the powers and rituals to properly guess the power. But I dont believe a fighter can replace the wizard as a manipulator of the battlefield. High level mages still get to affect large swaths of areas with high damage or effects right?.
One of the most powerful spells does like 6d6 of damage + int and the area is not that big. It's what a 6th level Warmage does. If that's not powerful then I don't know what it is. Damage doesn't scales by level (it just improves a little once, and not all spells do).
The tactical effects are too lame also. I preffer Grease, Web, Forcecage, Otiluke's Resillient Sphere and Maze the way they are in 3rd edition. At least the effect does something useful.
And if the meant that Wizards are Controllers because of those useless tactical effects then they chose a wrong group for it. They are Blasters, because almost every non-utility spell they cast does damage (and nothing that could say: Wow, it's magic. The Fighter in my table does more damage with one attack than Meteor Swarm with max damage)
Fighters will have to have really longreaching polearms to be able to affect crowds that much.
We have a combo in my game that allows the Fighter to use his full-attack during a charge and kill everything that he can reach during a charge. He has Spring Attack and our Druid casts Lion's Charge on him every turn, so he can charge and attack and continue charging, normal enemies fall like flies under his sword. I've counted how many kills each character does and we have killed the same number of enemies, given or taken a few.
Wizards can learn far more rituals than other classes as they are the masters of them... Use magic device for everyone is a bit odd I agree. But arcana skill requires magical schooling so fighters wont be doing any rituals unless they invest by multiclassing if I understand it right.
What I said was that Ritual SCROLLS could be used by any class (I still need to read it again, but it appears they can use them without needing anything at all).
To address a couple of points - YES, HP was never damage, it was an abstract representing a person's ability to 'absorb' what should have been actual damage - it is more like 'Stamina', and when you run out, you take REAL hits (those negative HP points - those are the real damage that causes you to die).
And as far as 'realism', I'd have to not only agree with GK, but take it one step further - D&D's system has always been the MOST unrealistic, and it is finally becoming more like every other system after thirty years. If you read novels (NOT FR/D&D ones!) or watch movies, there are plenty of instances where a Mage's spells miss. D&D was rather ridiculous in that a Mage was so friggin' omnipotent with his magic. People who don't like this new method obviously thought that Wizards should be 'little gods' walking the earth.
The new system appears much better balanced so that all the classes can have fun, and the others are no longer just "the Wizard's Henchmen". Unfortunately, when I went to download the free PDF version, there wasn't any... I must be thinking of some other company that is giving the PDF version away for free. ;)
The books already revealed the 8 power sources. The Elemental, Psionic, Ki, Shadow and Primal will come eventually. Along with Arcane, Divine and Martial.
So what you are saying is that the sytem in incomplete, and we should wait until they finish it?
I had been thinking much the same thing since hearing about how they took out a lot of 'controller' spells just to make the psionist stand out more. Since that part of the game is now missing until the psionics book comes out, it really doesn't make sense to play with half a game.
Also, some of the classes are missing... once again, perhaps we should all wait until they finish this game.
-Magic Missile does 2d4+Intelligence mod of dmg. It increases at epic, how much I dont know.
-Yeah Spellslingers got hit with a big nerf stick, while melee got powered up. I was telling one of the guys I game with that all classes would be balanced against each other and...well his reaction is kinda like Alediran's a big WTF?!?!?!?!
Delta.... ummmm... do yourself a favor, and DELETE everything in this post that I have erased.
NOW!!!
That has to be one of the strictest COC rules you just broke there! I'd hate to see you banned out of ignorance...
If you dont' like something then dont' play it! If you have problems with it, bring it up for discussion on how to fix it, but for Christ's sake people stop beating it to death! I HATED D20 Modern with such a passion I literally rewrote a set of rules to make it more like D&D 3.5, I posted it once, took the flames from all the fans and moved on without batting an eyelash. No internet argument has ever changed anyone's mind on any subject! Those that hate something will hate it regardless of any "fanboy" argument into its favor, and thos who love something will ignore what they feel is pointless criticism.
As a DM I coud make up all the mechanics for the other powersource classes like the illusionist and psionicist but a little patience might be best. Psionics will be in PH2 right, so withtin a year?
If you dont' like something then dont' play it! If you have problems with it, bring it up for discussion on how to fix it, but for Christ's sake people stop beating it to death! . . . No internet argument has ever changed anyone's mind on any subject! Those that hate something will hate it regardless of any "fanboy" argument into its favor, and thos who love something will ignore what they feel is pointless criticism.
Amen! Amen! And again, Amen!
(base fighters don't have style, I always enter a PrC that fits the character for it's flavour)...
I don't agree on this, I think a character is as cool as you want them to be.
Is the "wizard thing" the main reason you dislike the 4E rules? Have you at least tried out the new rules first? It can't hurt to try them.
I don't agree on this, I think a character is as cool as you want them to be.
Is the "wizard thing" the main reason you dislike the 4E rules? Have you at least tried out the new rules first? It can't hurt to try them.
It's not only the wizard thing. It's the absoulte feeling that all classes are the same with different names, and they mostly are, they even have the same BAB
and can cure thenselves "magically" with "HEALING" surges (and other things that mixes all classes and make them feel generic).I don't like the dissaprearance of ability damage, of Save or Die effects, of the -2 to con for elves (or any -X to something depending on race). Of the renaming of Wizard Elves into Eladrin. Of the incompleteness of the system. Of the way magic feels like a sword attack. Of the lack of non-lethal combat powers to avoid the silly idea that you hacked an enemy to pieces and when it reaches 0 HPs he is simply knocked instead of dying like he should if he was hacked in pieces. The supposed "corruptibility" of Humans that was mentioned never appeared on any single place I read about them. The idea that a dumb fighter that has no magical traning (not even UMD) and can use Ritual Scrolls, The dissapearance of Non-Lethal damage, the dissapearance of hundreds of iconic spells that are a part of D&D and a lot of other things. The videogame feeling I get when I read it (a WoW Mage, while limited in spells, still feels like a Mage, not like a Fighter with weapons that have different flavor). The fact that a Wizard is not anymore a Wizard bu a disguised Sorcerer with the rules that force them to have a fixed number of spells known that dissapear without a trace from the spellbook if you change them.
No internet argument has ever changed anyone's mind on any subject!
I can attest that well-formed arguments can influence people, internet or no.
To be fair, Alediran is a regular on these forums, not a "troll" who just came by to upset people.
I find it deeply amusing that people who hate a new edition of the game so much stick around to whine and moan about it to everyone who'll listen. I don't have the books yet, so I'm not about to comment on what i don't understand. But the "SKY IS FALLING!!!!" attitude towards 4th is just mindboggling to me. Sure I may hate it too when I finally get my hands on it, but I'm not going to come trolling forums, venting my spleen for all to see as if nailing my wrist to my forehead will somehow result in a multimilliion dollar company from finishing its print run and chucking hundreds of pages of material into a furnace just to make me happy.
If you dont' like something then dont' play it! If you have problems with it, bring it up for discussion on how to fix it, but for Christ's sake people stop beating it to death! I HATED D20 Modern with such a passion I literally rewrote a set of rules to make it more like D&D 3.5, I posted it once, took the flames from all the fans and moved on without batting an eyelash. No internet argument has ever changed anyone's mind on any subject! Those that hate something will hate it regardless of any "fanboy" argument into its favor, and thos who love something will ignore what they feel is pointless criticism.
Though the scope is different, here is how I see it:
Imagine the Free world for a moment. You can pretty much do what you want (within reason). You can choose your career, your spouse, your community, your vehicle. There are imperfections, there always are. But you operate within the framework and vote to change what needs fixing and vote to keep what needs keeping.
Then comes along a fringe element, very persuasive, very outspoken, breaking the peace to promote their agenda. They effect change by deliberately breaking the system to showcase its flaws (sound familiar yet?) bemoaning how horrible the government is and that it needs to be overthrown. Along comes a benevolent new government, overthrows your government. Many people rejoice. Lost now are your way of life, lost now are your freedoms, lost now are your rights as a citizen. Replaced by government propaganda, a forced reeducation system, big brother is watching you! People generally don't care because it doesn't affect the way THEY live.
However, there are a group of people, larger than the new regime expected, that resist the takeover and labor to set right the many wrongs. They are branded outcasts, dissidents, subversives and should be eradicated (according to the new regime which "persuades" the people is the moral thing to do). They cling to THEIR culture, THEIR law, THEIR rights as citizens. As futile as it may be in some minds, at least they make a stand on principle to preserve their way of life...
While the actual situation isn't so dramatic, they do parallel.
I'll totally hit the Sorceress. :D
Another thing that Pathfinder has that defeats 4th edition: http://paizo.com/image/content/GameMasteryModules/PZO9513-PactHallRitual.jpg
I'll totally hit the Sorceress. :D
Lol. Aleidiran, I know how you feel, I have always loved playing wizards, tried playing a Fighter class, and it was so dull and repetitive. Now that wizards seem like every other class in terms of attacking, it doesn't seem fun. Also, it is absolutely illogical that a wizard who LEARNS AND MEMORIZES a spell should FORGET it when he changes spells. Wizards (especially elves) are old, sometimes very old, why do they forget spells when changing? To make it easier for other classes to outdamage them (which is where I see this going).
I like playing Smart Fighters. I'm probably going to play a Fighter with the PrC that specializes on dual-daggers.
I can attest that well-formed arguments can influence people, internet or no.
To be fair, Alediran is a regular on these forums, not a "troll" who just came by to upset people.
I never said he was. I did not name names as I basically picked the most recent "Negative Diatribe" thread I read today to make a small rant on ALL the "negative diatribe" threads i've been reading lately. It was not an attack directly on any one person, but just me exercising my own right to "vent my spleen" as I put it.
I have only seen a well-formed argument work in real life, in person debates, or online debates with people I know personally. Most people do not take complete strangers opinions seriously and thus dismiss them out of hand unless they happen to ahve some kind of legal or professional weight behind them (see film critics and the like).
I have no intention on making any further rants, trying to defend my position, or otherwise taking the thread OT. I simply did not want anyone to think I was making a directed attack at a specific person; its the pervasive attitude I've gotten tired of not any single person.
Almost all my melee characters in D&D had evasion. Because I hated the fact my character could be automatically damaged by fireballs without it even if I made my save. Does evasion still exist in some form?
Most damage spells still do half damage on a failed attack roll. But I haven't seen Evasion anywhere yet.
Depends on if they went with Defenses over saving throws... not really sure how Evasion would work with Defenses, since they basically replace the saves Evasion was based on. Might though, you never know.
They are defenses, which I find silly. I preffered saving throws (mathematically they are the same, but the image of defenses for me is more like: the Wizard aims and fails like he was using a bow, instead of the target manages to avoid the spell)
Most damage spells still do half damage on a failed attack roll. But I haven't seen Evasion anywhere yet.
However, don't a lot of melee powers still do some damage on a failed roll?
That just sounds SO wrong...
Another thing that Pathfinder has that defeats 4th edition: I'll totally hit the Sorceress.
So, Pathfinder has floating Bloodelves? :P
In the new rules, could I tie a string to her, and tow her around like balloon? :D
Also, it is absolutely illogical that a wizard who LEARNS AND MEMORIZES a spell should FORGET it when he changes spells. Wizards (especially elves) are old, sometimes very old, why do they forget spells when changing?
Never thought about that before - the class with the highest Int is known for forgetting everything everyday.
Of course, I always thought the Vancian system was ridiculous, even if it did work very well in the novels.
So, Pathfinder has floating Bloodelves? :P
In the new rules, could I tie a string to her, and tow her around like balloon? :D
Give her to Alediran as a "gift"!:D
So, Pathfinder has floating Bloodelves? :P
She is human. The "elf" (more like a Succubuss in disguise I would think) is standing on the floor.
Everyone knows Elves are supposed to be waif-like anorexics. :P
I love most of the PF art, but that artist sems to like the color red a wee bit too much. For a good selection of their art, download this FREE Player's Guide - I really love the pic of the city ruins on page 14.
I can't think of any other setting that focuses on fantastical and majestic landscapes the way Golarion does. Once Schend is onboard, the entire original FR team will be back together again. :D
Know back on topic - the 4e books do appear to be bound together well... thats some quality glue there.
Anyway unlike some people it seems I actualy have to wait for it to be actualy released. Yup WotC way to control those distribruter( you can get them for free online now)
She looks pregnant, second trimester.
Everyone knows Elves are supposed to be waif-like anorexics. :P
I love most of the PF art, but that artist sems to like the color red a wee bit too much. For a good selection of their art, download this FREE Player's Guide - I really love the pic of the city ruins on page 14.
I can't think of any other setting that focuses on fantastical and majestic landscapes the way Golarion does. Once Schend is onboard, the entire original FR team will be back together again. :D
Know back on topic - the 4e books do appear to be bound together well... thats some quality glue there.
I've already seen that PDF. What I'm craving at this moment is an art gallery.
Most damage spells still do half damage on a failed attack roll. But I haven't seen Evasion anywhere yet.
It´s in there, as is Mettle. Both are paragon feats. No damage if an ( area? ) attack fails against Reflex or AC with Evasion and Fortitude or Will with Mettle.
Oh yeah, I agree with Alediran on every point. Geez, what a way to gut a game. They really killed the sacred cows to extinction.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his assessments, because I haven't seen the rule books. I think that should be pointed out for full disclosure to anyone reading this thread that is looking for an objective analyst.
Overall it looks like the product I imagined it to be so I am happy. I just finished chapter 1 of my gmae which was 3.5 and now my group wants me to resume the game at 10th level right away. One of my players is instead going to run KOTS for a bit then after that I will resume my game with 4E rules. I already have a ton of ideas for plots and encounters so I am pretty stoked!:D
I think that it is important to point out that Alediran is not an objective source. He already made up his mind a long time ago to hate all things 4E. :P
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his assessments, because I haven't seen the rule books. I think that should be pointed out for full disclosure to anyone reading this thread that is looking for an objective analyst.
Au contraire. I was neutral to positive about a new edition of rules.
Forgotten Realms is a completely different thing.
It looks like wizards will not be above all classes which is nice. I will want to play every class now it seems not just the ones that are not broken. Rituals look cool. I like the 2+ deal to most races stats and I like the lack of -2 to stats. I like the minion deal. I am glad that the people that liked to cheese it with casters and make the most powerful characters in the group will have to make balanced characters. They can now play Rifts or Mage to be OP and out of balance. Now more people will want to play elves not just the snobby players.
Overall it looks like the product I imagined it to be so I am happy. I just finished chapter 1 of my gmae which was 3.5 and now my group wants me to resume the game at 10th level right away. One of my players is instead going to run KOTS for a bit then after that I will resume my game with 4E rules. I already have a ton of ideas for plots and encounters so I am pretty stoked!:D
If you don't mind playing the same class with different text go ahead, I'll not stop you. But if you get bored by the homogeneization after a couple months I'll have to say I told you so.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Alediran, be careful. You're reading the Black Bible now, and soon you'll notice it's dropped your IQ by 20 points, at the least. See how it's seducing you? You're delving ever deeper into its grasp and before you notice, you've actually promised to have a little taste of the Dark Arts.
I actually converted to the faith of Pathfinder, so no black bibles for me.
-That said...4e is out?
No, some people got the books sent early, and Alediran's friend got them and he lent him the books to skim through them.
No, some people got the books sent early, and Alediran's friend got them and he lent him the books to skim through them.
-That means it's out. ;)
-I mean as in published and ready to be sold and so on.
-That means it's out. ;)
-I mean as in published and ready to be sold and so on.
Oh, then yes, yes it is.
-Cut the flaming, everyone. Or, I'll take the gloves off, and start clicking the button. That goes for everyone.
-YES MY MASTER!!!!
-That said...4e is out?
-Some people have them while people like me got to wait about a week.
;) :P 18D
Gotta say if people love Pathfinder that is great. The world sounds great and I cannot wait till they convert over to 4E in a year or two. Until then if every post you do on these boards tends to be an anti 4E or anti 4E Realms why bother posting? Really we could all do without the constant negativity. Not saying someone cannot speak their mind but keep it localized to one thread ok?
Plus I do not remember seeing anyone bashing Pathfinder on their boards. I wonder why that is? Let us all be a little more mature.
Guess what? Stats do not make a character, the roleplaying does. We have just as many options as we did when 3.5 first came out. In august we will see a swordmage class which sounds awesome. The bard and barbarian will possibly come out in DDI. There will be a book coming out soon for casters and melee pcs. Lots of options are coming down the road. My dwarf wizard with some rog stuff sounds fun to me. If I can make him a decent Arcane Trickster as a Paragon class then I will be extremely happy.
Though I agree, the constant negativity is getting incredibly tiring.
As to the Pathfinder bashing not being around... there's an interesting situation here that Pathfinder does not share, in that there is no conflict between editions for Pathfinder, which is obviously very much present with the Realms. Its an entirely different situation between the two. But more maturity would be a pleasant change, to say the least.
And you're pretty much dead-on with stats not making a character, and it being too early to tell if the system is inherently limited or not. As to the rest, a dwarf wizard is just wrong, so you must instead be something, anything, other than a dwarf. Sorry Rauric, the laws of the universe are on my side there. :P ;)
All that aside, I can't say I'm all that excited by the 4e Ruleset as I'd hoped to be, nor can I see much reason to switch over until it gets more content to play with, presuming its a system that appeals in the first place. My own intent at the moment is to take some of the aspects of the Saga rules I like and houseruling them into 3.5e and still keeping the utility of a significant investment in terms of money and lore.
Let's not forget that WIZARDRY magic has to be learned first. It doesn't come to you by... well, magic. :P
Sorcerers :D
:D
Guess what? Stats do not make a character, the roleplaying does. We have just as many options as we did when 3.5 first came out. In august we will see a swordmage class which sounds awesome. The bard and barbarian will possibly come out in DDI. There will be a book coming out soon for casters and melee pcs. Lots of options are coming down the road. My dwarf wizard with some rog stuff sounds fun to me. If I can make him a decent Arcane Trickster as a Paragon class then I will be extremely happy.
We don't have as many options as 3.5, where are druids, monks, bards, sorcerers. Where are spells that can be used in combat that don't cause damage? How can I play a wizard that is not all about damage?
-Cut the flaming, everyone. Or, I'll take the gloves off, and start clicking the button. That goes for everyone.
-That said...4e is out?
Oh for all that is holy, start clicking! CLICK ME!!! I need the attention and berating! Better yet, let the Konsort do it then hopefully do a follow up with the right!!
…uh-oh…
Did I just type that outloud….did it post and not get deleted by the mods…
…awww crap…:embarrass
We don't have as many options as 3.5, where are druids, monks, bards, sorcerers. Where are spells that can be used in combat that don't cause damage? How can I play a wizard that is not all about damage?
You will not touch 4E so you should not worry about that.:D
Most people I knew that religiously played wizards were pompous, egostrokers.They also always played Tremere in WOD or wanted to play a Mage in a Vampire game. It was sad. They are the only people I have seen complaining about 4E wizards in my area. Not saying anyone that plays a wizard is like this but the people that always play one (Brian from KOTD) have come off like this to me. Now I am all about the wizard and will make up a wiz with some rog stuff right away. I figure more spells will be out in the next few months with more variety of spells. I am sure my DM will let me swap things out as the game progresses.
I heard bard and barbarian will be covered soon in DDI. Necro games announced that they plan on making supplements to cover "lost" classes. You know Necromancer games? The one that works with Paizo? Yeah, both of those companies know that 4e is the way to go, they are just doing 3.5 for a few years to fill that niche group that liked the old edition and will not convert...yet. As I said before Paizo will be doing 4E eventually.
When I mentioned Paizos boards I meant I never saw and childish pro-4E people posting on the Pathfinder boards with and trollish comments. I was happy to see the 4E people have some class like that.
Though I don't really see the likelihood of converting to 4e for Pathfinder anytime soon, at least not until there's a larger body of stuff, and by that time we're likely in 5e, when we start finding out that 4e was always broken from the ground up, much to our surprise... okay, cheap shot, but despite the snark, I think there's a point. Finding a niche and sticking with it as long as its making enough of a profit seems to be part of the Pathfinder philosophy with so much effort going into it well after 4e was announced and released even. Why bother with all that work if you're just going to convert it to another system in a few years? Unless you're planning on a planned obsolescence scheme, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Most people I knew that religiously played wizards were pompous, egostrokers.They also always played Tremere in WOD or wanted to play a Mage in a Vampire game.
I've played Wizards, Druids, Swashbucklers, Rogues. Tremere, Gangrel (the rest I find boring from the oWoD), Mekhet Ordo Dracul (crone and lancea sactum are too religious for my tastes), Virtual Adept, Hermetic (oWoD), Obrimos Mysterium, Mastigos (Clavicularius) Adamantine Arrow.
I played lots of games as every class. And for example I find the 4th edition Fighter as crappy as the Wizard, it's stupid that you can only do certain martial movements once per day (where is the logic in that?) and that they are like: move, move and damage. Wizards are only a part of my complains, you could say that I can't stand anything at all about the game, not even the layout (I have to go back and forth between chapters a lot more than in 3rd edition). I don't like that the game is all about miniatures (I use them sometimes, but not always, there are situations where miniatures are a hindrance to the game). I don't like the feeling that playing a Fighter is the same as playing any other class, there is no new mechanics that I can find interesting on a new class because they are all the same.
It was sad. They are the only people I have seen complaining about 4E wizards in my area.
My girlfriend plays rogues and finds the 4th edition Wizard a complete waste of space (and 4th edition in general also), another guy I know that was extremly pro-4ed to the point of annoyance converted yesterday to Pathfinder and promised to never touch 4th edition again. Lots of people canceled their pre-orders for 4th edition when they read the leaked books.
I figure more spells will be out in the next few months with more variety of spells.
And they will all be damage + effect. That's the Wizard's role from now on, he is the area blaster (controler is not a role I could give somebody who does area damage with 90% of his powers). Goodbye summoned creatures for Wizards (warlock are probably going to get them), goodbye illusions, goodbye enchantements (psions are now enchanters), necromancy spells only made me laugh, they aren't scary anymore like they should.
Necro games announced that they plan on making supplements to cover "lost" classes. You know Necromancer games? The one that works with Paizo? Yeah, both of those companies know that 4e is the way to go, they are just doing 3.5 for a few years to fill that niche group that liked the old edition and will not convert...yet. As I said before Paizo will be doing 4E eventually.
I doubt it, since they decided to keep with 3P for their Pathfinder line, since WotC GL for 4th edition prohibits any company from doing the same product with both editions. The things they are going to do with 4th edition are going to be minimal compared to Pathfinder, otherwise they wouldn't be working on an improved version of 3rd edition.
When I mentioned Paizos boards I meant I never saw and childish pro-4E people posting on the Pathfinder boards with and trollish comments. I was happy to see the 4E people have some class like that.
I was there yesterday for a couple hours and I found 3 threads that say the opposite.
As for the Pathfinder threads with pro-4E people spreading negativity? I guess people saw all the Pathfinder talk on Forgotten Realms and/or 4E forums and decided to go *** for tat with them. That is sad also.
The only reason I have for not spending more time there is the board system they have, it's hard to track posts and the organization is too chaotic for my tastes.
If you hate WotC, 4E, and people supporting the new edition that much, then please, please for god's sake, go to the sacred Paizo-lands and their 3.75.1.0.9.beta DnD and leave us alone. If you don't like it, don't read it, and don't whine on about how much the system sucks et al on the game's message board.
You still don't understand the fundamental change in design philosophy. Ok, where my previous post failed with sarcasm, I'll put it bluntly this time. Wizards are no longer meant to be the end all of all character classes! They had to be nerfed. A lot. With a really big stick.
You also fail to grasp that you cannot compare DnD to any version of the WoD. WoD is a game with interparty conflict and backstabbing built in. It is expected, even encouraged! WoD is exactly what I call a cooperative game... NOT!
And by the way, the new WoD's combat system is utterly ridiculous. Because of the way in which damage and attack roll are combined in one check, heavy anti-tank missiles and cannons now are the best anti-infantry sniper weapons.
Also, the damage track sucks. I punch your face once, and break your nose. 1 box of lethal damage, no biggie. Then I punch you 5 more times, and suddenly you are heavily injured, as if someone shot you with a rifle at point blank range? And now please tell me again why that was better than hit points!?Also, there is no WotC hit squad breaking into your house and shooting you if you stop playing 3.5. Nobody forces you to switch over to 4E. If you don't like DnD actually moving away from a game where the PCs were competing with each other on a powerscale, and moves more towards a cooperative game where each character can contribute to many encounters, then just don't play 4E.
To be honest, I'm really getting tired of people who just won't understand why the wizard and the other primary casters had to be nerfed. A fighter just cannot keep up with a wizard in high level play. And it pretty quickly boils down to "Which side gets initiative? Ok, that side is not TPK'ed." Which is boring. Like save-or-dies. Like ability damage. Like spells that took an opponent out of the fight by bypassing his HPs.
So please, please, stop preaching the end of the world to us because you cannot degrade the other player characters to sidekicks with any wizard past level 9.
If you are willing to present your opinion in a more neutral way and don't have "it sucks 'cause I say so" painted all over your posts, I'm more than willing to have a discussion about 4E with you.
Happy gaming.
If you hate WotC, 4E, and people supporting the new edition that much, then please, please for god's sake, go to the sacred Paizo-lands and their 3.75.1.0.9.beta DnD and leave us alone. If you don't like it, don't read it, and don't whine on about how much the system sucks et al on the game's message board.
You still don't understand the fundamental change in design philosophy. Ok, where my previous post failed with sarcasm, I'll put it bluntly this time. Wizards are no longer meant to be the end all of all character classes! They had to be nerfed. A lot. With a really big stick.
You also fail to grasp that you cannot compare DnD to any version of the WoD. WoD is a game with interparty conflict and backstabbing built in. It is expected, even encouraged! WoD is exactly what I call a cooperative game... NOT!
And by the way, the new WoD's combat system is utterly ridiculous. Because of the way in which damage and attack roll are combined in one check, heavy anti-tank missiles and cannons now are the best anti-infantry sniper weapons.
Also, there is no WotC hit squad breaking into your house and shooting you if you stop playing 3.5. Nobody forces you to switch over to 4E. If you don't like DnD actually moving away from a game where the PCs were competing with each other on a powerscale, and moves more towards a cooperative game where each character can contribute to many encounters, then just don't play 4E.
To be honest, I'm really getting tired of people who just won't understand why the wizard and the other primary casters had to be nerfed. A fighter just cannot keep up with a wizard in high level play. And it pretty quickly boils down to "Which side gets initiative? Ok, that side is not TPK'ed." Which is boring. Like save-or-dies. Like ability damage. Like spells that took an opponent out of the fight by bypassing his HPs.
So please, please, stop preaching the end of the world to us because you cannot degrade the other player characters to sidekicks with any wizard past level 9.
If you are willing to present your opinion in a more neutral way and don't have "it sucks 'cause I say so" painted all over your posts, I'm more than willing to have a discussion about 4E with you.
Happy gaming.
The point to continuing to post on this forum is to caution players/lurkers that it may not be in their best interest to spend money on a game that is clearly a different game altogether from D&D with the D&D title thrown in as a smoke screen. But I guess free speech is ok when it suits your purposes though /shrug :rolleye2:
And yes, I have seen the books (my friend got them in the mail), Alediran's insights have been very close to the mark. The game really looks like the D&D minis game with extra stuff thrown in. I can say that I do like the artwork, but the crunch feels like a full on board game rather than an RPG. The fluff, well its fluff. Roleplaying seems to be a mere afterthought, most definitely taking a backseat to combat. That may be ok for some, but its supposed to be a ROLEplaying game.
Oh and we do understand the new design philosophy, and we reject it. In their quest for perfect balance, they have marginalized a core concept of D&D, that being magic and the classes that use it. The few things I do like are greatly outweighed by the things I do not. If you want to play a video gamish game on easy mode, then by all means go ahead, I prefer depth and SOME complexity.
Oh for all that is holy, start clicking! CLICK ME!!! I need the attention and berating! Better yet, let the Konsort do it then hopefully do a follow up with the right!!
…uh-oh…
Did I just type that outloud….did it post and not get deleted by the mods…
…awww crap…:embarrass
-Don't take requests. Sorry. ;)
Most people I knew that religiously played wizards were pompous, egostrokers.
-Hey. I play Wizards about 49% of the time. Am I a pompous egostroker, whatever exactly that means? In real life? No. Here, yes. But, here is not real life.
-I am a Wizard 49% of the time, a Cleric 49% of the time, and a Rogue that other 2%.
If you hate WotC, 4E, and people supporting the new edition that much, then please, please for god's sake, go to the sacred Paizo-lands and their 3.75.1.0.9.beta DnD and leave us alone. If you don't like it, don't read it, and don't whine on about how much the system sucks et al on the game's message board.
...
-Of course, that is not how things work.
-Everyone is equally allowed to express their opinions, no matter what opinion that is, so long as they do not violate the WotC CoC, which can be viewed at the top of your browser. People are allowed to respond to those opinions, however they want, so long as they do not violate the WotC CoC. This is the policy, and has always been the policy, in both practice and effect, here.
-Please no not ask fellow posters to cease expressing themselves. If you have a problem with a poster, or a specific post, please PM me, or click the 'flag' button on the offending post.
-Thank you.
-Of course, that is not how things work.
-Everyone is equally allowed to express their opinions, no matter what opinion that is, so long as they do not violate the WotC CoC, which can be viewed at the top of your browser. People are allowed to respond to those opinions, however they want, so long as they do not violate the WotC CoC. This is the policy, and has always been the policy, in both practive and effect, here.
-Please no not ask fellow posters to cease expressing themselves. If you have a problem with a poster, or a specific post, please PM me, or click the 'flag' button on the offending post.
-Thank you.
4E is out illegally on the web and legally since Amazon and Buy.com sent them out early.
Actually, from what I've read there's no evidence that Amazon shipped early, although people have claimed such.
Buy.com is a definite, though.
Actually, from what I've read there's no evidence that Amazon shipped early, although people have claimed such.
Buy.com is a definite, though.
i ordered from amazon. this site still states mine has not yet shipped
How I view the no negatives to racial attributes is, since we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and everyone to be uber and not have to work at overcoming things through role playing and planning. So touchy feely, instead of realistic.
Oh, did I say realistic and offend some. Well, you need realism, or in the case of RPG's, logic, to be able to suspend disbelief. If you don't have solid, realistic goundwork and a logical schema in the workings of your world, it is difficult for most to immerse themselves. Maybe the new system does have these things, but I am not seeing it. It is DnD in name only and uses the same dice. Those are the only 2 things that come from the old systems. If they wanted to create a whole new game and call it "High Fantasy", I would probably have tried it without any qualms, but since this game has no obvious bloodline to any other edition of DnD, it causes me to look at it and say "What the ... is this?".
As for the wizard, it is just like when a class gets reworked in a MMO and everyone cries that it needs to be nerfed. The wizard did not need to be nerfed at all, DMs' needed to write and DM better. Wizards have several disadvantages, and the other classes needed to fill in the gaps, just like the wizard does for them. People need to quit blaming the system and need to do a better job themselves. I have never heard the complaint that wizards needed to be nerfed before I heard about 4E and started coming to these boards.
Say what you want about the Vancian magic system, it was and is still the best sytem for adjudicating magic. That was the wizards biggest disadvantage right there.
The only class I have not played since 1st ed is the bard, because I hate what they did to the bard in 2nd ed and continued in 3/3.5, and I most often play a cleric/monk since no one my group likes to play a cleric, so this is coming from someone who plays almost all the classes regularly.
Fighters using rituals and "powers" instead of tactics is just wrong. It is not DnD. Same with many of the other things I am reading in the PHB. Little class distinction. Too much blurring of the lines. Too much sameness.
WoTC did such a wonderful job with 3/3.5. 4E is a tragedy.
IMO, they have destroyed this games uniqueness, and instead of every MMO trying to be like DnD, DnD became like every MMO.
1e/2e/3e had many flaws that's why we use a mix of them but I don't know what to take from this
Fighters using rituals and "powers" instead of tactics is just wrong. It is not DnD. Same with many of the other things I am reading in the PHB. Little class distinction. Too much blurring of the lines. Too much sameness.
-This makes me think of the video game series Gauntlet. The Wizard has an unlimited supply of magical enegy bolts to fire, the Fighter has an unlimited supply of throwing axes to throw, the Ranger has an unlimited supply of arrows to fire, and so on. They all do the same damage, more or less, and are all, in effect, palatte swaps.
We don't have as many options as 3.5, where are druids, monks, bards, sorcerers.
They are on their way, though.
i ordered from amazon. this site still states mine has not yet shipped
Yeah, I'm in the same boat as you--ordered from Amazon, hasn't yet shipped.
I think some people were claiming they got theirs early to cover for their using illegal PDFs (and posting info from them).
They are on their way, though.
I know that, but their lack of support right from the begining is annoying. And it makes those classes feel like they aren't Core classes anymore, but 1st level ones.
Most people I knew that religiously played wizards were pompous, egostrokers.
That might be your experience, but as I've said before, anecodotal evidence is very limited in its usefulness.
I know that, but their lack of support right from the begining is annoying. And it makes those classes feel like they aren't Core classes anymore, but 1st level ones.
I look at it this way. When any new edition comes out, it's going to have far less content than the previous editions, which have had years of "content buildup". 4E will gain more content as time goes on. The dark side to that is that it could lead to the new system becoming as "bloated" as 3E is often accused of being.
Finding a niche and sticking with it as long as its making enough of a profit seems to be part of the Pathfinder philosophy with so much effort going into it well after 4e was announced and released even. Why bother with all that work if you're just going to convert it to another system in a few years? Unless you're planning on a planned obsolescence scheme, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I agree with that. I don't understand why all this work would be put into the PF system if they are just going to change over to 4E in a year or two.
I don't know WHY WotC thinks this will bring players from video games into D&D.
I agree. People who like video games are going to play video games. They will not say. "Hey D&D is now a video game lets set up a campaign"
-This makes me think of the video game series Gauntlet. The Wizard has an unlimited supply of magical enegy bolts to fire, the Fighter has an unlimited supply of throwing axes to throw, the Ranger has an unlimited supply of arrows to fire, and so on. They all do the same damage, more or less, and are all, in effect, palatte swaps.
This is probably the best comparison I've seen to date that succinctly sums up the condition of the new edition.
If you don't like it, don't read it...
If you don't read it, you won't know whether or not you'll like it. If he didn't read it, you'd say he has no right to have an opinion about it.
At least he READ IT before posting his specific opinions about it. Wouldn't you say that's a good thing?
they'll release Druid and Barbarian in DDI, whoa, can't wait, except that I can create them right now, just rename the powers and you're set
I don't know WHY WotC thinks this will bring players from video games into D&D. I got into D&D from the first Neverwinter Nights game. I knew about D&D, and knew a few of the rules, but never actually played anything like it. And that was old 2e ruleset with a few 3e houserules and classes (like the sorcerer). Granted, NWN is not pure Dungeons and Dragons, but it was so fun, I got into D&D and loved it ever since.
Do you mean BG2? NWN did use the 3E system. BG2 used 2E and added in some 3E elements (it came out around the advent of 3E).
Do you mean BG2? NWN did use the 3E system. BG2 used 2E and added in some 3E elements (it came out around the advent of 3E).
Its been a while since I played NWN, I might have mixed them up, don't know. You're probably right.
But, here is not real life.
-What...this isn't the real world?
18D;)
[...] The wizard did not need to be nerfed at all, DMs' needed to write and DM better. Wizards have several disadvantages, and the other classes needed to fill in the gaps, just like the wizard does for them. People need to quit blaming the system and need to do a better job themselves. I have never heard the complaint that wizards needed to be nerfed before I heard about 4E and started coming to these boards. [...]
Never been to the CO boards, huh? ;)
Wizards didn't need to get nerfed?
Morning: cast foresight so that you can never be surprised
Surprise round of combat: cast greater celerity, cast time stop with greater metamagic rod of maximize
Time stop round 1: cast gate to call in 40HD balor
Time stop round 2: cast shapechange to change into something less squish (just for emergency)
Time stop round 3-5: cast other pwn spells without saves like forcecage to seperate and divert the enemy
Time stop ends: 40HD balor uses summon to bring his little 20HD brother into the fight
1 round after time stop ends: enemy dies
Hell, gate and shapechange alone are broken beyond redemption. :P
---
[...] Wouldn't you say that's a good thing?
Honestly? I think that's worth a crap, if he isn't actually able to make sensible posts that don't go "OMG WotC is cr4pz, dis $th ed sux, wizardz are teh l33t!!111eleven".
The best arguments are worthless if you can't present them in a reasonable way to get your point across. He repeatedly ignored counter arguments. He repeatedly compared DnD to a game with a completely different premise to prove his "point". He repeatedly switched his statements completely around once they have been weakened or proven wrong.Trying to keep such a "discussion" going and providing valid counter arguments is imho a waste of time. He already has come to the conclusion that 4E is the worst possible rpg ever, and that Pathfinder is in every and any way ultimately superior. And I'd rather bet my life that Sahara freezes over tomorrow than that he will open up for a reasonable discussion and actually give 4E a chance (after all, he has already agreed to a session of book burning
).And I could use all those useless arguments to say that the Sahara will freeze before you give Pathfinder a chance. Who's the close-minded now? (btw, you can't use that with me, since I've said many times that I was neutral to positive about the rules, and I have come to my current decision after reading the 3 core books and playing a session with my gaming group, so I haven't violated any rules that would mark me as close-minded. Nobody in my gaming group is going to play 4th edition again.)
CO is not argumentation about the excess of power of one class. COs always look to the best mechanical (which again, DON'T MATTER as arguments to nerf a class) advantage to make any class overpowered. To prove that I'll let you meet Pun-Pun.
And any wizard pulling that trick is going to be severely weakened after a while with all that XP burning (Gate cost a lot of XP for what it does). If he starts casting Gate on every encounter as soon as he can cast it then by the time he reaches the next level all his party friends are going to be past epic levels. Polymorph again is not that powerful, all spells bow down to Greater Dispell and Mordenkainen's Disjunction. If you don't put Spellcasters on the other side to balance things then it's obvious that Wizards would overpower their partners if there is nobody to stop them. Just like an enemy group consisting of only Spellcasters is going to get smashed pretty quickly if you have decent fighters that can shrug their spells and get close to hit them while the party spellcasters nullify their spells. Those Wizards can start complaining that Fighters are overpowered because they can't defend against them while also preventing their partners from weakening them.
As you see, it's all a matter of perspective, and TEAMWORK. When you balance things in a game like D&D you balance it in groups, not on individuals. If you don't believe me do a combat with two groups that have the exactly same characters. You'll see that it's perfectly balanced.
Never been to the CO boards, huh? ;)
Wizards didn't need to get nerfed?
Morning: cast foresight so that you can never be surprised
Surprise round of combat: cast greater celerity, cast time stop with greater metamagic rod of maximize
Time stop round 1: cast gate to call in 40HD balor
Time stop round 2: cast shapechange to change into something less squish (just for emergency)
Time stop round 3-5: cast other pwn spells without saves like forcecage to seperate and divert the enemy
Time stop ends: 40HD balor uses summon to bring his little 20HD brother into the fight
1 round after time stop ends: enemy dies
Hell, gate and shapechange alone are broken beyond redemption. :P
Nope, don't know what boards you are talking about. But I have played and DM'd for almost 30 years all over the world and US. (Military brat and retired military). Never heard that wizards are too powerful.
1. BBEG gets up and casts non detection, obscurement or veil. There are also other powers that can defeat foresight.
2.Fine maybe you get the drop and get those spells off. First you have to have both of those spells in your book and you have to have them memorized. Time stop is affected by SR. I will have to check on saves for it, don't remember right off hand. At your level, many things have good to high SR.
3. And the Balor eats you for disturbing him or just because you are obviously a huge threat.
4. Balor gates in buddies after light snack.
5. Everyone dies in immediate vicinity and Balor starts scheming diabolical plans.
OR
1. That encounter goes as you suggest.
2. You have now wasted most of you level 9 spells and another encounter happens in short order so that you didn't have time to rest and regain spells. You are now floss for Great Wyrm Shadow Dragon. Unless the fighter, cleric and rogue can kill it with your help. Hope you have some good buff spells to augment them and protect.
Wizards are limited by what spells they have available, both in book and prepared. Any wizard in my campaign stupid enough at those levels to use all his lvl 9 spells in first encounter is dead meat by the second or third encounter unless the rest of the party can work without him and still be successful.
And if you are facing something appropriate for your level, I am sure it has other tactics and abilities to flounder you well laid out plan.
NO PLAN SURVIVES CONTACT WITH THE ENEMY.
If your DM let you get away with that on a regular basis, that was poor DMing. And if you got to rest and regain those spells before the next encounter, I am very sad that the DM did not do his job well.
-This makes me think of the video game series Gauntlet. The Wizard has an unlimited supply of magical enegy bolts to fire, the Fighter has an unlimited supply of throwing axes to throw, the Ranger has an unlimited supply of arrows to fire, and so on. They all do the same damage, more or less, and are all, in effect, palatte swaps.
Very apt.
Actually, from what I've read there's no evidence that Amazon shipped early, although people have claimed such.
Buy.com is a definite, though.
Amazon hasn't shipped early to me.
IMO, they have destroyed this games uniqueness, and instead of every MMO trying to be like DnD, DnD became like every MMO.
Yay!
Some of THE BEST roleplaying I've had comes from WoW.You're probably right.
Of course I am.
;)
The best arguments are worthless if you can't present them in a reasonable way to get your point across.
I agree. But I still think "don't like it, don't read it!" is a silly admonition to trot out, for the reasons I stated.
Trying to keep such a "discussion" going and providing valid counter arguments is imho a waste of time.
No one said you had to do that. Debate or don't debate as you please--most of the time I choose not to debate.
Nope, don't know what boards you are talking about.
Go take a look. ;) [forum=339]d20 Character Optimization Forum[/forum]
But I have played and DM'd for almost 30 years all over the world and US. (Military brat and retired military). Never heard that wizards are too powerful. [...]
Are you sure you're talking about v3.5?
While I admit having confused Foresight with Moment of Prescience regarding duration, my point about the rest of the chain still stands. Both of those spells work on myself rather than on somebody else, and therefore they are not affected by Mind Blank or other divination foiling spells. I'm not detecting the enemy, I'm divining a few seconds of my own future.
Also, Gate allows me (among other things) to call one outsider with up to twice my casterlevel in hit dice. While the 40HD balor was the extreme example, bringing in a 34HD balor that you can automatically control is still broken. Also, the only cost associated is the 1000 XP cost, as bargaining for a payment only extends to contractual services (and fighting for the caster in battle is treated as an immediate task).
While it is arguable if the secondary (20HD) balor was also under your control or under the primary (34+HD) balor's control, there's an easy workaround to that "problem". The secondary balor is brought into the world by a summoning effect, not by a calling effect (such as Gate). Therefore, a simple Protection From Evil will pretty much take care of that. ;)
Anyway, if you don't like your casters calling forth balors as their combat toys, you can swap them out for solars, pit fiends, trumpet archons, formian queens, titans, and many others more that can be found in the Monster Manual 2, 3, 4, and 5. Also, remember that there is no mechanic for "being familiar with a creature". The closest thing we have is an appropriate Knowledge check (arcana, religion, nature), but even that is more slippery slope than anything else.
Forcecage will handily prevent the enemy brutes from messing with your "pets" while those mob up any real threat, because the spell negates any creature access to the battlefield that cannot (a) use Teleport by some means, (b) cast Disintegrate, or (c) pull a Sphere of Annihilation out of its bags - and all that without a save. Sure, it's expensive. But 1500gp are nothing at level 17+.
The icing on the cake is Shapechange. I'll leave it to the interested reader as an exercise to read the spell, browse through the SRD or Monster Manual 1, and come up with enough interesting combinations. A little hint: the spell gives you all extraordinary and supernatural abilities of the assumed form. Like, for example, the dread wraith's Constitution Drain and Create Spawn abilities (which opens up a whole lot of other can'o'worms right on its own). ;)
And really, where did you get the idea that Time Stop allowed for Spell Resistance?
The spell accelerates the caster, and does not slow down the surrounding area.With the exception of Greater Celerity (which appears in the PHb2), everything else is to be found in the v3.5 Core Rulebooks. I didn't even exploit any loopholes (I would have called a Titan if I wanted to go down that road), or did something else questionable. I only used the spells as written and intended with magic items from the DMG.
Last but not least, I would not have "wasted" most of my high level slots. In contrast to many other players, when I play a wizard I tend to make use of that often overlooked bonus feat you get right there at level 1... Scribe Scroll.
[...] If your DM let you get away with that on a regular basis, that was poor DMing. And if you got to rest and regain those spells before the next encounter, I am very sad that the DM did not do his job well.
And how would a DM deny the party the ability to rest with spells such as Rope Trick and Mage’s Magnificent Mansion? Or with spells that allow to quickly retreat like Overland Flight, Teleport (or the greater version thereof), or Gate (the planar travel version)?
Put a Dimensional Lock on the whole campaign world to foil teleportation and planar travel magic? Or have the whole sky covered with Solid Fog so that the party can't fly at high speed? Come on!
Please, tell me. I'm curious to know what you would do to prevent a party from using those means. Especially, which action you would take that does not break the internal consistency of the game world (something that seems to be quite popular whining about in here and how it wouldn't exist any longer in 4E) over the knee?
And it was perfect that way. Wizards are the most intelligent people alive. Magc is the shaping of reality at the Caster's own will. Therefore there was nothing bloated about the wizard, it's all perfectly possible. This arbitrary reduction of spells in 4th edition has no realism from that POV. If a Wizard needs to create a spell to open locked doors because nobody else can do it then he will create it and nothing can stop it.
The WoD Mage can cast spells that not even a 90th lvl wizard with every PrC available and with Epic Spells and the full ISC list can. I preffer Mage's method of limiting magic over 4th edition, at least makes sense.
You can't tell me that a smart person who knows his weaknesses is not going to solve them, especially when he can create a spell that does it. This pruning of spells and lots of other things that Wizards had is one of the most horrible aspect of this $ed, it lacks any bit of logic internal consistency. It goes beyond balance. Paizo did a MUCH BETTER, by light years, work of improving the boring classes (which is what a fighter is, boring because he only hits things, well, not anymore with Pathfinder, and I'll play only Pathfinder fighters before playing any 4ed game)
And that, right there, is the problem with the Wizard. So a Wizard should simply be able to come up with a spell that can emulate anything another class can do? If that's the case, then why even have other classes if the Wizard can do it all? Sorry, but what you want is a game called Witches & Wizards, in which everyone plays a Wizard and they all wield phenomenal cosmic power. This, however, is Dungeons & Dragons. A game about a group of adventurers who all have different skills and all of whom bring different things to the table. Not one in which everyone brings something specific to the table, save for the Wizard, who can do his own thing, and do their things, as well (Well, except for the Cleric).
4th edition will tank big time with all these crappy changes, the only people who will play it are Fighter fanatics. Spellcaster players will stay with 3rd edition.
I don't think that's a very realistic assessment of the situation, but oh well.
Pathfinder? Isn't that the 4e Lite,
No, 4e is D&D lite ;)
I've been playing PRPG and I've enjoyed the many aspects that are similar to 4e D&D. I've especially liked the increase in power on all levels - the bigger the better!
Then you would know that 'lite' was incorrect - they have added a great deal to the 3e ruleset, unlike 4e, which has taken a 'minimalist' approach. Not saying thats good or bad, but it is so.
4th Edition
From what I've read, the game does indeed now move along faster, and the rules are much simpler to abjudicate. What that means is that the rules have been simplified and streamlined in such a way that they cannot be easily misinterpretted, which makes the DM's job much easier - he needs to be a 'judge' less, and a storyteller more. This, in and of itself, is a good thing, and pretty much what I was hoping for.
The down-side of what I've heard is that they have 'sucked all the flavor out of the game". I haven't played it, so I wouldn't know if that were true or not. I would also have to add that most of the people reviewing it thus far haven't had a chance to play it either, so I'm not sure if thats a fair assessment, just by reading the rules.
The deal-breaker for me - I had intended to buy this immediately when it came out, but there are more then half the power sources missing (only 3 of the 8 promised), several classes missing, two races missing, and they nerfed 'mental' spells to make the psion stand out more, which tells me that there is a piece of the game now missing that we will have to wait until the psionic book comes out. I GREATLY dislike psionics in D&D; always have, always will. When I needed to use a psionic creature, I substituted magic spells for their abilites - it was that simple.
Now, if I want to run any sort of encounter that includes 'mentalism', I am FORCED to use psionics - I no longer have a choice about it. Now, had the psionics rules been included in the PHB, I probably would have swallowed that bitter pill and went with it.
But those rules are missing, so I can't use them. They took them away (from the mage) and now we can't use them for at least a year. Add in all the other things I mentioned that are missing from this edition that were included in EVERY OTHER PREVIOUS edition, and what we have is an incomplete system, that was purposely left incomplete so that they can sell the rest of it to us in bits and pieces.
And don't even get me started on the 'empty promises' DDi, or the 'Franken-Realms'.
I was REALLY looking forward to these rules, and despite the fact that I like everything I have heard about them, I simply cannot justify spending a $100 on an incomplete game. I'll probably wait now until 4.5 comes out late next year before I even consider picking up this edition.
What a disappointment.
The down-side of what I've heard is that they have 'sucked all the flavor out of the game".
I've read similar (ie. "all the 'magic' is gone now"), but the people who say that do not, to my satisfaction, explain how that's the case.
The reason I say this is because most of my fun with RPGs never came from rules and mechanics in the first place. I like to say I'm pretty adaptable when it comes to actual rules being used, as long as I can roleplay and create a story to my satisfaction. From what I can tell so far, 4E rules don't prevent anyone from doing that.
The deal-breaker fr me - I had intended to buy this immediately when it came out, but there are more then half the power sources missing (only 3 of the 8 promised)...
This may sound silly, but I was disappointed to hear that they only have 4 Epic Destinies out so far. Not a deal-breaker per se, but disappointing.
that was purposely left incomplete so that they can sell the rst of it to us in bits and pieces
The PHB is 320 pages long, so in all honesty, how much more do you think could've been packed into it?
This may sound silly, but I was disappointed to hear that they only have 4 Epic Destinies out so far. Not a deal-breaker per se, but disappointing.
Yeah, I wanted more, too. I especially wanted that Eternal Hero in the 3.5 Epic Destiny article.
Go take a look. ;) [forum=339]d20 Character Optimization Forum[/forum]
Sounds more like a problem with DM's not knowing how to deal with wizards, and people who spend too much time looking for exploits to a system that works when they take others into account and don't try to 'win' a game that doesn't really have a win/lose dynamic to it, at least in a PvP sense.
I fail to see why a DM would want to stop the party from resting via those means you mentioned in the first place. Its not a case of the DM doing their best to screw over their players, or beat them into the ground, or constantly strive for a TPK, its a game where everyone is supposed to be having fun, and if you get someone who's abusing wizards (or any other class for that matter), it's more likely a problem with a player, rather than a ruleset. Certainly the wizard can be broken with enough effort, but it doesn't mean that they inherently are broken. That's two very different things, and probably something you can do with any ruleset given enough time and effort.
I especially wanted that Eternal Hero in the 3.5 Epic Destiny article.
Me too. I guess I figured if they bothered to create 3.5E versions of a 4E concept, the versions featured (like Eternal Hero) would have been done for 4E already. Even one of the preview books mentioned the Eternal Hero!
4th edition will tank big time with all these crappy changes, the only people who will play it are Fighter fanatics. Spellcaster players will stay with 3rd edition.
Let the spellcaster players all play 3E. They didn't really need any of the other classes anyway. :D
I think people that like to play on godmode and feel superior over other players because of certain issues
will be upset about the changes but many people who played casters like myself will be ok with it all and I am pretty sure 4E will not tank. I think Amazon and Buy.com will agree with me.;)Sounds more like a problem with DM's not knowing how to deal with wizards, and people who spend too much time looking for exploits to a system that works when they take others into account and don't try to 'win' a game that doesn't really have a win/lose dynamic to it, at least in a PvP sense.
Now, suddenly I'm a bad player because I want my character to be actually good at what he does? I'm a bad player because I make smart decisions with my feats and equipment, and spell selection? I'm a bad player because I don't put my feet in my mouth and play dumb?
Seesh, you better take away spiked chains and Improved Trip from the fighter, he may actually do something useful with them besides whacking an orc over the head.
I fail to see why a DM would want to stop the party from resting via those means you mentioned in the first place. Its not a case of the DM doing their best to screw over their players, or beat them into the ground, or constantly strive for a TPK, its a game where everyone is supposed to be having fun, and if you get someone who's abusing wizards (or any other class for that matter), it's more likely a problem with a player, rather than a ruleset.
Ok, and where does "abusing" start?
Is it abusing to use Fabricate to quickly make some cash? Is it abusing to use a Split Ray'ed Enervation to reduce some enemy's HD low enough to insta-gib it with Cloudkill? Is it abusing to stack Black Tentacles, Web, Solid Fog, and Forcecage to create an inescapable battlefield-control-area'o'death for your enemies? Is it abusing to use Gate to call a Titan who then casts Gate himself to call another Titan?
When does the functionality of a spell, both "as written" and "as intended", become abuse to you? Where do you draw the line?
Now, imagine you have an evil high-level wizard. That guy's a royal pain in the ass, and seriously gives a damn about everyone else around him. Now, his latest expeditioning and researching was disturbed by a small kingdom, and he's pretty much ******. Why should that wizard not use Shapechange to turn into a dread wraith, slaughter every hamlet and village that crosses his path, and command his army of ~2000 dread wraiths to attack the capitol before turning back into his normal form? And all that in like, half a day?
Now, why shouldn't a chaotic neutral PC wizard use that tactic to eliminate an invading giant army (slaughtering orc and goblin tribes to create his own army, thus killing two foes with one blow)? Ok, he may settle for 200 dread wraiths under his control, but still. ;)
Why shouldn't a freaking GENIUS (also something which seems to be highly popular being emphasized again and again in this thread: how awesomely smart wizards actually were) be able to put his ridiculously powerful magical abilities to good and effective use? Or do only have fighters the right to play smart tactics, because the game automatically breaks when a full caster does that?
Certainly the wizard can be broken with enough effort, but it doesn't mean that they inherently are broken. That's two very different things, and probably something you can do with any ruleset given enough time and effort.
Just to be sure I didn't misunderstand you: are you saying that because the wizard class can be broken by using spells and feats in a certain combination, does not mean that those spells and feats (and the wizard class because it allowed for the combination) were broken?That's wrong, simply put. It's not an issue of "if the wizard is broken" by any player who does not deliberately play dumb, but rather an issue of "when does it happen" and "how hard is it broken".
You don't even need much. The PHb is basically sufficient to create a broken caster. You don't even need some crazily optimized theoretical build that can deal 2,000,000,000,000 fire damage in a single round. Some pretty basic combos are already enough. It just gets more and more easy with each splatbook added into the mix.
However, Druids are still the core class to most easily break. Basically, you need one feat: Natural Spell. Everything else is "nice but not required". :P
I think they figure it will be a while before players start with the Epic level goodness/zanyness so they held off on it for other DDI articles.
That's certainly possible. Maybe I'll ask Rich.
It is not even that casters are broken. Melee was broken in a bad way. Casters were better plain and simple. If you had and all caster part (clerics, wizards and druids) you did not really need the other classes because their magic "bent reality" in such a way that they could become equal to a melee class or summon something that could fill a melee role.
Ok, well now no class is overpowered, because they're all the same. Every class makes an attack against a save, and wizards are no longer wizards, but Rangers with more spellcasting.
Most of the people in my group have read the 4E stuff somehow
and are pretty excited. Fun times are going to be had by us all and I am psyched.NO PLAN SURVIVES CONTACT WITH THE ENEMY.
-QFT! I love it when people use straw man fallicies.
18D
yea it's very alike to the game LK mentioned
-Didn't realize how apt the analogy was.
It is not even that casters are broken. Melee was broken in a bad way. Casters were better plain and simple. If you had and all caster part (clerics, wizards and druids) you did not really need the other classes because their magic "bent reality" in such a way that they could become equal to a melee class or summon something that could fill a melee role.
TELL THAT TO THE FIGHTER IN MY PARTY!!!!!!.
I've told you that so many times that it's getting annoying.
Some Qick stats:
Ivelios Amakiia Male Sun Elf Fighter 7/Champion of Corellon Larethian 8
STR 16 DEX 18 CON 12 INT 16 WIS 10 CHA 12
AC 30 HP 93
Attacks: Warblade (Dispelling Holy Mage-Killer +4) +26/+21+/16 Damage (1d8 + 13 + 2d6 vs Evil) Critical 17-20/x2
Saves: +13 Fortitude +11 Reflex +12 Will
Feats: Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Improved Critical (Longsword), Mounted Combat, Ride-by-Attack, Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Sunder, Weapon Focus (Longsword), Weapon Specialization (Longsword)
Class Features: Corellon's Blessing, Elegant Strike, Superior Defense +2, Unimpeded Movement, Corellon's Wrath (4/day +2 sacred bonus to attack and damage)
Two or three buffer spells from the druid and cleric and don't even think of getting near him.
Alediran's spells usually prepared:
0 - Caltrops, Daze, Ghost Sound, Message
1st - Arcane Sensitivity, Benign Transportation, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Shield, True Strike
2nd - Bear's Endurance, Cat's Grace, Gust of Wind, Protection from Arrows, See Invisibility, Spider Climb
3rd - Dispel Magic, Fly, Gaseous Form, Lightning Bolt, Scintillating Sphere, Stars of Arvandor, Suppress Breath Weapon, Alediran's Storm Shield
4th - Fire Shield, Ice Storm, Greater Invisibility, Leomund's Secure Shelter, Orb of Electricity, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Stoneskin
5th - Cone of Cold, Dismissal, Duelward, Firebrand, Reciprocal Gyre, Skin of the Steel Dragon, Teleport
6th - Analyze Dweomer, Chain Lightning, Disintegrate, Mass Reflective Disguise, Undeath to Death
7th - Ironguard, Prismatic Spray, Simbul's Synostodweomer
8th - Maze, Mind Blank
Go ahead and tell me the spells aren't optimal. It's called Roleplay and those spells are the ones who best match my character concept.
Just to start with? Bladesinger, Champions of Corellon Larethian, Elven High Mages and a lot of Prestige Classes that can be used only by surface elves and half-elves.
You do know that humans acomplish what elves can in 1/10th of the time. Ever seen a 40 year old human wizard compared to a 700 year old elf? Takes elves longer to learn their ABC's.
Fighter 7
#1: You stopped with an uneven level of fighter. That's basically a dead level, because besides +1 BAB, +1d10 HP and 2 skill points you gained nothing.
Saves: +13 Fortitude +11 Reflex +12 Will
#2: That's actually a bit weak for a level 15 character with magical equipment. The character is a sun elf, which means the campaign defaults to Faerûn and therefore you shouldn't have any problem acquiring appropriate gear.
Improved Sunder
#3: Improved Disarm achieves the same result (denying an opponent its weapon), while not destroying party loot.
Mage Armor
#4: Doesn't stack with physical armor, because it provides an armor bonus. If you're relying on that spell by level 15 for your protection, you're doing something wrong. Even for pure casters, there are other options (twilight mithril chain shirt, anyone?).
True Strike
#5: You waste a standard action casting a spell that affects your next single attack roll.
Protection from Arrows
#6: That spell is not affected by magical arrows/bows. Therefore it's useless against appropriate dedicated hostile archers at that character level (who are going to at least have a magic weapon spell cast on their crossbows/bows/slings).
Dispel Magic
#7: That spell is capped at +10. Even assuming you have a caster level equal your character level, your chance of dispelling a spell cast by a level 15 caster is rather low: 1d20+10 vs 11+15. You'd need to roll a 16 or higher to affect a spell/effect.
Go ahead and tell me the spells aren't optimal.
I think I just did that.
It's called Roleplay and those spells are the ones who best match my character concept.
Good roleplaying does not require you to gimp your character mechanics wise. Optimizing your character does not mean you're a bad roleplayer.
Especially when you're a wizard, since those guys are so smart, they tend to make subpar decisions all the time. Wait, that doesn't sound about right...
#1: You stopped with an uneven level of fighter. That's basically a dead level, because besides +1 BAB, +1d10 HP and 2 skill points you gained nothing.
Until the character at 20th lvl is Fighter 10/CoCL 10. I know that.
#2: That's actually a bit weak for a level 15 character with magical equipment. The character is a sun elf, which means the campaign defaults to Faerûn and therefore you shouldn't have any problem acquiring appropriate gear.
We are in the Underdark since level 10th, no time for buying magical items past that moment.
#3: Improved Disarm achieves the same result (denying an opponent its weapon), while not destroying party loot.
Without it we would have died a couple times (long story to tell).
#4: Doesn't stack with physical armor, because it provides an armor bonus. If you're relying on that spell by level 15 for your protection, you're doing something wrong. Even for pure casters, there are other options (twilight mithril chain shirt, anyone?).
I don't use armor with Alediran, doesn't fits the character and Ironguad is 1000 times better than that, not counting he is immune to criticals and sneak attacks.
#5: You waste a standard action casting a spell that affects your next single attack roll.
It's usually my standar action if we get the surprise, followed by a Disintegrate or other Ranged Touch Attacks in situations where it's do or die.
#6: That spell is not affected by magical arrows/bows. Therefore it's useless against appropriate dedicated hostile archers at that character level (who are going to at least have a magic weapon spell cast on their crossbows/bows/slings).
That's why I have stoneskin reserved for those situations. But for less dangerous situations PfA works perfectly.
#7: That spell is capped at +10. Even assuming you have a caster level equal your character level, your chance of dispelling a spell cast by a level 15 caster is rather low: 1d20+10 vs 11+15. You'd need to roll a 16 or higher to affect a spell/effect.
I use it for Counterspelling (I have ICS), the party cleric has Greater Dispell prepared.
I think I just did that.
I told you don't. People like you are responsible for the nerfing of wizards in 4th edition.
Good roleplaying does not require you to gimp your character mechanics wise. Optimizing your character does not mean you're a bad roleplayer. Especially when you're a wizard, since those guys are so smart, they tend to make subpar decisions all the time. Wait, that doesn't sound about right...
I don't gimp my character (he is pretty powerfull if you read his full stats), that doesn't means I'm going to choose every single option that will make my partners useless just because I can. I choose options that complement my group's weaknesses and that's my style. Since we already have an excellent Rogue/Bard for skills, a Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Guardian of the Weave for the classic Fighter/Wizard, a Druid, a Cleric, the Fighter/CoCL then I don't need to know certain kind of spells that with their skills they can do it better. I have Duelward to protect them from spells, Suppress Dragon's Breath to nullify one of the Dragon's worst attacks (saved us a lot of times). I don't have knock, polymorph would go against Alediran's pride (he considers physical might as a last option), calling infernal creatures is disgusting and bothering the celestials is irrespectful (but he doesn't have problem summoning elementals since he is part elemental).
I choose spells that fit his character and thinking and tastes, no more, no less.
Until the character at 20th lvl is Fighter 10/CoCL 10. I know that.
Still, why whould you take that many fighter levels, where basically every 2nd level is dead weight?
We are in the Underdark since level 10th, no time for buying magical items past that moment.
Well, I got "ur DM sux" thrown in my direction for less than that - even already in this thread.
Without it we would have died a couple times (long story to tell).
That doesn't change the fact that Improved Disarm is still superior while achieving the same goal. Actually, you or another party member could perhaps be using some senselessly sundered weapon right now.
I don't use armor with Alediran, doesn't fits the character and Ironguad is 1000 times better than that, not counting he is immune to criticals and sneak attacks.
Relying purely on spells is risky as a melee combatant. Once lucky dispel and you're basically naked. And one hit with Disjunction and you are naked.
It's usually my standar action if we get the surprise, followed by a Disintegrate or other Ranged Touch Attacks in situations where it's do or die.
Do or die situations where you have a full round of preparation? :P Also, if you get a surprise round on your enemies, throwing in a debuff (Eyebite, etc.), battlefield control spell (Wall of Force, etc.), or a party buff (Haste, etc.) is generally much more efficient than giving only yourself a one-shot buff that depends on an attack roll one round later (natural 1, anyone?).
That's why I have stoneskin reserved for those situations. But for less dangerous situations PfA works perfectly.
And how to you know it's "less dangerous"? I don't think your DM tells you "guys, these orcs have magical arrows" at the start of the battle, does he?
I use it for Counterspelling (I have ICS), the party cleric has Greater Dispell prepared.
I see. You know, it's details like this that are "nice to post" when making claims about the potency of a character's build.
I told you don't. People like you are responsible for the nerfing of wizards in 4th edition.
And people like you are responsible for thousand-fold broken stuff like Disjunction, Shapechange, Gate, Enervation, Arcane Thesis, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Planar Shepard, and so on and so forth.
Things that completely suck the fun out of the game for anyone not playing a wizard (or cleric, or druid, ...).[...] (he is pretty powerfull if you read his full stats), [...]
If you say so...
(he considers physical might as a last option),
Which explains why he's a fighter instead of a wizard.
calling infernal creatures is disgusting
As is using a sword. Sometimes using the best tool, however, is preferable to adhering to some sort of morality or principles.
and bothering the celestials is irrespectful
Why should it be disrespectful to ask for the celestials' aid when fighting evil? I mean, it's not like they're doing that 99.999% of their time or something.
(but he doesn't have problem summoning elementals since he is part elemental).
Sun elf? Part elemental?
I choose spells that fit his character and thinking and tastes, no more, no less.
But you are still in control of his character, which makes your statement sort of an excuse.
Still, why whould you take that many fighter levels, where basically every 2nd level is dead weight?
I don't play the fighter. And those 7th levels are because it was the shortest path to Champion of Corellon Larethian. You should try that PrC, it's an excelent fighter PrC.
Well, I got "ur DM sux" thrown in my direction for less than that - even already in this thread.
City of the Spider Queen bro. And it's a breeze for us. We haven't died a single time when other parties die lots of times, we've almost died a couple times though, the Balor in Maerymydra didn't Vorpaled one of the characters by a single number (when we saw the roll we cheered big time and it was fun feeling that).
That doesn't change the fact that Improved Disarm is still superior while achieving the same goal. Actually, you or another party member could perhaps be using some senselessly sundered weapon right now.
Not when the enemy has a weapon that when you touch it you loose 3 levels if you are good aligned or 1 if you are neutral. That isn't going to be sold (he congratulated us for destroying it rather than keeping it to sell it, it was a test). We don't play Battles with dialogue. We have moral dilemas (the Fighter/Sorcerer had to accept an infernal pact to save somebody) and situations that don't call for the MOST POWERFUL COMBO I CAN DEVISE.
Relying purely on spells is risky as a melee combatant. Once lucky dispel and you're basically naked. And one hit with Disjunction and you are naked.
Alediran (my character) is Wizard 5/Elemental Savant (air) 10 (full spellcasting progression with the ES, not 8/10, allowed by the DM). And even the armor you posted (which I know) is still considered Light Armor and Alediran is not proficient (waste of feat).
Do or die situations where you have a full round of preparation? :P
Surprise rounds are only one standar action, not full rounds.
Also, if you get a surprise round on your enemies, throwing in a debuff (Eyebite, etc.), battlefield control spell (Wall of Force, etc.), or a party buff (Haste, etc.) is generally much more efficient than giving only yourself a one-shot buff that depends on an attack roll one round later (natural 1, anyone?).
The druid already does controll, and we don't need to cast haste because the only character that gets a reall benefit from it can already cast it himself.
And how to you know it's "less dangerous"? I don't think your DM tells you "guys, these orcs have magical arrows" at the start of the battle, does he?
Permanent Detect Magic bro.
And people like you are responsible for thousand-fold broken stuff like Disjunction, Shapechange, Gate, Enervation, Arcane Thesis, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Planar Shepard, and so on and so forth.
I don't use most of those things at all. Disjunction is useless for players (no magic equipement to loot :D), Shapechange is boring, Gate I don't use, Enervation I don't use, Arcane Thesis I don't know. IotSV I don't use, PS I don't use.
And you are also forgetting PrCs like: Order of the Bow Initiate, Peerless Archer, Champion of Corellon Larethian.
As is using a sword. Sometimes using the best tool, however, is preferable to adhering to some sort of morality or principles.
Alediran is chaotic exalted and would never summon any kind of evil creature to the material plane, not when there are other alternatives as good as those.
Why should it be disrespectful to ask for the celestials' aid when fighting evil? I mean, it's not like they're doing that 99.999% of their time or something.
Because they have long-reaching agendas and more important things to do than loose time fighting in the Material Plane where there are adventurers who can do it as well as them.
Sun elf? Part elemental?
He became Half-Air Elemental a little time ago.
But you are still in control of his character, which makes your statement sort of an excuse.
The character's story controls him. I just give him life. You are talking to somebody who is a Method-Actor when playing RPGs. I define the character I want to play and then the character takes control of me during the table. But I'm wasting my time explaining that to a munchking like you who only cares about the most powerful build he can devise.
-QFT! I love it when people use straw man fallicies.
18D
I don't play the fighter. And those 7th levels are because it was the shortest path to Champion of Corellon Larethian. You should try that PrC, it's an excelent fighter PrC.
And at the end you call me munchkin? "Because it was the shortest path to [PrC]", my arse.
[...] the Balor in Maerymydra didn't Vorpaled one of the characters by a single number (when we saw the roll we cheered big time and it was fun feeling that).
I hope he only rolled a 19...
[...] We don't play Battles with dialogue. We have moral dilemas (the Fighter/Sorcerer had to accept an infernal pact to save somebody) and situations that don't call for the MOST POWERFUL COMBO I CAN DEVISE.
Ahhh, now you've already reached the point where you insult the other's ability to roleplay because he is actually interested in the numbers. Usually only happens when you don't have any real arguments left, but to be honest, you were lacking in that department right from the start.
[...] (full spellcasting progression with the ES, not 8/10, allowed by the DM).
Limited spellcasting progression is the only saving grace for caster PrCs. Any class that grants things little more powerful than bonus feats should NEVER have full spellcasting.And even the armor you posted (which I know) is still considered Light Armor and Alediran is not proficient (waste of feat).
So what? You don't need a feat. Not being proficient with an armor only imposes the ACP on attack rolls and all skills involving movement. A mithril chain shirt has ACP 0. It's as light as a normal shirt.
Permanent Detect Magic bro.
Is still only Detect Magic. Limited to 60ft range and requires 3 rounds of concentration to find out the exact position and strength of each aura.
And please, I'm not your brother!
I don't use most of those things at all. Disjunction is useless for players (no magic equipement to loot :D), Shapechange is boring, Gate I don't use, Enervation I don't use, Arcane Thesis I don't know. IotSV I don't use, PS I don't use. [...]
And because you don't use it, it's not a problem? Now that's what I all an argument!
From what you've posted so far it clearly seems that you haven't been on the receiving end of a lot with your characters from your DM. Heck, you've even had your DM handwave away reduced casterlevel progression on PrC. Seriously, tell me one, only one, reason why I should take a single word you say about game balance serious?
Somehow you remind me of a blind man speaking of colors.
[...] But I'm wasting my time explaining that to a munchking like you who only cares about the most powerful build he can devise.
This is clearly the very last line for me in this thread. I don't need to waste my time trying to reason with someone about DnD's balance who obviously (and you've stated so repeatedly throughout the thread) is only interested in having his favorite class not being brought down in power level to a reasonable level.
You're only ****** off because wizards are no longer the gods of all classes that can single handedly defeat any enemy and then some. And because WotC actually listened to the people you so ignorantly call "munchkins" and brought all classes in line with each other, so that actually all players at the table may be having fun instead of only the ones who happen to play a wizard or cleric or druid, you throw this hissy fit of a thread and keep on bashing WotC.
To be honest, you cannot imagine how much I liked to tell you Grow up, man!, but you probably already are grown up.
And please, learn how to present your arguments in a reasonable way. I can only hope you don't talk like that to your boss or customers.
And at the end you call me munchkin? "Because it was the shortest path to [PrC]", my arse.
No, because the player who plays Ivelios doesn't thinks her character as a Fighter but as a Champion of her god.
I hope he only rolled a 19...
Exactly.
Ahhh, now you've already reached the point where you insult the other's ability to roleplay because he is actually interested in the numbers. Usually only happens when you don't have any real arguments left, but to be honest, you were lacking in that department right from the start.
I study numbers like you, to prevent munchkinism when I DM. It's the same when a Tech security chief studies the hacker's methods, so he can prevent hacking. But only for that. When I play I don't think in the numbers but on the character. It's you who always is telling that making the most powerful character you can build it's roleplaying. I can't figure out how you can justify a character like that from the character's point of view, especially when your character doesn't has access to the rules.
Limited spellcasting progression is the only saving grace for caster PrCs. Any class that grants things little more powerful than bonus feats should NEVER have full spellcasting.
He did because we know each other from a long time ago and knows that I'm not going to abuse it (it's a reward for being a good roleplayer). And if he didn't then we would be very dead at this moment because as he is eager to give that kind of power he also is eager to put our bacon in the most dangerous situations he can (while still being defeatable). We always spend two weaks creating our characters before starting to play. He gave Ivelios an Artifact-Level sword during the last session because he wanted to increase the danger after we finish CotSQ.
So what? You don't need a feat. Not being proficient with an armor only imposes the ACP on attack rolls and all skills involving movement. A mithril chain shirt has ACP 0. It's as light as a normal shirt.
Alediran doesn't has access to the rules to know that. You are heavily meta-gaming and powergaming. If you where in my table your characters would never be aproved to play.
Is still only Detect Magic. Limited to 60ft range and requires 3 rounds of concentration to find out the exact position and strength of each aura.
I don't need the 3rd rounds to know which weapons are magical and which not, if there is at least one then Alediran goes for Stoneskin, if not then he casts PfA. And in the Underdark, where our encounters start with less distance than 60ft, I always know when they have magic weapons and when they don't.
And because you don't use it, it's not a problem? Now that's what I all an argument!
My character doesn't uses them, because he has no in-character reason to.
From what you've posted so far it clearly seems that you haven't been on the receiving end of a lot with your characters from your DM. Heck, you've even had your DM handwave away reduced casterlevel progression on PrC.
You don't have an idea how dangerous is the game we play. The powers an Elemental Savant give to my character pale in comparison with the 2 caster levels lost (we have made extensive tests him and me). Spellcasting characters in our group either give full or half spellcasting progression. Permanent, non-magical, flying is useless in the Underdark, and the types of enemies we are going to face in the surface after that can also fly, so it's nothing worth loosing spellcaster levels, The only thing that is somehow useful is critical immunity (somehow because my partners never allow enemies near me). The CL against SR and the DC increment only work with electricity spells, which are the only kind of energy spells Alediran casts, all energy spells are automaticaly converted to the energy you chose when you become ES (which is an enough power-nerf to also give 8/10 caster level progression, lots of enemies are Electric immune, Demons for example)
Seriously, tell me one, only one, reason why I should take a single word you say about game balance serious?
Because game balance doesn't has a place in a game where the important thing is fun. And if you only get fun from combat then you should play Warhammer. The most fun moments in our games are the moments we speak to regents, reach an expected point (like Alediran reaching the 10th lvl of ES), the moments when we discover lost artifacts (Ivelios last session), when we can brag about out exploits with other adventurers, when we are the leaders of armies, and so on. And in those moments character numbers don't matter. My group never complains about game balance, not even Ivelio's player, she is happy to have Alediran in the group and never feels less just because Alediran has more options. She has a lot of fun playing Ivelios.
This is clearly the very last line for me in this thread. I don't need to waste my time trying to reason with someone about DnD's balance who obviously (and you've stated so repeatedly throughout the thread) is only interested in having his favorite class not being brought down in power level to a reasonable level.
That's only one aspect of 4th edition that I hate, it's the whole damn package that I don't like. Neither of my friends like it because they feel that character uniqueness is dead, not Ivelio's player, not me, not our DM, not my girlfriend, and so on. 4th edition Wizard is not a Wizard, the cleric is not a cleric, the fighter is not a fighter (it's stupid that he can only do certain combat maneuvers once per day and all my friends agree with that).
You're only ****** off because wizards are no longer the gods of all classes that can single handedly defeat any enemy and then some.
First, Wizards aren't the most powerfull in the game, Clerics are. And all characters can single-handedly defeat any enemy and then some. You just need to know how to do it.
And because WotC actually listened to the people you so ignorantly call "munchkins" and brought all classes in line with each other.
It's munchkings who always ruin the fun of any game. They bend the purpose of rules just to satisfy their egoes and they can ruin that fun palying with any class, not just one.
so that actually all players at the table may be having fun instead of only the ones who happen to play a wizard or cleric or druid, you throw this hissy fit of a thread and keep on bashing WotC.
That's the reason why WotC is considered the worst RPG company in the world, RPG games who don't behave like munchkins believe WotC is a cancer in the RPG world that should dissapear as soon as possible.
To be honest, you cannot imagine how much I liked to tell you Grow up, man!, but you probably already are grown up.
You are the immature because you whine that one class has more natural power than another. Anybody who believes everything is equal is blind, there is always somebody who is going to be better than you at something, and making everything the same is going against everything that is logical. In the Real World a smart person is always going to be able to do things than average people can't. Just by being born rich or poor every person has a different start in life. Some are smart, some aren't and never will.
And please, learn how to present your arguments in a reasonable way. I can only hope you don't talk like that to your boss or customers.
My boss has the same kind of thinking that I have.
Go take a look. ;) [forum=339]d20 Character Optimization Forum[/forum]
Are you sure you're talking about v3.5?
While I admit having confused Foresight with Moment of Prescience regarding duration, my point about the rest of the chain still stands. Both of those spells work on myself rather than on somebody else, and therefore they are not affected by Mind Blank or other divination foiling spells. I'm not detecting the enemy, I'm divining a few seconds of my own future.
Also, Gate allows me (among other things) to call one outsider with up to twice my casterlevel in hit dice. While the 40HD balor was the extreme example, bringing in a 34HD balor that you can automatically control is still broken. Also, the only cost associated is the 1000 XP cost, as bargaining for a payment only extends to contractual services (and fighting for the caster in battle is treated as an immediate task).
While it is arguable if the secondary (20HD) balor was also under your control or under the primary (34+HD) balor's control, there's an easy workaround to that "problem". The secondary balor is brought into the world by a summoning effect, not by a calling effect (such as Gate). Therefore, a simple Protection From Evil will pretty much take care of that. ;)
Anyway, if you don't like your casters calling forth balors as their combat toys, you can swap them out for solars, pit fiends, trumpet archons, formian queens, titans, and many others more that can be found in the Monster Manual 2, 3, 4, and 5. Also, remember that there is no mechanic for "being familiar with a creature". The closest thing we have is an appropriate Knowledge check (arcana, religion, nature), but even that is more slippery slope than anything else.
Forcecage will handily prevent the enemy brutes from messing with your "pets" while those mob up any real threat, because the spell negates any creature access to the battlefield that cannot (a) use Teleport by some means, (b) cast Disintegrate, or (c) pull a Sphere of Annihilation out of its bags - and all that without a save. Sure, it's expensive. But 1500gp are nothing at level 17+.
The icing on the cake is Shapechange. I'll leave it to the interested reader as an exercise to read the spell, browse through the SRD or Monster Manual 1, and come up with enough interesting combinations. A little hint: the spell gives you all extraordinary and supernatural abilities of the assumed form. Like, for example, the dread wraith's Constitution Drain and Create Spawn abilities (which opens up a whole lot of other can'o'worms right on its own). ;)
And really, where did you get the idea that Time Stop allowed for Spell Resistance?
With the exception of Greater Celerity (which appears in the PHb2), everything else is to be found in the v3.5 Core Rulebooks. I didn't even exploit any loopholes (I would have called a Titan if I wanted to go down that road), or did something else questionable. I only used the spells as written and intended with magic items from the DMG.
Last but not least, I would not have "wasted" most of my high level slots. In contrast to many other players, when I play a wizard I tend to make use of that often overlooked bonus feat you get right there at level 1... Scribe Scroll.
And how would a DM deny the party the ability to rest with spells such as Rope Trick and Mage’s Magnificent Mansion? Or with spells that allow to quickly retreat like Overland Flight, Teleport (or the greater version thereof), or Gate (the planar travel version)?
Put a Dimensional Lock on the whole campaign world to foil teleportation and planar travel magic? Or have the whole sky covered with Solid Fog so that the party can't fly at high speed? Come on!
Please, tell me. I'm curious to know what you would do to prevent a party from using those means. Especially, which action you would take that does not break the internal consistency of the game world (something that seems to be quite popular whining about in here and how it wouldn't exist any longer in 4E) over the knee?
Oh, there is a forum for power metagamers? Figures.
And your recitation of spells tells me you ride rough shod aver any DM in your game. I had forgot that Time Stop was changed in 3/3.5 and is not an area affect any more, sorry it is not a popular spell with most groups I play/DM with, and I occasionally get some things mixed up with all the editions and other games I referee.
I noticed you changed your choice pretty quick on what to gate in. Mistakes like that in game cause TPK's.
My point is that the spellls available to a wizard and what he chooses to prepare for the day are his biggest limitation, along with the fact that are other beings out there with similar/better/stronger powers. I would not have to strong arm any party of mine to stop them from using their spells, but to stop and rest after every battle without the consequence of advancing time would make a DM wrong. The BBEG will have a better chance to succeeed and become unbeatable by the party if you take that route.
Buying magic tems is not easy nor prevalent, and if a DM makes it so, that is poor DMing. You have to find the spells, hope you get them from another mage of higher level with lots of money or servitude, etc.
There are so many things that you are skipping over in the context of a campaign to make your point, and you just rattle off spell lists like every wizard of appropiate level has every spell available, or has had copious time and money to copy many scrolls and cares little about expending all that XP. I doubt that wizard would be of a level high enough to cast Gate with all of his XP expenditures of making scrolls, potions and magic items and other castings of other XP draining spells.
I would not have to create any game breaking mechanic to "prevent" players from resting after each encounter. Sound of battle may attract new foes, BBEG may be aware of said party and occasionally check up on them through various means and attack them personally to test them or have powerful minions engage them when they have expended some of their power, delaying often to regain their power too often will alter the timetable in the BBEG's favor, etc. Thereare many in game mechanics that allow me to fairly challenge the PC's. I also don't play my antagonists as dumb or static or subject to the partys' needs, or my world. Time is the enemy of everyone.
Oh, and the snipe about we are talking about 3.5 was uncalled for. I was stating my experience, so while it was still anecdotal, is not confined to a small time or place or one edition of this game. I was being civil, please do not start with me. I was merely stating that there are alot of factors involv ed that limit wizards and it is up to the DM to create balanced campaigns and situations. If wizards are "too powerful", it is the fault of the DM in not providing balance. I have never had any complaint from any of my players that so and so is too powerful and needs to nerfed. We can sit here all day and counterpoint every thing each other comes up with, but it means nothing when not taken in context with a specific campaign.
I have made my point quite clearly and cogently. You may refute to your hearts' content, but I will not continue to debate this.
Thank You.
I think they figure it will be a while before players start with the Epic level goodness/zanyness so they held off on it for other DDI articles.
Like I said, if you want the complete game, you need to spend more money monthly.
If someone doesn't subscribe to the DDi, then there is NO point in them paying for the unfinished rulebooks, correct?
The classes left out were all my favorites - they required more RP skills then most others (IMHO). I'm not mad because I'm a 4e hater, I'm mad because I was looking forward to it, and am now disappointed.
However, I am going by what others are saying, and hating ANYTHING WotC seems to be in vogue these days, so I will look them over myself before I make a final decision.
I've come to the conclusion that the people who like 4e will play it, regardless, and the people who insist on staying with 3e will stick with it regardless, and the folks that want change but not as much as 4e offers will all migrate to the PF setting... ALSO regardless.
I doubt anyone is going to change anyone's mind at this point, and I think we all know where each other are coming from by now, and should respect that.
Even if those 'other guys' ARE wrong. :P
Maybe we should leave the ruleset everyone uses to other boards, and only discuss FR fluff here? Or is that not possible?
TELL THAT TO THE FIGHTER IN MY PARTY!!!!!!.
I've told you that so many times that it's getting annoying.
Some Qick stats:
Ivelios Amakiia Male Sun Elf Fighter 7/Champion of Corellon Larethian 8
STR 16 DEX 18 CON 12 INT 16 WIS 10 CHA 12
AC 30 HP 93
Attacks: Warblade (Dispelling Holy Mage-Killer +4) +26/+21+/16 Damage (1d8 + 13 + 2d6 vs Evil) Critical 17-20/x2
Saves: +13 Fortitude +11 Reflex +12 Will
Feats: Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Improved Critical (Longsword), Mounted Combat, Ride-by-Attack, Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Sunder, Weapon Focus (Longsword), Weapon Specialization (Longsword)
Class Features: Corellon's Blessing, Elegant Strike, Superior Defense +2, Unimpeded Movement, Corellon's Wrath (4/day +2 sacred bonus to attack and damage)
Two or three buffer spells from the druid and cleric and don't even think of getting near him.
Alediran's spells usually prepared:
0 - Caltrops, Daze, Ghost Sound, Message
1st - Arcane Sensitivity, Benign Transportation, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Shield, True Strike
2nd - Bear's Endurance, Cat's Grace, Gust of Wind, Protection from Arrows, See Invisibility, Spider Climb
3rd - Dispel Magic, Fly, Gaseous Form, Lightning Bolt, Scintillating Sphere, Stars of Arvandor, Suppress Breath Weapon, Alediran's Storm Shield
4th - Fire Shield, Ice Storm, Greater Invisibility, Leomund's Secure Shelter, Orb of Electricity, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Stoneskin
5th - Cone of Cold, Dismissal, Duelward, Firebrand, Reciprocal Gyre, Skin of the Steel Dragon, Teleport
6th - Analyze Dweomer, Chain Lightning, Disintegrate, Mass Reflective Disguise, Undeath to Death
7th - Ironguard, Prismatic Spray, Simbul's Synostodweomer
8th - Maze, Mind Blank
Go ahead and tell me the spells aren't optimal. It's called Roleplay and those spells are the ones who best match my character concept.
A wizard that is not even optimized can do much of what a tricked out fighter can though and also do his wizardly duties. I am not going to stat out pet NPCs here because most people on most of the boards know this is true. I may take your pc and thow him on the CO boards and see what those number junkies think. Check it out there for a review.
Cool. The minute you resorted to all upper case letters I won the whole discussion. This made my day after working all day. Thank you much.;)
A wizard that is not even optimized can do much of what a tricked out fighter can though and also do his wizardly duties. I am not going to stat out pet NPCs here because most people on most of the boards know this is true. I may take your pc and thow him on the CO boards and see what those number junkies think. Check it out there for a review.
I don't go to CO because they are responsible for monstruosities like pun-pun and horrible rules bendings. I can't stand "lawyers".
And I had to resort to caps because you ignored that line many times and I have no patience for those who ignore something that ruins their argumentations.
Maybe we should leave the ruleset everyone uses to other boards, and only discuss FR fluff here? Or is that not possible?
-It's nice in theory, but not in practicality. Majority of the conversations are about Realmslore anyway, and not about 1e/2e/3e/4e mechanics. Though, of course, since some mechnics influence lore, and some lore influences mechanics...There's always going to be some degree of overlap.
Like when I did an RPG wayback when in highschool, It was: "I slash verticaly" DM:"He blocks with the point tip of his greatsword ducking well below your waist aim for a deathblow". This goes alot faster than dice and stats. Just a suggestion, all though since I never really done dice, maybe I am being 1 sided and need to see the glass half full when I see it half empty?
-And, this enables G-d Modding.
The only thing I don't like about this whole "Stats" thing is, numbers mean nothing in battle. If I am fighting someone on the street, I'm not going to think in mind "Ok his strength for his right fist is 20+ while his movment speed is 14+, all I need is 3 more levels to beat him". Like when I did an RPG wayback when in highschool, It was: "I slash verticaly" DM:"He blocks with the point tip of his greatsword ducking well below your waist aim for a deathblow". This goes alot faster than dice and stats. Just a suggestion, all though since I never really done dice, maybe I am being 1 sided and need to see the glass half full when I see it half empty?
I agree with you, to a point. Rules exist to provide DMs and players alike a neutral judge (the dice) that makes the important decisions.
I agree with you, to a point. Rules exist to provide DMs and players alike a neutral judge (the dice) that makes the important decisions.
Indeed, now all I need to do next is get you on the right track to disliking Elf Filth.
Indeed, now all I need to do next is get you on the right track to disliking Elf Filth.
That's not going to happen. I love elven culture and their way of thinking. The Real World would be thousands of times better if we behaved like them.
That's not going to happen. I love elven culture and their way of thinking. The Real World would be thousands of times better if we behaved like them.
LOL
Buddy, who do you think created the Elves? Humans made them as a fictional character. Logic+1
I don't go to CO because they are responsible for monstruosities like pun-pun and horrible rules bendings. I can't stand "lawyers".
And I had to resort to caps because you ignored that line many times and I have no patience for those who ignore something that ruins their argumentations.
Sigh. Sorry I forgot it is impossible for us to discuss anything since you get too easily purturbed over things, I shall cease and dessit and place you on ignore for both of our sakes. Adios.;)
I may take your pc and thow him on the CO boards and see what those number junkies think. Check it out there for a review.
That's a little uncalled for, don't you think?
Anyway to ignore some of those guys over at CO is rather silly because all they do is crunch numbers. They can put up some real good arguments for people who think that wizards, clerics, and druids, are not overpowered in 3.5. People usually scoff at the idea of going over there by making some excuse about how they are not roleplayers over there or how CO people are rude and offend them. I am a total newb at optimization and know the basics if I went that route but when I was over there (CO boards) most of the people there were pretty polite when they were answering my questions.
I am not an optimizer myself. My last cleric was very average but when I was buffed I could do pretty well in the melee dept. I never did as much damage as others but I held my own which was annoying to some of the other memebers in my group that were just melee and could not do the other tricks I could do. When the wizard in out group was outclassing us all with simple spells and then the not so simple spells everyone was a bit ticked off.
The wizard does come off as a blaster that focuses on AOE it seems until you lokk at the Rituals they can cast which are the non-blasting spells that you need for out of combat stuf. I saw Silence on that Ritual list as well so I guess somewhere in the next few months we will get some more familiar spells to play with. I am just happy that I can Presditigiate and Mage Hand at will now, oh and light too!;)
And as for Wizards being overpowered, they sure *can* be, but it all depends on the players you have. While in one of my groups I have a bunch of number-crunchers in-between, they so far ( 10 years of playing several campaigns ) have restrained themselves from going overboard, like the CO people are wont to. Guess they don´t want me to set grudge monsters on them, or somesuch. :P
If you want a non-polite answer from the CO members, just post something where you want them to just "help you" with a non-specific build. Like "Help me build the best monk possible". They get really pissy if you don´t provide them with the *exact* data about what you want to have. ^^
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/0JKpY4iz5JIjBF7pbge.gif
Fail. Try this instead. Notice how many other party members are needed to overcome the enemy.
LOL
Buddy, who do you think created the Elves? Humans made them as a fictional character. Logic+1
:heehee
Not really. I was figuring perhaps the number crunchers sould reason with him.
I guess not. He thinks of everyone as a munchkin that does actually use the abilities given to him by the rules. If roleplaying was that important to him, he would imho be better of with a system that is not among the most math intensive games (besides Rolemaster and GURPS).
In another thread that was specifically created for discussion 4E FR campaigns he also spew his "4E sucks, don't play it, WotC is crap" thing, and proudly announced that WotC has lost another customer to White Wolf. If I think about it, that's probably best for all parties.
[...] He seems to think he makes a killer melee that can beat out a wizard. His pc may be good at fighting things but I am sure that even an unoptimized wiz can top that build.
Impossible. Take a look at [thread=728013]this thread[/thread], where Lycanthromancer beat the snot out of a splatbook optimized fighter with a core-only wizard.
[...] I do not agree with many people around here it seems but many of you are usually polite and your points make sense in many ways because you handle yourselves in a much nicer way. Just my two cents on that matter. [...]
"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth." --Lillian Hellman :whatsthis
[...] And as for Wizards being overpowered, they sure *can* be, but it all depends on the players you have. [...]
Again: only because certain players don't use certain spells or abilities (they don't even have to abuse them) does not mean they are not broken and horribly unbalanced. All people claiming that wizards are not broken are playing down their character's intellect. Saying that a wizard should not use spells X, Y, and Z in combination is like saying a soldier should not use his rifle in combination with an armor vest and a helmet.
Imagine the following situation: you have a frag grenade, a flash grenade, and a stun grenade. You know in a room are 3 enemies: 1 with an armored vest that will make him immune to the frag grenade, 1 with eye protection that will make him immune to the flash grenade, and 1 with ear protection that will make him immune to the stun grenade. If you only throw 1 grenade, no matter which, 1 enemy will survive and come out and kill you. Only if you throw at least 2 grenades simultaneously all 3 enemies are killed and you survive.
Now, why are you all claiming that a wizard should only use 1 grenade at a time (with his left eye closed and his right hand tied behind his back)? Doesn't that seem a tad illogical to you? Or even outright stupid, considering that most here are of the opinion that "wizards are the smartest and most intelligent people in the [campaign] world"? Smart and intelligent people tend to make good use of all available options, even more so in combat to ensure their own survival, and gaining victory with minimal losses.
Now, regarding the spells. I'm not using any fancy interpretations. I'm not requiring any non WotC splatbooks with questionable material in them. I'm only using the spells (and feats) as written, and combining them in a non-vanilla way.
I don't have to abuse Gate by calling an unlimited army of titans to my command (call titan who calls titan who calls titan who...); calling a single 34HD solar for a mere 1000 XPs in a situation that is supposed to be a hard and climactic "boss fight" is enough.
I don't have to abuse Shapechange by repeatedly transforming into a balor, throwing my +1 vorpal sword on the floor, and reshaping it the next round because it's a (su) ability to gain infinite money the moment I hit level 17; transforming into a marilith and casting Transformation afterwards to transform into a melee machine that makes the fighter or barbarian pale in comparison is enough.
I don't have to abuse Genesis by creating a demiplane full of adamantine or any other extremely rare (and thus expensive) material I can harvest and sell for a crapload of gold; creating a demi plane to which only I have access with Plane Shift or Gate as a more or less impenetrable haven is enough.
I don't have to abuse Enervation by applying Arcane Thesis*, Split Ray, Twin Spell, and a greater metamagic rod of maximize to deal 16 negative levels with a level 8 spell slot and 4 ranged touch attacks at level 15; dealing 2 negative levels to a level 7 character is enough to take away more than 50% of his efficiency in combat, or in rare cases completely remove him from the fight.
*
The feat is from Complete Arcane. Basically, it adds iirc +2 to the CL with a single spell, and makes all metamagic feats applied to that single spell have their level increase reduced by 1, with no lower limit. Therefore, applying a +0 level metamagic feat will make a spell of level X use a slot of level X-1 in addition to gaining the benefit from the metamagic feat. A non-lethal substituted magic missile uses a level 0 slot, an energy substituted fireball uses a level 2 slot.
This is "rules as written" for the feat. But of course, this is not broken because wizards are the most intelligent people and are required to have worldshattering power at their fingertips.
This is "rules as written" for the feat. But of course, this is not broken because wizards are the most intelligent people and are required to have worldshattering power at their fingertips.
Now, suddenly I'm a bad player because I want my character to be actually good at what he does? I'm a bad player because I make smart decisions with my feats and equipment, and spell selection? I'm a bad player because I don't put my feet in my mouth and play dumb?
Seesh, you better take away spiked chains and Improved Trip from the fighter, he may actually do something useful with them besides whacking an orc over the head.
Interesting the way you took that... and the answer would be, maybe. Depends on the group your playing with and the general attitude as to what is fun and what isn't. If everyone is playing with the same basic style and approach to character building, then no, obviously not. If its supposed to be a casual none-too-serious game "just for fun", then yes, I would say that you were being a bad player if you pulled that, for the group in question anyway.
It seems fairly apparent that you aren't into 'casual' builds that aren't as good as you can get them, and presumably don't play with groups that play that way, but it doesn't mean someone who just builds their character around a concept (maybe a PrC or character theme in mind) rather than a mechanic is wrong for doing so, just like it doesn't mean that you're wrong for building them with a mechanic in mind.
Ok, and where does "abusing" start?
When does the functionality of a spell, both "as written" and "as intended", become abuse to you? Where do you draw the line?
Why shouldn't a freaking GENIUS (also something which seems to be highly popular being emphasized again and again in this thread: how awesomely smart wizards actually were) be able to put his ridiculously powerful magical abilities to good and effective use? Or do only have fighters the right to play smart tactics, because the game automatically breaks when a full caster does that?
To answer those in some order, the abusing starts when the group as a whole stops having fun. That should be fairly obvious. Which covers the next question as well... where I draw the line is immaterial to anyone else but me and the group I DM. Ideally, a group plays together for a while, gets used to each other, and figures out what everyone's limit is long before this stuff becomes an issue.
I can see where stuff like this could become a problem in something like a pick-up game with relatively unknown players just coming together at random though, I'll happily concede that point. But again, that's a problem of players not 'playing well with others' and DM's not setting ground rules for what the expected behavior of players will be more than some inherent brokeness in the system.
As to using a tactic like using a shapechange to turn into a dread wraith... I probably wouldn't allow any PC or NPC to use a spell like that to emulate something like an undead creature... you're either living or unliving, and don't just flit between them as you see fit. Metaphysics would just never work that way in any campaign I ever DM'd. Nor would I allow a summoned creature to start summoning buddies... most for the logic that doing so incurs favors from others of its kind and they're just not going to do it for some mortal caster, nor allow a summoning to be able to command such a thing from them. Just doesn't make sense to me if it did.
Sure, nothing says they can't do that, but that is rather the point of having a DM in the first place, to interpret the world, the rules, and the way things work... not to mention making sure everyone is having as much fun as possible.
That's wrong, simply put. It's not an issue of "if the wizard is broken" by any player who does not deliberately play dumb, but rather an issue of "when does it happen" and "how hard is it broken".
You don't even need much. The PHb is basically sufficient to create a broken caster. You don't even need some crazily optimized theoretical build that can deal 2,000,000,000,000 fire damage in a single round. Some pretty basic combos are already enough. It just gets more and more easy with each splatbook added into the mix.
However, Druids are still the core class to most easily break. Basically, you need one feat: Natural Spell. Everything else is "nice but not required". :P
Again, I don't see it as playing dumb, but simply playing in a less competative and more cooperative mode, where the spellcaster is less concerned with 'owning' the battlefield and his own performance, and more concerned with supporting his party members and doing their best to contribute to a group effort rather than an individual effort. That is rather the point of having a party, at least to my mind. Which, by the by, is rather the idea that went into designing the classes in the first place as far as I can tell.
Sure one could stick stacking effects in a single area to screw the enemy, and its certainly a viable tactic, but as a DM, I'd certainly start tossing in mobs approaching from an uncovered flank to threaten the wizard and make actions like that unpalatable, and to encourage a more conservative approach to spellcasting, getting them in the practice of keeping spells in reserve for contingencies rather than just raining death down and getting screwed for it when the unexpected pops up.
Is that punishing a player for 'playing smart'? Personally, I'd call it punishing a player for playing stupidly and wasting spells to create an overkill effect. I've a feeling you would probably disagree, but that's likely the reason you don't play with DM's like myself in all likelihood.
Ultimately, my point is that the rules are only as broken as the DM allows them to be, and that when it comes down to it, the DM is the one who has to make sure that the system remains fun for everyone, and not just one or two of the players. You don't need to gimp a class to do that, you just need to emphatically tell DMs that they're free (and even encouraged) to tell a player to shove a rulebook where it'll hurt if their actions are hurting the enjoyment of a game.
-But, that's a topic for a different thread, and not this one. If anyone wants this discussion to continue, you are free to open a new thread, or contribute to an existing one, in the appropriate area.
-Indeed...Just because someone can crank a Jaguar up to 140 MPH on the highway doesn't mean that all people who drive Jaguars break the law.
But having the Jaguar gives you the opprutunity and potential to do so(no speed limit in USA goes above 65, yet we have Cars going over 140 as you said) since we humans can be irrational during rationality. This is why people give such things a 2nd look just to be on the safe side.
[...] But having the Jaguar gives you the opprutunity and potential to do so(no speed limit in USA goes above 65, yet we have Cars going over 140 as you said) since we humans can be irrational during rationality. This is why people give such things a 2nd look just to be on the safe side.
The primary question - imho - is: if you don't intend to drive faster than 65 MPH, why do you have a Jaguar capable of going over 140 MPH in the first place? Ego booster? **** replacement?
The primary question - imho - is: if you don't intend to drive faster than 65 MPH, why do you have a Jaguar capable of going over 140 MPH in the first place? Ego booster? **** replacement?
Because Ra-Tiel, placed in Germany, such as where you live, they have the auto-bon(i dont know how to spell shut up lol). You can always export cars to other countries, not everyone in USA drives a Ford since they are made in usa, we have all cars from all countries exported, and imported.
Because Ra-Tiel, placed in Germany, such as where you live, they have the auto-bon(i dont know how to spell shut up lol). You can always export cars to other countries, not everyone in USA drives a Ford since they are made in usa, we have all cars from all countries exported, and imported.
I guess you mean "Autobahn". ;) While it's true that theoretically there was no speed limit on an Autobahn, there are several in place. Road works, sections near residential areas, and so on.
I get your point about foreign car manufactorers. However, if you have no intend to ever break a speed limit, you are free to buy a less powerful car. There's no industrial hitman squad that forces you to buy the most powerful car you can afford at gun point.
Same goes for spells. If you have no intend to ever summon a balor, solar, pit fiend, whatyouvegot, then why does your sorcerer or wizard know Gate? Plane Shift can do the planar travel thing [almost] just as well, and Summon Monster XYZ provides some interesting (while not horribly broken) choices for summoning.
This reasoning can be applied to almost every high-level spell in a wizard's repertoir (Time Stop -> Haste/Quicken Spell; Shapechange -> Alter Self; Genesis -> Rope Trick/Fabricate; and so on, and so forth).
I am a total newb at optimization and know the basics if I went that route but when I was over there (CO boards) most of the people there were pretty polite when they were answering my questions.
Well, that's certainly good to hear. I just think posting someone else's character for review is bad form if they haven't given you permission to do so.
And by the way, just to be clear, I totally agree with the idea that people who are playing fighters in D&D deserve to have as much fun as people playing wizards. It is, after all, a game!
I guess you mean "Autobahn". ;) While it's true that theoretically there was no speed limit on an Autobahn, there are several in place. Road works, sections near residential areas, and so on.
I get your point about foreign car manufactorers. However, if you have no intend to ever break a speed limit, you are free to buy a less powerful car. There's no industrial hitman squad that forces you to buy the most powerful car you can afford at gun point.
Same goes for spells. If you have no intend to ever summon a balor, solar, pit fiend, whatyouvegot, then why does your sorcerer or wizard know Gate? Plane Shift can do the planar travel thing [almost] just as well, and Summon Monster XYZ provides some interesting (while not horribly broken) choices for summoning.
This reasoning can be applied to almost every high-level spell in a wizard's repertoir (Time Stop -> Haste/Quicken Spell; Shapechange -> Alter Self; Genesis -> Rope Trick/Fabricate; and so on, and so forth).
Well, there is always the possibility where you might want to go somewhere you woud like to use such raw power. It's like saying, why settle for an 08 Civic when you can get a 67 Mustang GT500 Shelby with Nitro? Sure you don't intend to use it to the full extent, but it will give you one hell of a look.
Personally I've never thought that classes are broken. Its the DM's job to make things interesting, and keeping a character from being over-powered in a way that damages the game, isn't that hard. I recall reading that Rich Baker thought spells like Scry were game-breaking spells. The character I'm currently playing is almost primarily focussed on divination, and the DM I'm currently playing with uses stuff like my scrying on certain people to help move the plot forward, and create more opportunities for our party.
From what I gather here... the character classes in 4E seem to be almost interchangeable... making them less interesting. Also, it doesn't sound like D&D. If they want to create a completely new type of game, they should change the name and see if their product has merit in the eyes of consumers.
The primary question - imho - is: if you don't intend to drive faster than 65 MPH, why do you have a Jaguar capable of going over 140 MPH in the first place? Ego booster? **** replacement?
-Such a car is a sign of status, mong other things.
But having the Jaguar gives you the opprutunity and potential to do so(no speed limit in USA goes above 65, yet we have Cars going over 140 as you said) since we humans can be irrational during rationality. This is why people give such things a 2nd look just to be on the safe side.
-Of course. This doesn't mean that ALL Jaguar owners blatently disregard the speed limit of the jurisdiction they are in, or that Jaguars are "bad" cars, in the sense that they encourage drivers to do such things. Which is the original point, when applied to the Wizard debate.
-But, again, that's a topic (Wizard being/not being 'broken') for a different thread, and not this one. Let's either adjust this discussion to be more relevant to the issue of 4e, or open a thread somewhere else, in the appropriate area.
From what I gather here... the character classes in 4E seem to be almost interchangeable... making them less interesting.
-As I said earlier (and maybe somewhere else, I don't remember), things seem very akin to the Gauntlet games, if you have ever played them.
From what I gather here... the character classes in 4E seem to be almost interchangeable... making them less interesting. Also, it doesn't sound like D&D. If they want to create a completely new type of game, they should change the name and see if their product has merit in the eyes of consumers.
That's what I think about the 3rd edition of "Dungeons & Dragons". 3e is not D&D - it's a munchkin videogame wargame, a powergamer's hack-and-slash wetdream. You can't even roleplay in 3e - you just roll roll roll and roll. I mean, non-good rangers and NG druids...?
Not D&D. There's even a board for optimizing your character's "build"!If your'e playing 3e, please remove all references to Dungeons & Dragons in the books. You can substitute them with "munchkin wargame".
Thank you.
People that I know that have playtested many of the adventures say that every class is different even if they share the "same" role. From what I have read I would have to agree with them.
-But, again, that's a topic (Wizard being/not being 'broken') for a different thread, and not this one. Let's either adjust this discussion to be more relevant to the issue of 4e, or open a thread somewhere else, in the appropriate area.
INFODUMP!!!
- The assumed point buy is 22, with the starting array being 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. Boosting a score costs one point for each increase up to 13 (so boosting the 8 to 13 costs five points. Boosting the 10 to 13 costs three points). Every stat increase from 14 to 16 costs two points each. It costs three points to increase to a 17, and four points to increase to an 18. So if you boost a 10 to an 18, it'll cost you 16 points.
- At 4th, 8th, 14th, 18th, 24th, and 28th level you choose two ability scores and increse them by +1 (you can't choose one and increase it by +2). At 11th and 21st level all six ability scores are increased by +1.
- The Core Gods are as follows:
Asmodeus [E] (Power, Domination, Tyranny)
Avandra [G] (Change, Luck, Trade, Travel)
Bahamut [LG] (Justice, Honor, Nobility, Protection)
Bane [E] (War, Conquest)
Corellon [u] (Arcane Magic, Spring, Beauty, the Arts)
Erathis [u] (Civilization, Invention, Laws)
Gruumsh [CE] (Turmoil, Destruction)
Ioun [u] (Knowledge, Prophecy, Skill)
Kord [u] (Storms, Strength, Battle)
Lolth [CE] (Spiders, Shadows, Lies)
Melora [u] (Wilderness, Sea)
Moradin [LG] (Creation, Artisans, Family)
Pelor [G] (Sun, Summer, Agriculture, Time)
Raven Queen [u] (Death, Fate, Winter)
Sehanine [u] (Trickery, Moon, Love, Autumn)
Tharizdun [CE] (Annihilation, Madness)
Tiamat [E] (Wealth, Greed, Vengeance)
Torog [E] (Underdark, Imprisonment)
Vecna [E] (Undeath, Secrets)
Zehir [E] (Darkness, Poison, Serpents)
- At character creation, you choose which stats grants a bonus to hit for the Dragonborn's breath weapon. Str, Con, or Dex. You also choose at character creation what type of damage it does. Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Poison.
- Eladrin have an ability called 'Eladrin Education', which allows them to take an additional Trained Skill of their choice (any skill, whatsoever, not restricted to their class list).
- Half-Elves get +2 Con, +2 Cha. They speak three languages (Common, Elven, + one other). Medium, move 6 squares, and have Low-Light Vision. They get +2 Diplomacy, +2 Insight, and can choose an At-Will Power from any other class and use it as an Encounter Power. They can use any Feats that have the 'Elf' or 'Human' prerequisites, and give a +1 bonus to Diplomacy to any nearby allies.
- Halflings get +2 Dex, +2 Cha, and move 6 squares.
- Humans get +2 to any stat of their choice. Speak Common and one other language of their choice. Can choose an additional At-Will Power, an additional Trained Skill from their class list, a bonus Feat, and get a +1 bonus to Fort, Ref, and Will Defense.
- There are 31 Paragon Paths, which are as follows:
CLERIC: Angelic Avenger, Divine Oracle, Radiant Servant, Warpriest
FIGHTER: Iron Vanguard, Kensei, Pit Fighter, Swordmaster
PALADIN: Astral Weapon, Champion of Order, Hospitaler, Justiciar
RANGER: Battlefield Archer, Beast Stalker, Pathfinder, Stormwarder
ROGUE: Cat Burglar, Daggermaster, Master Infiltrator, Shadow Assassin
WARLOCK: Doomsayer, Feytouched, Lifestealer
WARLORD: Battle Captain, Combat Veteran, Knight Commander, Sword Marshal
WIZARD: Battle Mage, Blood Mage, Spellstorm Mage, Wizard of the Spiral Tower
- There're four Epic Destinies. Archmage, Deadly Trickster, Demigod, Eternal Seeker.
- The Cleric has 15 pages worth of material. The Cleric Class Features are Channel Divinity, Healer's Lore, Healing Word, and Ritual Casting (has a Ritual Book and knows two Rituals. Gentle Repose and one other). The Cleric's Armor Proficiencies are Cloth, Leather, Hide and Chainmail. The Cleric uses a Holy Symbol as an Implement. There're 11 Channel Divinity Feats in the Feats section, each tied to a different deity. They're Armor of Bahamut, Avandra's Rescue, Corellon's Grace, Harmony of Erathis, Ioun's Poise, Kord's Favor, Melora's Tide, Moradin's Resolve, Pelor's Radiance, Raven Queen's Blessing, and Sehanine's Reversal.
- The Fighter has 14 pages worth of material. The Fighter Class Features are Combat Challenge, Combat Superiority, and Fighter Weapon Talent (you choose either one-handed or two-handed weapons. You get a +1 to hit with the appropriate weapon). The Fighter's Armor Proficiencies are Cloth, Leather, Hide, Chainmail and Scale; Light Shield and Heavy Shield. Fighters care about their weapons, and the following weapons are tied to the following stats: DEX: Flail, Heavy Blade, Light Blade, Spear, Pick (rarely), and Polearm (rarely). CON: Axe (need a higher then normal Str with Axes, too), Hammer, Mace, Pick, and Staff. WIS: Polearm. Fighters can use any power, but some provide additional bonuses when using certain weapons.
For example, Silverstep does 2[W] + Str damage, you push the target 1 square, and can shift 1 square. If you're using a Spear or Polearm, you push the target a number of squares equal to your Dex modifier and can shift a number of squares equal to your Dex modifier. Storm of Blows provide a bonus to damage equal to your Dex modifier if you're using a Heavy Blade or a Light Blade. And so on.
- The Paladin has 14 pages worth of material. The Paladin Class Features are Channel Divinity, Divine Challenge, and Lay on Hands (Note that Paladins can also take Channel Divinity Feats, just like the Cleric). The Paladin's Armor Proficiencies are Cloth, Leather, Hide, Chainmail, Scale, and Plate; Light Shield and Heavy Shield (So the Paladin is the only one who starts off able to use Plate Armor). Lay on Hands is an At-Will Power that works a number of times per day equal to your Wisdom modifier. The Paladin's Implement is the Holy Symbol.
- The Ranger has 13 pages worth of material. The Ranger Class Features are Fighting Style, Hunter's Quarry, and Prime Shot. Fighting Style is a choice of two, either Archer Fighting Style or Two-Blade Fighting Style. Archer Fighting Style gives you Defensive Mobility as a Bonus Feat (+2 AC Vs Opportunity Attacks). Two-Blade Fighting Style gives you Toughness as a Bonus Feat (+5 hit points per tier) and allows you to treat a one-handed weapon as an Off-Hand Weapon (so you'll be able to fight with two bastard swords, two longswords and, dare I say it, two scimitars, in hand). Ranger Armor Proficiencies are Cloth, Leather, and Hide. Many Ranger powers are applicable to both melee weapons (usually with the requirement that you have to be wielding two melee weapons) and ranged weapons. The Ranger At-Wills Careful Attack and Twin Strike, for instance, apply to both melee weapons and ranged weapons.
- The Rogue has 13 pages worth of material. The Rogue Class Features are First Strike, Rogue Tactics, Rogue Weapon Talent, and Sneak Attack. First Strike gives you Combat Advantage against anyone who hasn't acted yet. With Rogue Tactics, you have to choose between two traits. Artful Dodger (Cha modifier bonus to AC against Opportunity Attacks), and Brutal Scoundrel (Str modifier bonus to Sneak Attack damage). Certain powers provide additional bonus if you selected the appropriate Rogue Tactic (Bait and Switch, for instance, provides an additional bonus if you're an Artful Dodger). Rogue Weapon Talent provides a +1 to hit with Daggers and increases the damage die of Shurikens (they normally inflict 1d4 damage, but in a Rogue's hands, they inflict 1d6). Sneak Attack does +2d6 damage at Heroic Tier, +3d6 at Paragon Tier, and +5d6 at Epic Tier. Rogue Armor Proficiencies are Cloth and Leather.
- The Warlock has 14 pages worth of material. The Warlock Class Features are Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Pact, Prime Shot, Shadow Walk, and Warlock's Curse. All Warlocks must choose Eldritch Blast as an At-Will power, and it counts as a Ranged Basic Attack. Warlocks choose one Eldritch Pact: Fey Pact, Infernal Pact, and Star Pact. That choice determines their second At-Will Power and provides them an additional ability (Misty Step, Dark One's Blessing, and Fate of the Void). You can choose any additional powers you like, no matter what Pact they're listed as, but some powers provide additional bonuses if you've got that Pact. For instance, any Warlock can take Dreadful Word, but a Warlock who's taken the Star Pact gets an additional benefit from it. The Warlock's Implements are the Rod and the Wand, and their Armor Proficiencies are Cloth and Leather.
- The Warlord has 13 pages worth of material. The Warlord's Class Features are Combat Leader, Commanding Presence, and Inspiring Word. Commanding Presence gives you a choice of two abilities. Either Inspiring Presence (an ally you can see gets healed a number of hit points equal to 1/2 your level + Cha modifier when they use an Action Point), or Tactical Presence (when an ally you can see uses an Action Point to make an extra attack, they get a bonus to hit equal to 1/2 your Int modifier). These choices provide additional benefits when certain powers are used. Steel Monsoon, for instance, normally allows one ally within 5 squares to shift after you make an attack. If you have Tactical Presence, then a number of allies within 5 squares equal to your Int modifier can shift. The Warlord's Armor Proficiences are Cloth, Leather, Hide and Chainmail; Light Shield.
- The Wizard has 16 pages worth of material. The Wizard's Implements are Orb, Staff, and Wand. The Wizard's Class Features are Arcane Implement Mastery, Cantrips, Ritual Casting, and Spellbook. You choose one Implement with Arcane Implement Mastery. When using that particular Implement, you get a specific bonus. Orbs extend the duration of your spells. Once per encounter, you can either choose to impose a penalty to saving throws on a target against one effect it's suffering from equal to your Wisdom modifier, or you can extend the duration of a spell by an additional round. The Staff provides a +1 to AC and, once per encounter as an immediate interrupt, you can add a bonus to your AC equal to your Con modifier. This can be done after the DM has already told you how much damage you've taken. The Wand provides a once per encounter bonus to hit equal to your Dex modifier.
There're four Cantrips. Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, and Prestidigitation. They're treated as At-Will Powers. Ritual Casting gives you the Feat, and you start off knowing three Rituals at 1st-level. You learn an additional two Rituals at 5th, 11th, 15th, 21st, and 25th level, which're all inscribed into your spellbook. You can add more Rituals later on by purchasing them and copying them into your spellbook. And whenever you learn a new Utility or Daily Spell, you copy two spells of the appropriate level into your spellbook, and can memorize one after each Extended Rest. The Expanded Spellbook Feat allows you to choose three spells instead of two.
And that's all I got for now. I'm tired of typing. ;)
ShowINFODUMP!!!
- The assumed point buy is 22, with the starting array being 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. Boosting a score costs one point for each increase up to 13 (so boosting the 8 to 13 costs five points. Boosting the 10 to 13 costs three points). Every stat increase from 14 to 16 costs two points each. It costs three points to increase to a 17, and four points to increase to an 18. So if you boost a 10 to an 18, it'll cost you 16 points.
- At 4th, 8th, 14th, 18th, 24th, and 28th level you choose two ability scores and increse them by +1 (you can't choose one and increase it by +2). At 11th and 21st level all six ability scores are increased by +1.
- The Core Gods are as follows:
Asmodeus [E] (Power, Domination, Tyranny)
Avandra [G] (Change, Luck, Trade, Travel)
Bahamut [LG] (Justice, Honor, Nobility, Protection)
Bane [E] (War, Conquest)
Corellon [u] (Arcane Magic, Spring, Beauty, the Arts)
Erathis [u] (Civilization, Invention, Laws)
Gruumsh [CE] (Turmoil, Destruction)
Ioun [u] (Knowledge, Prophecy, Skill)
Kord [u] (Storms, Strength, Battle)
Lolth [CE] (Spiders, Shadows, Lies)
Melora [u] (Wilderness, Sea)
Moradin [LG] (Creation, Artisans, Family)
Pelor [G] (Sun, Summer, Agriculture, Time)
Raven Queen [u] (Death, Fate, Winter)
Sehanine [u] (Trickery, Moon, Love, Autumn)
Tharizdun [CE] (Annihilation, Madness)
Tiamat [E] (Wealth, Greed, Vengeance)
Torog [E] (Underdark, Imprisonment)
Vecna [E] (Undeath, Secrets)
Zehir [E] (Darkness, Poison, Serpents)
- At character creation, you choose which stats grants a bonus to hit for the Dragonborn's breath weapon. Str, Con, or Dex. You also choose at character creation what type of damage it does. Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Poison.
- Eladrin have an ability called 'Eladrin Education', which allows them to take an additional Trained Skill of their choice (any skill, whatsoever, not restricted to their class list).
- Half-Elves get +2 Con, +2 Cha. They speak three languages (Common, Elven, + one other). Medium, move 6 squares, and have Low-Light Vision. They get +2 Diplomacy, +2 Insight, and can choose an At-Will Power from any other class and use it as an Encounter Power. They can use any Feats that have the 'Elf' or 'Human' prerequisites, and give a +1 bonus to Diplomacy to any nearby allies.
- Halflings get +2 Dex, +2 Cha, and move 6 squares.
- Humans get +2 to any stat of their choice. Speak Common and one other language of their choice. Can choose an additional At-Will Power, an additional Trained Skill from their class list, a bonus Feat, and get a +1 bonus to Fort, Ref, and Will Defense.
- There are 31 Paragon Paths, which are as follows:
CLERIC: Angelic Avenger, Divine Oracle, Radiant Servant, Warpriest
FIGHTER: Iron Vanguard, Kensei, Pit Fighter, Swordmaster
PALADIN: Astral Weapon, Champion of Order, Hospitaler, Justiciar
RANGER: Battlefield Archer, Beast Stalker, Pathfinder, Stormwarder
ROGUE: Cat Burglar, Daggermaster, Master Infiltrator, Shadow Assassin
WARLOCK: Doomsayer, Feytouched, Lifestealer
WARLORD: Battle Captain, Combat Veteran, Knight Commander, Sword Marshal
WIZARD: Battle Mage, Blood Mage, Spellstorm Mage, Wizard of the Spiral Tower
- There're four Epic Destinies. Archmage, Deadly Trickster, Demigod, Eternal Seeker.
- The Cleric has 15 pages worth of material. The Cleric Class Features are Channel Divinity, Healer's Lore, Healing Word, and Ritual Casting (has a Ritual Book and knows two Rituals. Gentle Repose and one other). The Cleric's Armor Proficiencies are Cloth, Leather, Hide and Chainmail. The Cleric uses a Holy Symbol as an Implement. There're 11 Channel Divinity Feats in the Feats section, each tied to a different deity. They're Armor of Bahamut, Avandra's Rescue, Corellon's Grace, Harmony of Erathis, Ioun's Poise, Kord's Favor, Melora's Tide, Moradin's Resolve, Pelor's Radiance, Raven Queen's Blessing, and Sehanine's Reversal.
- The Fighter has 14 pages worth of material. The Fighter Class Features are Combat Challenge, Combat Superiority, and Fighter Weapon Talent (you choose either one-handed or two-handed weapons. You get a +1 to hit with the appropriate weapon). The Fighter's Armor Proficiencies are Cloth, Leather, Hide, Chainmail and Scale; Light Shield and Heavy Shield. Fighters care about their weapons, and the following weapons are tied to the following stats: DEX: Flail, Heavy Blade, Light Blade, Spear, Pick (rarely), and Polearm (rarely). CON: Axe (need a higher then normal Str with Axes, too), Hammer, Mace, Pick, and Staff. WIS: Polearm. Fighters can use any power, but some provide additional bonuses when using certain weapons.
For example, Silverstep does 2[W] + Str damage, you push the target 1 square, and can shift 1 square. If you're using a Spear or Polearm, you push the target a number of squares equal to your Dex modifier and can shift a number of squares equal to your Dex modifier. Storm of Blows provide a bonus to damage equal to your Dex modifier if you're using a Heavy Blade or a Light Blade. And so on.
- The Paladin has 14 pages worth of material. The Paladin Class Features are Channel Divinity, Divine Challenge, and Lay on Hands (Note that Paladins can also take Channel Divinity Feats, just like the Cleric). The Paladin's Armor Proficiencies are Cloth, Leather, Hide, Chainmail, Scale, and Plate; Light Shield and Heavy Shield (So the Paladin is the only one who starts off able to use Plate Armor). Lay on Hands is an At-Will Power that works a number of times per day equal to your Wisdom modifier. The Paladin's Implement is the Holy Symbol.
- The Ranger has 13 pages worth of material. The Ranger Class Features are Fighting Style, Hunter's Quarry, and Prime Shot. Fighting Style is a choice of two, either Archer Fighting Style or Two-Blade Fighting Style. Archer Fighting Style gives you Defensive Mobility as a Bonus Feat (+2 AC Vs Opportunity Attacks). Two-Blade Fighting Style gives you Toughness as a Bonus Feat (+5 hit points per tier) and allows you to treat a one-handed weapon as an Off-Hand Weapon (so you'll be able to fight with two bastard swords, two longswords and, dare I say it, two scimitars, in hand). Ranger Armor Proficiencies are Cloth, Leather, and Hide. Many Ranger powers are applicable to both melee weapons (usually with the requirement that you have to be wielding two melee weapons) and ranged weapons. The Ranger At-Wills Careful Attack and Twin Strike, for instance, apply to both melee weapons and ranged weapons.
- The Rogue has 13 pages worth of material. The Rogue Class Features are First Strike, Rogue Tactics, Rogue Weapon Talent, and Sneak Attack. First Strike gives you Combat Advantage against anyone who hasn't acted yet. With Rogue Tactics, you have to choose between two traits. Artful Dodger (Cha modifier bonus to AC against Opportunity Attacks), and Brutal Scoundrel (Str modifier bonus to Sneak Attack damage). Certain powers provide additional bonus if you selected the appropriate Rogue Tactic (Bait and Switch, for instance, provides an additional bonus if you're an Artful Dodger). Rogue Weapon Talent provides a +1 to hit with Daggers and increases the damage die of Shurikens (they normally inflict 1d4 damage, but in a Rogue's hands, they inflict 1d6). Sneak Attack does +2d6 damage at Heroic Tier, +3d6 at Paragon Tier, and +5d6 at Epic Tier. Rogue Armor Proficiencies are Cloth and Leather.
- The Warlock has 14 pages worth of material. The Warlock Class Features are Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Pact, Prime Shot, Shadow Walk, and Warlock's Curse. All Warlocks must choose Eldritch Blast as an At-Will power, and it counts as a Ranged Basic Attack. Warlocks choose one Eldritch Pact: Fey Pact, Infernal Pact, and Star Pact. That choice determines their second At-Will Power and provides them an additional ability (Misty Step, Dark One's Blessing, and Fate of the Void). You can choose any additional powers you like, no matter what Pact they're listed as, but some powers provide additional bonuses if you've got that Pact. For instance, any Warlock can take Dreadful Word, but a Warlock who's taken the Star Pact gets an additional benefit from it. The Warlock's Implements are the Rod and the Wand, and their Armor Proficiencies are Cloth and Leather.
- The Warlord has 13 pages worth of material. The Warlord's Class Features are Combat Leader, Commanding Presence, and Inspiring Word. Commanding Presence gives you a choice of two abilities. Either Inspiring Presence (an ally you can see gets healed a number of hit points equal to 1/2 your level + Cha modifier when they use an Action Point), or Tactical Presence (when an ally you can see uses an Action Point to make an extra attack, they get a bonus to hit equal to 1/2 your Int modifier). These choices provide additional benefits when certain powers are used. Steel Monsoon, for instance, normally allows one ally within 5 squares to shift after you make an attack. If you have Tactical Presence, then a number of allies within 5 squares equal to your Int modifier can shift. The Warlord's Armor Proficiences are Cloth, Leather, Hide and Chainmail; Light Shield.
- The Wizard has 16 pages worth of material. The Wizard's Implements are Orb, Staff, and Wand. The Wizard's Class Features are Arcane Implement Mastery, Cantrips, Ritual Casting, and Spellbook. You choose one Implement with Arcane Implement Mastery. When using that particular Implement, you get a specific bonus. Orbs extend the duration of your spells. Once per encounter, you can either choose to impose a penalty to saving throws on a target against one effect it's suffering from equal to your Wisdom modifier, or you can extend the duration of a spell by an additional round. The Staff provides a +1 to AC and, once per encounter as an immediate interrupt, you can add a bonus to your AC equal to your Con modifier. This can be done after the DM has already told you how much damage you've taken. The Wand provides a once per encounter bonus to hit equal to your Dex modifier.
There're four Cantrips. Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, and Prestidigitation. They're treated as At-Will Powers. Ritual Casting gives you the Feat, and you start off knowing three Rituals at 1st-level. You learn an additional two Rituals at 5th, 11th, 15th, 21st, and 25th level, which're all inscribed into your spellbook. You can add more Rituals later on by purchasing them and copying them into your spellbook. And whenever you learn a new Utility or Daily Spell, you copy two spells of the appropriate level into your spellbook, and can memorize one after each Extended Rest. The Expanded Spellbook Feat allows you to choose three spells instead of two.
And that's all I got for now. I'm tired of typing. ;)
@Zsych and LK. After reading the 4E D&D rules I can tell you all classes are not the same.
That's good to hear. Of course, I look forward to actually having the books so I can see them for myself.
Out of combat they, like Clerics have access to Rituals which are other spells that take longer to cast so are not used in battle.
I keep hearing people say fighters can cast rituals just like spellcasters. How does that work, if that's the case?
Despite my disdain for the 4e system, there are some concepts I am in favor of, I just detest the manner in which they were implemented.
Examples:
Wizards with limited at will spells.
Fighters with slightly more to do than a basic attack.
Clerics/Druids that aren't super tanks (good magic, armor, bab progression).
Rogues able to affect more things with their Sneak Attack.
Warlocks with a slightly better selection of abilities.
A grapple system that doesn't suck.
Personally, I wouldn't be so up in arms over these issues if wizards were able to switch out their at-will/encounter powers just like with utility/daily powers. It wouldn't have bothered me so much to have less access to spells on a DAILY level if we could switch out those at-will/encounter powers. Just knowing that the greater versatility is available would have been enough for me. Wizards collect spells and knowledge, and utility/daily/rituals just aren't enough of a carrot for me; the collection should include all aspects of the power scheme. Before someone says, "you do collect knowledge when you level" its not the same and you know it...
I am probably gonna get yelled at by the Wiz_o's for this but you can do all that, except warlock, with Pathfinder, AND have the added benefit of not having your 3.5 stuff all invalid.
I've looked over 4e and am not impressed. Something about ti just doesn;t feel like D&D.
I keep hearing people say fighters can cast rituals just like spellcasters. How does that work, if that's the case?
A Fighter has to burn two Feats in order to do so. First he has to use a Feat in order to get Skill Training in either Arcana or Religion (the prerequisite for the Ritual Caster Feat). So he can either get the Skill Training Feat or a Multiclassing Feat which grants one of those skills.
Once you meet that prerequisite, you can take the Ritual Caster Feat, which lets you master and perform Rituals of your level or lower. You can either use expendable scrolls or get a Ritual Book and copy Rituals into it. There're 49 Rituals in the PHB.
Casting Rituals takes a certain amount of time and the expenditure of a specific GP's worth in material components. How much the Ritual does is decided by a skill check with the appropriate skill (Most often Arcana, but there're a lot of Religion based Rituals. There're also Nature and Heal based Rituals).
I really like the ritual mechanics of 4e. Really free form and one can convert a lot of old 2nd and 3rd edition spells with it.
From what i heard multiclassing seems like it actually works, but I need to see the paragon paths powers (blegh) and the powers of the classes to make sure... Gonna hold of on buying untill I can properly make conversions of my characters (; my greatsword rogue feels left out in the cold)...
I think they figure it will be a while before players start with the Epic level goodness/zanyness so they held off on it for other DDI articles.
Yes, the carrot to dangle to get people to pay for DDI subscriptions.
It is not even that casters are broken. Melee was broken in a bad way. Casters were better plain and simple. If you had and all caster part (clerics, wizards and druids) you did not really need the other classes because their magic "bent reality" in such a way that they could become equal to a melee class or summon something that could fill a melee role.
I find this statement laughable. I've played casters and I've played non-casters, and they are both quite powerful. I've been in situations where the mage wasted the big bad with his magic, and ones where it was the fighter's multiple attacks for double digit damage that did it.
If you played a non-caster and felt inferior to a caster, thats YOUR problem, not the games.
And remember, no one thought 3.5 was so broken and horrible until WOTC started their smear campaign of how Awesome 4e is and how 3.5 is a nightmare. If all of the statements of how broken 3.5 were true, we'd still be playing 2nd Ed.
I find this statement laughable. I've played casters and I've played non-casters, and they are both quite powerful. I've been in situations where the mage wasted the big bad with his magic, and ones where it was the fighter's multiple attacks for double digit damage that did it.
If you played a non-caster and felt inferior to a caster, thats YOUR problem, not the games.
And remember, no one thought 3.5 was so broken and horrible until WOTC started their smear campaign of how Awesome 4e is and how 3.5 is a nightmare. If all of the statements of how broken 3.5 were true, we'd still be playing 2nd Ed.
Actually, I've noticed that when you age, your skill and body decrease as a none-caster. Yet age means nothing more than gain for a caster with the knowlege of spells. Compare the best swordsman to the best caster, lets say Drizzt and Elimenster for example, who is more "quite powerful"? A adept swordsmen will only stand a chance against a novice caster, and even that only if they have enchanted weapons,armor,ect.
Good roleplaying does not require you to gimp your character mechanics wise. Optimizing your character does not mean you're a bad roleplayer.
Especially when you're a wizard, since those guys are so smart, they tend to make subpar decisions all the time. Wait, that doesn't sound about right...
Oh gods, not THIS again.
Role Playing and Optimizing are NOT the same thing
You want to optimize your character, fine. It is NOT a requirement of playing, however. If you want to optimize, that does not mean everyone has to. And the non-optimal character can be just as enjoyable to play.
He specifically stated his spell choices were because of Role Playing, meaning he has in character reasons for his spell selection. So, its not optimal, so what?
GK, thanks for explaining that. Some people were making it seem like fighters are just as good as "spellcasting" stuff as the actual spellcasting classes.
NP. And yeah, that's not the case. A Wizard starts off with the Ritual Caster Feat and has access to four of the five skills that all the Rituals are based off of. In addition, the Wizard starts off with 3 Rituals and gets 10 more for free over the course of levelling. A Fighter has to use up two Feats, buy every single Ritual, and even then, he's only really good at casting Rituals based off of that one skill he became trained in (Although he can cast the rest. But without Skill Training in them, the effects won't be as good. Animal Messenger, for instance, only lasts for 6 hours unless you can roll 20+ on a Nature check).
Still, I rather like it. I'll be cool for when I make a Fighter with some Wizard multiclassing (Arcane Initiate gives you Skill Training in Arcana as part of the package). It'll also be nice for a Paladin, as Paladins have Religion and Heal as class skills. So he'll already meet the prerequisites for taking the Ritual Caster Feat. And those two skills will make him really good at casting Rituals like Gentle Repose, Cure Disease, Discern Lies, Speak with Dead, Raise Dead, Remove Affliction, and Voice of Fate. Hmm. I really hope they make an Exorcism Ritual someday. That'd be fun.
"THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!" :D
And remember, no one thought 3.5 was so broken and horrible until WOTC started their smear campaign of how Awesome 4e is and how 3.5 is a nightmare. If all of the statements of how broken 3.5 were true, we'd still be playing 2nd Ed.
You're wrong about that. That's something that had been coming up pretty consistently LONG before 4E was even announced.
I am probably gonna get yelled at by the Wiz_o's for this but you can do all that, except warlock, with Pathfinder, AND have the added benefit of not having your 3.5 stuff all invalid.
I've looked over 4e and am not impressed. Something about ti just doesn;t feel like D&D.
Exactly, but I think I may have been misinterpreted here a little. My comment made in reference to the at-wills/encounter powers being switched out was not in the manner that 4e allows, but in a manner like a spellbook where you have many occurances of the at-will/encounter powers and you just swap them out when you rest. If you look very closely, the Vancian system is still alive and well in 4e, just changed, but make no mistake, it is still there right in your face.
Not really. I was figuring perhaps the number crunchers sould reason with him. He seems to think he makes a killer melee that can beat out a wizard. His pc may be good at fighting things but I am sure that even an unoptimized wiz can top that build. I do not have the brain or the time to pick it all apart though. Anyway the concept is moot ecause the 3.5 optimization boards have moved somewhere and the 4E ones are all that is left. Plus I no longer care for his opinions on any matter and have ignored him. He never concedes any point and thinks he is always right even when others (not necessarily myself) make better arguments. I do not agree with many people around here it seems but many of you are usually polite and your points make sense in many ways because you handle yourselves in a much nicer way. Just my two cents on that matter.
The problem here is the idea that optimization matters to EVERYONE. Optimizers enjoy optimizing for the sake of optimization, usually (not always, but usually). The like crunching the numbers anf finding the best builds for everything, as well as for specific situations. And I say more power to them. However, not everyone plays this game to have the ultimate build of a character. This is where the whole Stormwind Fallacy BS comes from. Yes, the idea that you can't RP and Optimize at the same time, is wrong, but so is the belief that you can't RP and not Optimize or you can;t Optimize and not RP. All of those exist as gamers. You have your RPers, who could care not about thier builds, you have the optimizers, who only care about their builds, and you have the players who work on both - RP and Optimizing. However, none of these groups are playing the game wrong. And do not forget, this game is more than just combat.
Perhaps he doesn;t care for the opinions of people from the CO forum, because he is from the group that is RPers who do not care about optimizing their character.
I keep hearing people say fighters can cast rituals just like spellcasters. How does that work, if that's the case?
-Seems akin to Star Wars, where anybody can take the 'Force Sensitive' feat, which would give them access to the ability to use the Force.
-I have always been in favor of feats allowing other classes to take on the 'basic' abilities of other. Wizards can take a 'Lesser Sneak Attack' feat, Fighters can take a 'Lesser Rage' feat, Monks can take a 'Lesser Arcane Spellcasting' feat, and so on.
Actually, I've noticed that when you age, your skill and body decrease as a none-caster. Yet age means nothing more than gain for a caster with the knowlege of spells. Compare the best swordsman to the best caster, lets say Drizzt and Elimenster for example, who is more "quite powerful"? A adept swordsmen will only stand a chance against a novice caster, and even that only if they have enchanted weapons,armor,ect.
Drizzt and Elminster are a lousy comparison. If for no other reason than their difference in levels. Now, give me a caster of the same level as Drizzt (or a fighter of the same level as Elminster) and then we cna discuss it
I was thinking on the fighters using rituals part, I think it could be described as a ritual when Bruenor made Wulfgars hammer. It had components and chanting of arcane power from a scroll.
That was a 1st or 2nd edition (1st I think because of the edition that book was released for) "feat" that Dwarves had, the ability to create a single weapon of incredible power once in their lives.
That was a 1st or 2nd edition (1st I think because of the edition that book was released for) "feat" that Dwarves had, the ability to create a single weapon of incredible power once in their lives.
I know that but in 4e terms it's a way to explain it.
[...] with Pathfinder [...]
Frankly, no. The free alpha PDF (dating 04/09/2008) shows that Pathfinder will likely have the same glaring holes as 3.5, only with some mechanics swaped out and a new shiny cover.
The power discrepancy between fighter and wizard remains - no, it's even amplified.
Pathfinder fighter
- d10 HD
- 2 + Int mod skill choices (they use the "maximum ranks, limited choice" variant from UA)
- Bonus feat at level 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
- Armor Training at level 3, 7, 11, 15: gain +1 AC and -1 ACP when wearing armor, increases at subsequent levels to a max of +4/-4
- Weapon Training at level 5, 9, 13, 17: choose 1 weapon group, gain +1 attack and damage with that weapon group. Works like the 3.0 ranger's favored enemy. When you select a new weapon group at a later level, the new group is at +1, and the previous groups increase by +1. Which means, that at level 5 you have to take the weapon group you're expecting to use the most at level 17+ to get a real benefit from this ability.
- Armor mastery at level 19: DR 5/-
- Weapon mastery at level 20: chose one specific weapon (longsword, greatsword, handaxe, ...), critical hits with this weapon are automatically confirmed, the weapon's critical multiplier is increased by one step (x2 -> x3), and you cannot be disarmed when wielding such a weapon (but sundering works perfectly fine).
It's like someone insisting that the US are not fighting in Iraq because he hasn't watched TV or read a newspaper in the last 5 years, and claiming all proof you show him to be lies.
Yeah, we rolled them in 1 days time. Was a little too easy I'd have to say.
And now tell me that the little AC and damage bonus the fighter got is enough to compensate for the massive boost the wizard got (more HP, even greater flexibility, save-or-dies as (sp) in addition to his allotment of spells, ...).
Noticed how the wizard got an additional ability at each level the fighter gets a bonus feat? Yeah, balance and equality... oh my.
Those powers replace the bonus spell per day you get for being a specialist. As far as I have read them, they are a power *down*, because they make the Wizard less flexible as with the normal 3.5 specialization. The lvl 20 powers are pretty good, though. Of course, at level 20 the campaign is most likely almost over...
BTW, could you use a tone which is less condescending? I know you feel all superior, but talking to your partner in conversation in a more civil tone really makes for a better discussion.
And the Fighter being only able to whack things is exactly the purpose of that class. When you want to play a martial class that can do other things that just whack enemies you play Paladins, or Rangers, or Swashbucklers, or ToB classes that are BETTER than Spellcasters (prooved by the CO people you love so much).
The concept of a Fighter is that of a person who is trained to whack things. He is the foot-soldier of armies (and foot-soldiers follow orders and kill the enemy). Fighter is a focused class, the more you focus it on one specific weapon, the more powerful he gets.
I'll continue with the militar analogies (I'm sure Ody will agree with me in this).
Rogues: Engineers
Paladin: Tank
Wizard: Airplane
Rangers: Scouts and Spec-Ops
Monk: Fighter trained in Mortal Combat
Bard: Officer
Each one of those is important in the army. And I never hear Foot-Soldiers complaining they don't kill as much as Airplanes, or have as many options as them.
That was a 1st or 2nd edition (1st I think because of the edition that book was released for) "feat" that Dwarves had, the ability to create a single weapon of incredible power once in their lives.
Was that actually a rule, or just artistic license?
...talking to your partner in conversation in a more civil tone really makes for a better discussion.
Seconded. No reason not to be nice.
Was that actually a rule, or just artistic license?
IIRC it was a race feature (rule).
I find this statement laughable. I've played casters and I've played non-casters, and they are both quite powerful. I've been in situations where the mage wasted the big bad with his magic, and ones where it was the fighter's multiple attacks for double digit damage that did it.
If you played a non-caster and felt inferior to a caster, thats YOUR problem, not the games.
And remember, no one thought 3.5 was so broken and horrible until WOTC started their smear campaign of how Awesome 4e is and how 3.5 is a nightmare. If all of the statements of how broken 3.5 were true, we'd still be playing 2nd Ed.
We have had this argument before. I think I said go to CO boards and talk it out with the goobs there and like Alediran you refused to. The goobs there have the time and patience to spell out why casters > melee, I do not.
Melee can dish out damage not doubt, but so can casters. Casters can pretend to be melee also, melee cannot pretend to cast spells. Casters can do their role as well as the melee role. This is the imbalance. The more magic supplements that came out made the casters just that much better.
2E was a dog of a system that nobody would ever go back to it they just learned to deal with it. Casters were better than melee. At least with TOB melee got to do other things in combat then just swing a weapon.
At least with TOB melee got to do other things in combat then just swing a weapon.
Fighters, not melees. Rangers, Paladins, Swashbucklers and a lot of other melee classes can do lots of things other than whacking enemies. You are willfuly ignoring those classes to sustain your false arguments. That's an Ad populum fallacy, with a little of Ad verecundiam throwed on it, this also applies to Ra-Tien.
Monk: Fighter trained in Mortal Combat
So the military teaches self defense again a video game? ;)
So the military teaches self defense again a video game? ;)
:punch:
There is a difference between Mortal Combat and Mortal Kombat. The first is training in Unarmed Combat and become a deadly weapon.
:punch:
There is a difference between Mortal Combat and Mortal Kombat. The first is training in Unarmed Combat and become a deadly weapon.
To more appropriate they teach unarmed combat, or self defense depending on the branch. 4 years of JROTC, 20 years studying martial arts.
To more appropriate they teach unarmed combat, or self defense depending on the branch. 4 years of JROTC, 20 years studying martial arts.
If you knew why did you made that joke?
If you knew why did you made that joke?
Because it was a joke......you know haha funny stuff. I tend to try to have fun on the boards.
Because it was a joke......you know haha funny stuff. I tend to try to have fun on the boards.
I do it too, but usually on threads that degenerate in off-topicness.
I do it too, but usually on threads that degenerate in off-topicness.
Yeah, but bland logic tends to be ignored. So I throw in some one-liners.
[...] or ToB classes that are BETTER than Spellcasters (prooved by the CO people you love so much). [...]
I'm perfectly sure you can provide a link to an appropriate thread in which the topic was discussed in depth from a mechanical point of view to support your claim, can't you?
I, on the other hand, could dig out several threads from the CO boards proofing the absolute mechanical superiority of the wizard compared to any martial class. Just take a look at the thread I provided earlier: level 20 core only wizard vs level 20 splatbook twinked fighter, and the wizard wins hands down.
[...] He is the foot-soldier of armies [...]
Wrong. Warriors are the foot-soldiers. Fighters are the trained and battle hardened veterans. Supposedly, at least.
[...] Wizard: Airplane [...]
Wrong again. The wizard is a Transformer...
Thinking of that, it fits the analogy pretty well. Remember how Blackout destroys the whole military base all on his own without breaking a sweat at the beginning of the Transformers movie? Now that's how a fight of a prepared wizard against a bunch of fighters looks like. :P
Those powers replace the bonus spell per day you get for being a specialist. As far as I have read them, they are a power *down*, because they make the Wizard less flexible as with the normal 3.5 specialization. The lvl 20 powers are pretty good, though. Of course, at level 20 the campaign is most likely almost over...
I see. School specialization was broken anyway. It was too weak if you specialized in anything but Divination, and too powerful if you specialized in Divination.
However, that doesn't change the point that the wizard gets useful and powerful abilities, whereas compared the fighter gets basically +4 AC and +5 damage. Also, the wizard got a HD increase, while the fighter got nothing. The fighter is still stuck with static feats, while the wizard gets a huge amount of scaling spells he can cherry pick off the list and mix each day as needed.
BTW, could you use a tone which is less condescending? I know you feel all superior, but talking to your partner in conversation in a more civil tone really makes for a better discussion.
I'm not wrapping my points in cotton. Never did, never will.
Anyway, this is not a conversation but rather a monologue. I could just as well be talking to a wall, because they don't even that much as look at my facts but keep telling themselves "I'm not using it, therefore it's not broken".
I'm perfectly sure you can provide a link to an appropriate thread in which the topic was discussed in depth from a mechanical point of view to support your claim, can't you?
When I get home I'll search those threads (I'm at work and I get out in 3 hours, plus 30 minutes to home, plus monday house cleaning, I live by myself, so I don't have much time for myself in this point of my life :P).
I, on the other hand, could dig out several threads from the CO boards proofing the absolute mechanical superiority of the wizard compared to any martial class. Just take a look at the thread I provided earlier: level 20 core only wizard vs level 20 splatbook twinked fighter, and the wizard wins hands down.
Now you are using class power as an argument when we talked class options and I brought other Martial classes, nice way of changing arguments.
Wrong. Warriors are the foot-soldiers. Fighters are the trained and battle hardened veterans. Supposedly, at least.
Warriors are the conscripts of an army.
Wrong again. The wizard is a Transformer..
Depends on the Wizard. He could be the nuclear silo also, or the aircraft carrier.
Thinking of that, it fits the analogy pretty well. Remember how Blackout destroys the whole military base all on his own without breaking a sweat at the beginning of the Transformers movie? Now that's how a fight of a prepared wizard against a bunch of fighters looks like. :P
That's why you have a Transformer on your side too, to balance things.
I see. School specialization was broken anyway. It was too weak if you specialized in anything but Divination, and too powerful if you specialized in Divination.
Specialization is fun thank's to Paizo. I've never played Specialist Wizards (not even Diviners because if I played a Specialist it should be specializated in the school that better reflected the character)
However, that doesn't change the point that the wizard gets useful and powerful abilities, whereas compared the fighter gets basically +4 AC and +5 damage. Also, the wizard got a HD increase, while the fighter got nothing. The fighter is still stuck with static feats, while the wizard gets a huge amount of scaling spells he can cherry pick off the list and mix each day as needed.
You have to see the new martial feats that Fighters get in Pathfinder too.
And let's not even talk about rogues. The options they have are amazing.
Just take a look at the thread I provided earlier: level 20 core only wizard vs level 20 splatbook twinked fighter, and the wizard wins hands down.
How often was that experiment repeated?
It's possible that your main point is correct (I won't argue that it isn't), but I'm a bit skeptical about a thread "proving" that. Could you post the link again?
I'm not wrapping my points in cotton. Never did, never will.
You have to follow the CoC when posting here. Sarcastic digs are against the CoC. If someone is being rude to you, just report them.
My wizard has 3 blasting spells and one controlling spell which is sleep. I can use Presto, M Hand, G Sound, and Light at will. I can cast Comp lang, Tensers Disc and M Mouth throuhg Rituals and they are each last for 24 hours. The combat spells I do have are Schorching Burst an AOE spell that is at will, and a thunder at will spell that does dmg and knocks back the enemy with the help of my wis mod. Chill Strike is an encounter spell that dazes targets, and does damage. Spells like arcane lock were useable as well for a Ritual but I liked my picks. Ohh, my wiz can sense motives too as a class skill. Fun times.
We have had this argument before. I think I said go to CO boards and talk it out with the goobs there and like Alediran you refused to. The goobs there have the time and patience to spell out why casters > melee, I do not.
Melee can dish out damage not doubt, but so can casters. Casters can pretend to be melee also, melee cannot pretend to cast spells. Casters can do their role as well as the melee role. This is the imbalance. The more magic supplements that came out made the casters just that much better.
2E was a dog of a system that nobody would ever go back to it they just learned to deal with it. Casters were better than melee. At least with TOB melee got to do other things in combat then just swing a weapon.
Why should I go to the CO boards? IT's a given that in the hands of an optimizer, ANY system will be broken. That's what they do. Look for the exploits and ways to make their character the most powerful there is. I'm sorry, I play with average people. And in a situation where everyone is more interested in their CHARACTER, TEAMWORK, and THE STORY, there is no problem.
I repeat, ANY SYSTEM is broken in the hands of an Optimizer.
And no, this is not an attack on Optimizers. I've gamed with them, I like them, and when the entire group is not made up of them, it is fun. Gives the weaker characters someone to depend on to really dish it out. This is a rebuttal to your conclusion that Optimization shows how broken 3.5 is.
As for 2nd Ed, well, IMO, it was a better system than either 3, 3.5, or 4e. Least without Players Option it was. It was simple, it worked, and let the game be about more than combat and who is the most powerful.
I repeat, ANY SYSTEM is broken in the hands of an Optimizer.
I agree here. From what I have seen 4e edition is harder to break though (sacrificing a lot of depth).
Take hide and move silently in 3.5. Most rogues with hide skills of +15 (as early as first level) had or overwhelming chance of succes against regular sentries or it was nearly impossible to get by the keen eyed (those with a specialism spot) sentries. These things are flatened out more by the static half your character level skill bonusses.
-As I said I can't tell you how many times now, go somewhere else to talk about Wizards being/not being broken. This thread is for discussion of the 4e books, as they relate to the Forgotten Realms.
Why should I go to the CO boards? IT's a given that in the hands of an optimizer, ANY system will be broken. That's what they do. Look for the exploits and ways to make their character the most powerful there is. I'm sorry, I play with average people.
I understand where you're coming from. Your players don't reach into the truy broken combos. But other people do. They're there in the books. These problems should be fixed. If you and your players aren't using these loopholes, then you won't miss them being gone, now will you?
That's why you have a Transformer on your side too, to balance things.
Wonderful. So everyone else gets to be Spike Witwicky and Chip to the Wizard who's a Transformer? Or Shortround to Indiana Jones? You shouldn't need a Wizard to balance things. That you think that a Wizard is necessary "to balance things" proves that Wizards aren't balanced. Because if they were, then you wouldn't need another Wizard to counteract them.
However, there was something key that you meantioned. You said a "prepared Wizard". A "prepared" wizard is (or at least was) the most dangerous thing in the D&D universe. With the options at their disposal, they should have the answers to any foreseable problem. The trick is that when they are caught by the things they don't forsee, they can end up little greasy smears.
After running several dueling tournaments, I find that it mostly comes down to prep time. Even then, an anti-magic Torque (Underdark), is realatively cheap.
Long story short, the 3.0 wizards are powerfull, surely, but they had some glaring weaknesses to. A fighter is a bit more rounded (though I believe they should have had 2 more skill points and a better list). A fighter is better over the long haul, while a wizard had to pace himself if he wanted to last. A wrong turn in a dungeon could leave the wizard with a spear in his gut, while for a fighter it would be business as usual.
-Numerous posts have been flagged or being off-topic.
-As I said I can't tell you how many times now, go somewhere else to talk about Wizards being/not being broken. This thread is for discussion of the 4e books, as they relate to the Forgotten Realms.
The 4e Wizard of the Forgotten Realms will not suck.
Hows that for getting back on topic?:P
When I get home I'll search those threads (I'm at work and I get out in 3 hours, plus 30 minutes to home, plus monday house cleaning, I live by myself, so I don't have much time for myself in this point of my life :P).
And that is my problem in what way? ;) :P
Now you are using class power as an argument when we talked class options and I brought other Martial classes, nice way of changing arguments.
I concede that other fighting classes are better than the fighter in that regard.
The paladin could handle social stuff a bit because of his Cha, if he had enough skill points to actually increase Diplomacy and Sense Motive. However, without any form of bonus feats and a quite limited spell list with an absurdly low caster level (1/2 class level, wtf?), he lacks the versatility to reliably handle multiple roles. Also, most of his options are about how to smack around evil stuff in another way or more efficiently.
The barbarian has more skills available, and fares quite well in the "savage" role. The illiteracy is a PITA, and not even consequential at that (goes away when multiclassing?!). His abilities are basically only built around the "charge, power attack" melee style. Making a good ranged barbarian is extremely difficult, and can only be done with throwing weapons or somesuch, in a way to benefit from his very high strength. Most options are focused around exploiting his rage ability.
The ranger is probably the best of the lot. The class has the best skills of them and can be melee or ranged, and be quite effective at both (although crossbow rangers are still crying themselves to sleep). The latest splatbooks have greatly increased the flexibility of his spell list, but he suffers from the same problem as the paladin: a uselessly low caster level, making him in combat unreliable at best. However, he got a good selection of spells on his list (buff, battlefield control, debuff, mobility, healing) that makes him that much better than the fighter.
All in all, if you're not going for a very specialized weapon or PrC you need loads of feats to qualify for, the ranger is probably superior to the fighter in any way. He has on average 1 HP less per level, but has better saves, better skills, and spells with lots of options that make him useful even when there's nothing around to kill.
Warriors are the conscripts of an army.
The DMG and PHb beg to differ. As does history. Conscripts were usually drawn from the peasantry, which would be commoners or experts (at best) in game terms.
Depends on the Wizard. He could be the nuclear silo also, or the aircraft carrier.
Ok. And you're the infantry man with that rifle and 90 bullets.
What exactly can you do against an enemy you need an ICBM or an aircraft carrier to defeat? Nothing.
And what exactly can you do against an enemy that does not require a nuke or a whole aircraft strike force, but only a cruise missile or a single bomber? Also, nothing.
You're only useful against enemies that don't require the wizard's arsenal. And that is quite sad from a game mechanics point of view.
You should be able to contribute to almost all encounters in one way or another. No class should be able to use its class abilities to outshine you in your niche.That's why you have a Transformer on your side too, to balance things.
Because Sam was so effective at doing anything else but running away from the Decepticons in battle. :D Is that how you want the balance between fighter and wizard to be? The fighter having to run away, always, when his own "pocket wizard" is not readily available? What about a party that doesn't have a wizard or sorcerer?
Specialization is fun thank's to Paizo. I've never played Specialist Wizards (not even Diviners because if I played a Specialist it should be specializated in the school that better reflected the character)
As said, my statements are based purely on the alpha PDF. I'm not going to shell out 25$ for the beta preview. Therefore, I don't know what else they changed. But the alpha seriously looks like 3.75.1a.
The skill system is interesting. At first it aggravates the uselessness of "2+X" skill choice classes, while in the end negating the advantage of "4+X" or "6+X" classes, because at every even level you get an additional skill. Each character therefore has at least (barring a negative Int mod) 12 skills with max ranks at level 20.
You have to see the new martial feats that Fighters get in Pathfinder too.
That let them do what? Some utility stuff? Or only bashing monsters in a different way?
To be honest the feats dealing with "combat focus" in the (iirc) PHb2 were quite cool. Paizo should have taken that and developed it further instead of continuing 3.5's "neverending combat feat story". Giving the fighter his own schtick. Giving him abilities besides thwacking an orc harder.
A feat that requires him to spend combat focus but force a natural 20 on his next single attack roll (and when you can enter combat focus only once per encounter, this is a heft cost for the benefit). And synergize that with feats that allow him to inflict status effects (slowed, blinded, nauseated, ...) on a critical hit (save DC 10 + 1/2 fighter level + Str mod, lasts 3 rounds plus 1 round per fighter's Int or Wis mod whichever is higher).
Allow him to gain combat focus also when not in battle a limited times per day to do something cool (for example, use a feat that usually requires combat focus and gives fast healing to enter the burning building and save the child and not be burned to death).
Or give him a feat that allows him to make an attack roll instead of an Open Lock check ("he studies the chest, the lock, and the materials for a minute, and then with a single, brutal thrust breaks open the lock by hitting a weak spot with brutal accuracy") instead of having to bash away at the door's/chest's HP.
Note: in my previous paragraphs I used "feat" interchangably with "feat and/or class feature".
And let's not even talk about rogues. The options they have are amazing.
I've seen the advanced rogue talent "dispelling strike". I never knew that sticking a knife in someone's kidney would make his strength buff go away. :P
The 4e Wizard of the Forgotten Realms will not suck.
Hows that for getting back on topic?:P
-Somewhat.
-Thank you.
-Somewhat.
-Thank you.
I live only to serve, til I start my job.:D[...] This thread is for discussion of the 4e books, as they relate to the Forgotten Realms.
Aka crystal balling and pure speculation as neither is officially released, and the 4E FR Campaign Guide is scheduled for release in August.
As has been shown repeatedly in this thread alone (and the countless other 4E naysayer threads), there are basically two groups of posters when it comes to "4E + X" (replace X with DnD, FR, Eberron, what you want).
Group 1: *OMG* 4E sucks, X is dead, the end is nigh.
Group 2: *shrug* I'm giving it a try anyway and will see how it works out.
I'm personally in group 2 and while not disinclined about discussions about mechanics and balance or the influence of the new rules on the campaign world in general, my mood quickly turns sour if my arguments are ignored or - more importantly - the opposition is incapable or unwilling to present its (perhaps) valid points in a way that's not a blind ranting-spree.
// Edit:
I'm only waiting for the countless bash and hate threads when the mass of posters sees the cover of the CG.
...
-Old news, all of it. Yet, this is the subject, so continue on with that discussion.
I'm currently reading the Wizard powers. Until now except for a couple spells (Jump, Sleep, Web, Shield, and the utility spells, which are very few) every spell is a damage dealer (more lameness from this crappy company called WotC).
Just in the Heroic tier encounter powers you've got Ray of Enfeeblement (weakens), Icy Terrain (affects people moving through an area), Chillstrike (daze), Spectral Ram (pushes people and knocks them down), Winter's Wrath (Sleet Storm with a new name).
Just in the Heroic tier encounter powers you've got Ray of Enfeeblement (weakens), Icy Terrain (affects people moving through an area), Chillstrike (daze), Spectral Ram (pushes people and knocks them down), Winter's Wrath (Sleet Storm with a new name).
His complaint was about spells being mostly damage dealers. Those spells deal damage, so he's right about that. Most spells have an additional effect in addition to damage, but he's not wrong about most spells being damage dealers. Although he is wrong about the Utility Spells being "very few", though. They make up 1/4th of the list (21 out of a total of 85). And there're 28 non-damaging spells and 57 damaging spells. So while the damage dealers are the majority, a third of the list consists of non-damage dealers. And that's before you even take Rituals into account.
Wonderful. So everyone else gets to be Spike Witwicky and Chip to the Wizard who's a Transformer? Or Shortround to Indiana Jones? You shouldn't need a Wizard to balance things. That you think that a Wizard is necessary "to balance things" proves that Wizards aren't balanced. Because if they were, then you wouldn't need another Wizard to counteract them.
I'd much rtaher be Sam Witwicky than any of the Transformers. After all, HE gets Megan Fox
But of course, my memories of the show may be a little off.
His complaint was about spells being mostly damage dealers. Those spells deal damage, so he's right about that. Most spells have an additional effect in addition to damage, but he's not wrong about most spells being damage dealers. Although he is wrong about the Utility Spells being "very few", though. They make up 1/4th of the list (21 out of a total of 85). And there're 28 non-damaging spells and 57 damaging spells. So while the damage dealers are the majority, a third of the list consists of non-damage dealers. And that's before you even take Rituals into account.
There are two reasons so many spells are damage dealers (and poisons, too).
HIT POINTS: It has always been thus, but in 4th edition, hit points are being emphasized as NOT representing wounds necessarily. Hit points represent fatigue, morale, bruising, adrenaline, and sprains as well as wounds.
Considered 'bloodied' (at half hit points) as the point when you first get hurt. Maybe your nose is broken, or the axe slammed into your shield so hard your shoulder is numb.
In that context, any spell that contributes to you losing confidence, becoming fatigued or ortherwise being worn down should have a hit point consequence.
RITUAL vs. SPELL: Spells are for combat, rituals are (usually) for out of combat. If the majority of spells do damage, it's because spells are for fighting.
I like the the ritual concept. It brings back believeable and flavourful casting times and components, similar to the early days of FR. Once we had six second rounds, magic began to strain the story a bit.
Consider the wizard/fighter debate in terms of what would have happened if fighters got the six second round that is reasonable for hand-to-hand and wizards got the one minute round that is reasonable for complex ritualistic magic. :p I think seperating combat magic from more complex magic is a decent solution.
HIT POINTS: It has always been thus, but in 4th edition, hit points are being emphasized as NOT representing wounds necessarily. Hit points represent fatigue, morale, bruising, adrenaline, and sprains as well as wounds.
Considered 'bloodied' (at half hit points) as the point when you first get hurt. Maybe your nose is broken, or the axe slammed into your shield so hard your shoulder is numb.
Heh, no argument from me in this regard. I made the exact same argument about 10 pages back or so. ;)
Heh, no argument from me in this regard. I made the exact same argument about 10 pages back or so. ;)
The blasphemy of making logical arguments:P !
FRIENDLY FIRE! AHHH!
Lets be honest here, shooting at your friends is not so friendly.
Heh, no argument from me in this regard. I made the exact same argument about 10 pages back or so. ;)
Problem then and now is going to be healing time. If you aren't actually hurt before getting halfway through your hit points then I expect recovery times to be pretty quick without anything beyond rest. If HP are recovered too slowly, I can't speak for Alediran but I'll call BS. If you can get them back fast without using magic or meds then I'll accept this argument. I'll know in a couple days I guess.
Problem then and now is going to be healing time. If you aren't actually hurt before getting halfway through your hit points then I expect recovery times to be pretty quick without anything beyond rest.
You're back up to full HP after an Extended Rest (six hours). That's also what Healing Surges are for.
You're back up to full HP after an Extended Rest (six hours). That's also what Healing Surges are for.
Yup, scars, walking with a limp and stuff go into the role play area of it instead of smacking you with a mechanical disadvantage.
About rituals, fantasy is full with fighters who can get magical powers. And why can't a warrior study for years(Arcane or Religion skill) + a feat. It's great they made it this customizable.
Want better Wizard spells? Pick the 3.5 phb and the 4e phb and create them, it's easy. Make them at-will if you want the rediculous Wizard of 3.5 back.
3.5 Wizards don't have at-will spells. They have very limited spells per day (in 4th edition you can't cast most of your spells all day). I preffer the limited but flexible 3rd edition wizard.
That's what they've done with 4e, chuck a part of the Wizard(not even only the Wizard, the Cleric aswell) and give them to all classes. As a fighter I get to actually more now as standing around as a sack of potatoes and do a full attack every frigging round while the Wizard finishes of the big guy.
What they did is convert every class into the exactly same thing. They all use the same mechanics (boring, because I love learning how to use new classes)
About rituals, fantasy is full with fighters who can get magical powers.
Those magical powers are better reflected as Spell-Like Abilities because they are one-trick ponies that can be used without study. Not as Rituals that require magical training and study (because that's what a Ritual represents, the application of Spellcasting knowledge that only spellcasters should get).
And why can't a warrior study for years(Arcane or Religion skill) + a feat. It's great they made it this customizable.
That would make him a multiclass Fighter/Wizard. Same effect, better reflected by multiclassing than this travesty.
What they did is convert every class into the exactly same thing. They all use the same mechanics (boring, because I love learning how to use new classes)
I've played it, every character has a very different feel to it. They all use different tactics. If anything I like the combat system better. I didn't get a chance to use a skill challenge but I despite the rules role playing is still role playing. There really wasn't anything good lost with the switch. I hope you try it without rose tinted glasses.
I've played it, every character has a very different feel to it. They all use different tactics. If anything I like the combat system better. I didn't get a chance to use a skill challenge but I despite the rules role playing is still role playing. There really wasn't anything good lost with the switch. I hope you try it without rose tinted glasses.
I've already did, with my player's group. We all found it boring (even the player who plays fighters, she will stick to 3rd edition too, the deal breaker for her was the Healing Surges, the once-per-day fighter maneuvers and that Fighters can cast magic without spellcasting levels). It all felt too generic. The fights took too long to finish (not because our rules knowledge, but because both sides never recieved much damage at all). We never felt any danger. We never felt the joy of passing a Save-or-death. The new HP system felt too artificial.
The fighter player did the joke with the 0 HP I mentioned. She cut a Kobold's arms with her fighter's attacks (she forcefuly said that to the DM, so it happened), and when the kobold reached 0 HP she decided to "knock him", so the DM replied, as soon as you think that you see the kobold regenerating his arms and cuts in a mere instant while it's still unconcious. Our characters marveled at her "magical" powers of healing.
I've played it, every character has a very different feel to it. They all use different tactics. If anything I like the combat system better. I didn't get a chance to use a skill challenge but I despite the rules role playing is still role playing. There really wasn't anything good lost with the switch. I hope you try it without rose tinted glasses.
You mean "with an open mind", I presume.
"Rose-tinted glasses" imply unrealistic optimism, which Alediran certainly doesn't have in this case.
It all felt too generic.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
Can you explain what you mean by that?
I meant this:
Attacking:
- Cleric: I do my at-will power that sends a bolt of radiant energy and fails half the time.
Nevermind my daily powers that almost always fail and I don't even use them because of that.
- Wizard: I do my at-will power that sends a bolt of pure energy and and fails half the time because I have the exactly same attack bonus than the cleric.
Nevermind my daily powers that almost always fail and I don't even use them because of that.
- Fighter: I do my at-will power that makes more damage than a regular attack and fails half the time because I have the exactly same attack bonus than the cleric.
Nevermind my daily powers that almost always fail and I don't even use them because of that.
- Rogue: I do my at-will power that makes more damage than a regular attack and fails half the time because I have the exactly same attack bonus than the cleric.
Nevermind my daily powers that almost always fail and I don't even use them because of that.
Choosing Powers:
Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, etc: What I'm going to choose as my X-power?. I have the exact same number of powers than the rest and they do more or less the same thing without any kind of real difference.
Damage:
I do damage, whatever it is I don't care. I just reduce the enemy's HPs. Is he tired, is he really hurt? I don't know because HP are too many things and nothing at the same time.
Those are some of the things we all said during that gaming session. Not even counting the outrage of the player that always plays fighters at the option of learning Rituals without being a true Spellcaster, and she felt Fighters where being turned in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon characters.
Nevermind my daily powers that almost always fail and I don't even use them because of that.
Avenging Flame does half damage on a miss.
Cascade of Light does half damage on a miss.
Nevermind my daily powers that almost always fail and I don't even use them because of that.
Acid Arrow does half damage on a miss, and ongoing 2 Acid damage.
Flaming Sphere can be sustained til the end of the encounter.
Freezing Cloud does half damage on a miss, and lasts til the end of your next turn, making another attack against anyone who steps into it during that time.
Sleep still slows the target until they make a save even on a miss.
Nevermind my daily powers that almost always fail and I don't even use them because of that.
Brute Strike is Reliable, so if you miss it's not expended.
Comeback Strike is Reliable.
Villain's Menace still provides a bonus to hit and damage against the opponent for the rest of the encounter.
Nevermind my daily powers that almost always fail and I don't even use them because of that.
Blinding Barrage does half damage on a miss.
Easy Target does half damage on a miss, and you get Combat Advantage on the target til the end of your next turn.
Trick Strike allows you to slide the target 1 square every time you hit it.
FRIENDLY FIRE! AHHH!
Ahem, the correct term is "fratenicide". You can always count on the english impared Soldier to "square you away". ;)
Avenging Flame does half damage on a miss.
Cascade of Light does half damage on a miss.
Acid Arrow does half damage on a miss, and ongoing 2 Acid damage.
Flaming Sphere can be sustained til the end of the encounter.
Freezing Cloud does half damage on a miss, and lasts til the end of your next turn, making another attack against anyone who steps into it during that time.
Sleep still slows the target until they make a save even on a miss.
Brute Strike is Reliable, so if you miss it's not expended.
Comeback Strike is Reliable.
Villain's Menace still provides a bonus to hit and damage against the opponent for the rest of the encounter.
Blinding Barrage does half damage on a miss.
Easy Target does half damage on a miss, and you get Combat Advantage on the target til the end of your next turn.
Trick Strike allows you to slide the target 1 square every time you hit it.
And most of them aren't as reliable as they should 3/4 of the time you use them. We ended with a TPK (the first time my character dies in the years I've been playing D&D) because during the last combat we failed in most of our powers and the enemy hit us with everything they had (we all played 30th level characters, they are either impossible to kill if you have luck with the powers or die too fast if you aren't, with the Rules as they are epic play is too slow, one combat lasted 4 hours of constant back and forth, once we spent all our daily and encounter powers the combat became: I cast Magic Missile, wait to the next turn, I cast Magic Missile. That was worse than playing a 3rd edition Fighter because at least I could act the combat with the fighter).
You took a system you're unfamiliar with and started off by playing 30th-level characters? Oookkk...
After D&D I've played all new systems at maximum power to test them (it's the best way to see it's failures). I've never had any problems with that, I've used Rollkeep, Storyteller, 4th edition, OD&D and AD&D 1st and 2nd (to see how it was back then), Rolemaster, even homemade ones. Those who felt right I kept using them, the others I didn't. Three of the five in my group (including myself) have played RPGs for the past 6 years at least, and we've played on dozens of different systems and worlds.
I'm not a newbie to RPG mechanics.
You took a system you're unfamiliar with and started off by playing 30th-level characters? Oookkk...
-What, you've never gotten a new car, and cranked it up, to see what exactly she can do? That's what I did with my old motorcycle, but got too afraid.
And most of them aren't as reliable as they should 3/4 of the time you use them. We ended with a TPK (the first time my character dies in the years I've been playing D&D) because during the last combat we failed in most of our powers and the enemy hit us with everything they had (we all played 30th level characters, they are either impossible to kill if you have luck with the powers or die too fast if you aren't, with the Rules as they are epic play is too slow, one combat lasted 4 hours of constant back and forth, once we spent all our daily and encounter powers the combat became: I cast Magic Missile, wait to the next turn, I cast Magic Missile. That was worse than playing a 3rd edition Fighter because at least I could act the combat with the fighter).
So you rolled poorly, didn't pay attention to the powers abilities, and you chose to stand still and do nothing but cast magic missile.
I can see how thats entirely the evil corporation that is Wizards of the Coast cheated you and ruined your entire experience. I see a law suit forth coming.
So you rolled poorly, didn't pay attention to the powers abilities, and you chose to stand still and do nothing but cast magic missile.
I can see how thats entirely the evil corporation that is Wizards of the Coast cheated you and ruined your entire experience. I see a law suit forth coming.
Sheesh, at least try to address what he wrote, instead of simply inventing stuff.
The fighter player did the joke with the 0 HP I mentioned. She cut a Kobold's arms with her fighter's attacks (she forcefuly said that to the DM, so it happened), and when the kobold reached 0 HP she decided to "knock him", so the DM replied, as soon as you think that you see the kobold regenerating his arms and cuts in a mere instant while it's still unconcious. Our characters marveled at her "magical" powers of healing.
Sissy....
-Hey, 55 MPH on a motorcycle seems a lot faster than it does in a car.
-Hey, 55 MPH on a motorcycle seems a lot faster than it does in a car.
If you have a good helmet and jacket on, you barely notice it hehe
After D&D I've played all new systems at maximum power to test them (it's the best way to see it's failures).
Not that I'm any kind of mechanical expert, but...
If you start playing at such a high-level, how will you discover all the pros and cons of being a low-level character in this system?
-Hey, 55 MPH on a motorcycle seems a lot faster than it does in a car.
Just messing with ya'... My brother in law got in a bike accident and it took 14 operations to save his leg.....
I've already did, with my player's group. We all found it boring (even the player who plays fighters, she will stick to 3rd edition too, the deal breaker for her was the Healing Surges, the once-per-day fighter maneuvers and that Fighters can cast magic without spellcasting levels). It all felt too generic. The fights took too long to finish (not because our rules knowledge, but because both sides never recieved much damage at all). We never felt any danger. We never felt the joy of passing a Save-or-death. The new HP system felt too artificial.
The fighter player did the joke with the 0 HP I mentioned. She cut a Kobold's arms with her fighter's attacks (she forcefuly said that to the DM, so it happened), and when the kobold reached 0 HP she decided to "knock him", so the DM replied, as soon as you think that you see the kobold regenerating his arms and cuts in a mere instant while it's still unconcious. Our characters marveled at her "magical" powers of healing.
Well then.. I suppose it'd be up to the individual DM.. Had I done as your fighter did, I know my former DM would have looked at me and tell me that the moment I chose to sever limbs, it's a given that even if I did knock him out, he's still bleeding to death, regardless of what the rules say.
A good DM knows when to follow the rules and when to bend them. Many other things make up a good DM as well, that's just one of the tiny things I think. Haha.
I'll go back to lurking now.
Well then.. I suppose it'd be up to the individual DM.. Had I done as your fighter did, I know my former DM would have looked at me and tell me that the moment I chose to sever limbs, it's a given that even if I did knock him out, he's still bleeding to death, regardless of what the rules say.
A good DM knows when to follow the rules and when to bend them. Many other things make up a good DM as well, that's just one of the tiny things I think. Haha.
I'll go back to lurking now.
The moment a player "forcefully talks" to DM into allowing aimed attacks against monsters "so that it just happens", I would declare that from this moment on monsters can make aimed attacks against characters.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, after all.
Again, his argument is flawed because it is based on the "rule 0 fallacy".
Not that I'm any kind of mechanical expert, but...
If you start playing at such a high-level, how will you discover all the pros and cons of being a low-level character in this system?
Nothing stops him from trying it out at low- and mid-levels. :D
Seriously, though, I think his approach has some merit... if the system isn´t fun at the high levels, it better has to make it up at the lower and middle levels.
Although I´d probably foul up a test run at level 30... to make sense of all the abilities, without having learned to use them by beginning from low levels, oh my! I guess Aledirans group is a bit more focused than mine.
I think its cheating to jump to 30 level and play. But then again never played high level. I like low level play, growth into midlevel and earning to play a high level character.
For purposes of playtesting, it is just fine. Beginning at the highest level to *really* play? I wouldn´t see the purpose, unless it´d be some trick campaign ( you level *down*, because of some big curse, which you need to reverse before you become too powerless to do so. Or somesuch. ).
Nothing stops him from trying it out at low- and mid-levels. :D
True enough. If he does do that, I would like to hear what he says about it.
If you have a good helmet and jacket on, you barely notice it hehe
-A helmet is state law, and a jacket only makes you a little warmer, but doesn't make that speed seem any less fast. Once you get used to it, though...
Just messing with ya'... My brother in law got in a bike accident and it took 14 operations to save his leg.....
-Yeah, that's not cool.
[...] I guess Aledirans group is a bit more focused than mine.
And what if it isn't?
I really guess what impression a group that never has played 3.5 before was given level 20 characters and made to play.
Or made to play Exalted for the first time with 500 XP characters.
Or made to play GURPS for the first time with 1000 points characters.
Or made to play Blue Planet for the first time with 250 CHIPs characters.
OR made to play Earthdawn for the first time with Circle 15 characters.
The group makeup so far:
Dwarf, wiz (orb)
Dwarf, Pally (Cha)
Human or Gnome ranger
Half-elf, Tiefling or Halfling rouge (Cha)
Unknown Warlord
Everyone was psyched about it last night and it took us an hour to get into our Vampire game since we were geeking out on 4E so much. Gnomes sound pretty fun to play as do rouges.
Also people have decided they want me to run the second chapter of my Eberron game with 4E rules. Some guys like the druid is going to keep his pc but he is switching to the warlord class. The "unexplained wave of magic effect" that swept over EB caused magic to change but nobody can figure out why. He was tired of playing that overpowered class anyhow I think :D .
Some people will transition quite well like the ranger/scout will just be a ranger and the rogue/duskblade will just do rouge (till he sees the swordmage I gather) the imp warlock will convert to a tiefling warlock (his personality will get implanted into a new tiefling body) the minotaur warblade will just be a fighter with the Kensai Paragon Class. Goblins, orcs and Kobolds special abilites are pretty nice. The kobold player who will be the rouge will drive me nuts since his movement is an 8 (40feet). Oi vey!
Again, his argument is flawed because it is based on the "rule 0 fallacy".
I agreed with you until you said this. Rule 0, like it or not, is part of the game, therefore any ruling made under its purview is valid.
From what Alediran's said, it sounds like he and his group were more interested in looking for reasons to find fault with the game or confirm pre-existing notions then to actually try and enjoy it. Hard to have fun when you go into something with an unrelentingly negative attitude.
Indeed.
It's just like with movies. You read a preview that says the movie sucks, then watch the movie with the unshakable convicion it sucks, and then retroactively fabricate reasons why the movie sucks. You even go as far as reaching for every straw you can get, even comparing it to other movies that are not even of the same genre.
To proof that the movie sucks, you even skip over the first 85 minutes and just watch the last 5 minutes to support your claim that the ending was sucky, and therefore the whole movie is noting but suck and the regisseur deserves being burned at the stake... or somesuch.
You cannot take someone like that serious. Ever.
// Edit:
I agreed with you until you said this. Rule 0, like it or not, is part of the game, therefore any ruling made under its purview is valid.
You cannot base arguments regarding the basic mechanics of a game on some houserules you make.
"The Ford Focus is not slower than a Ferrari FXX because I've pimped my Focus to be faster than a Ferrari FXX."
That's flawed logic.
Especially since his "house rule" included a player deciding to allow called shots in DnD, which demonstrates that he and his group failed to understand how the mechanics around HP work. Called shots in DnD are perhaps the most senseless and abusable house rule, and everyone with a grain of experience will highly discourage you from ever using such a rule.
A Wizard's pride is in the power of the spells he can cast, not how well he aims (that's the rangers pride). Alediran is proud with his ability to cast high-level spells and his dominion over them, not if he fails or hits a Disintegration on a target.
It seems you're a bit too stuck on how the systems has traditionally worked.
If the spell had anything to do with actual aiming, it would be Dex, (like a ranged touch in 3.5.) and use his AC. The fact that it's Intellegence-based and sues Will means he is forming the magic to this his target opponent.
All 4.0 system does is unify and simplify the system that has always existed in d&d- The chance for failure. In 3.5, it's in form of a saving throw or touch attack (with a few exceptions).
Regardless if whom you are, to harm your opponent, you have to breach his defenses- and that is exactly what 4.0 steamlined.
Though I have to admit, without playing, I dunno how 'buyable" I think it might be.
-A helmet is state law, and a jacket only makes you a little warmer, but doesn't make that speed seem any less fast. Once you get used to it, though...
Go with kevlar under leather full body suits... the can definitely save lives, even with spills on an Interstate at 65mph. A friend of mine has done that twice now and walked away with that thing on. Expensive, but well worth it if you live with all of your bodyparts intact.
Ra-Tiel, if I'm reading you correctly, you seem to think everything has to be taken in a literal rules-as-written way, and that a DM's interpretation of the spirit of said rules has no place in determining if something is broken or not? Sorry, but that combined with the whole "Good for the Goose..." thing seems far too adversarial an approach to DMing for me to ever be comfortable with it. But hey, if you're comfortable with it, good on you. Just gotta remind ourselves never to play in the others games. ;)
[...] Ra-Tiel, if I'm reading you correctly, you seem to think everything has to be taken in a literal rules-as-written way, and that a DM's interpretation of the spirit of said rules has no place in determining if something is broken or not?
Again: when discussing the balance of the rules then yes.
I think you can come up with enough examples on your own where ignoring mechanics and using fluff or house rules as a measure of balance just fails horribly.
We cannot assume that the PHb spells were published in such an unbalanced state because the designers thought "Oh, we don't have to balance that stuff. Any DM will house rule it anyway". Imagine you bought a new computer and it doesn't work. You go to the shop where you bought it, complaining about the malfunction, and get told "Oh, that's not a problem. You can easily fix it yourself. Here's a list with the registry hacks you have to make... ".
If I pay for a system, I want it to be runnable without having to tinker and tweak 9 out of 10 spells. I want every player, not matter what class he chose, to be able to have an equally fun and entertaining time. I want the system to actually support me when DMing and not be a chore (e.g., selecting spells known for a high level sorcerer NPC).
Sorry, but that combined with the whole "Good for the Goose..." thing seems far too adversarial an approach to DMing for me to ever be comfortable with it. But hey, if you're comfortable with it, good on you. Just gotta remind ourselves never to play in the others games. ;)
This is just some sort of gentlemen's agreement. You don't punch me in the face, I don't punch you in the face. You don't introduce horribly abusable house rules, I don't introduce horribly abusable house rules. However, when you've got no gentlemen as players...
4th Edition is different... ... ..
Ive read many posts where ppl say bad things about the new system but ive also heard many good things. I personaly cant say much yet, based on what I have read, I have few doubts about somethings they are doing differently but without MAJOR testing in actual adventures/campaings I wont say if these things are good or bad.
What I can say is that I would have liked to read more about classes and races. There was more info about them in Races & Classes Early look at 4th Edition book. The game feels a little more like it was designed to work with miniatures, but this is propably only me because my Roleplaying group never used Minis with the previous editions.
:D
Im gonna give 4th Edition a chance, hopefully Wizards keeps updating DDI and releasing content and more info and not just rules.
Few words about the Keep on the Shadowfell, I gotta say I was *little* dissapointed with this. I had just read the Pathfinders Rise of the Runelord 1st Adventure and when compared to that KotS felt like miniature battle after another with no feeling in its NPCs. Pathfinder Adventure feels like a Fantasy Book where your Characters are the Heroes while the KotS felt like a series of encounters. Of course with right GM telling the story and inventing lot on his own, players might not even feel this, but I just hoped for more. Fallcrest in Dungeon Masters Manual 4th Edition, well that town had some real nice feel to it, now that might be a town where I could start my adventure.
:D
Well just my opinion.
I am not a fan of many adventures "out of the can" anyway. Most times I just buy them so I can take things from them for my own personally crafted adventures. That means my players are able to do more of what they wish while not killing the whole adventure and I may be more prepared for their "shenanigans".
And what if it isn't?
I really guess what impression a group that never has played 3.5 before was given level 20 characters and made to play.
Or made to play Exalted for the first time with 500 XP characters.
Or made to play GURPS for the first time with 1000 points characters.
Or made to play Blue Planet for the first time with 250 CHIPs characters.
OR made to play Earthdawn for the first time with Circle 15 characters.
That's because it's at high levels where the worse flaws of a system appear. In this case the problem was a very slow combat that in 3rd edition shouldn't have taken more than 15 minutes.
From what Alediran's said, it sounds like he and his group were more interested in looking for reasons to find fault with the game or confirm pre-existing notions then to actually try and enjoy it. Hard to have fun when you go into something with an unrelentingly negative attitude.
That's why I didn't DMed, I only played my character and I was silent about everything the whole time (I'm a strong supporter of the Scientific Method, and saying what I thought was wrong before proving it would give me wrong results), because I was the only one who has followed all announcements since 4th edition was announced.
The moment a player "forcefully talks" to DM into allowing aimed attacks against monsters "so that it just happens", I would declare that from this moment on monsters can make aimed attacks against characters.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, after all.
Again, his argument is flawed because it is based on the "rule 0 fallacy".
I don't like repeating something I said but here I go again. "We did the 0HP joke about a kobold regenerating his arms because we think on knocking him out instead of killing him, just to see how illogical this system was."
But you took what I mentioned as a joke and stamping it as fact to invalidate my arguments. It was made just once during the testing.
I think its cheating to jump to 30 level and play. But then again never played high level. I like low level play, growth into midlevel and earning to play a high level character.
We weren't playing (that would take actual roleplaying), we were just betatesting the rulesets. Last night we did the same thing with mid-level characters and the results where pretty much the same. Once you are out of daily and encounter powers (which happens very fast) the enconters slow to a crawl. And we've looked at the numbers of both tests and we saw that with the attack bonuses and defenses at maximum (with the current material) there are more chances of missing than hitting. That's the reason why combats get too slow, it's because most of the time you are doing an insignificant amount of damage.
That's because it's at high levels where the worse flaws of a system appear. In this case the problem was a very slow combat that in 3rd edition shouldn't have taken more than 15 minutes.
Of course you possibly can't be talking about DnD 3rd Edition, because in that game a fighter with a +2 greatsword could never hope to damage an iron golem. That must be some other game you're talking about...
Also, by skipping the low and mid levels you completely ignore other potential fields of problems (which also supports your "scientific" method mentioend below
). How about the unnecessary lethality of the system at level 3 and below? A vanilla orc has Str 17. Give him a greataxe and that's 1d12 + 4 points of damage, average 10.5. If that orc rolls a critical hit, the PC is looking at 3d12+12 points of damage, average 31.5. That's automatic instant-death for even a Con 20 barbarian at level 1. You don't notice that at level 20.
How about the shift from non-casters towards casters at around level 10? Below that range the casters have to be careful about spending their spells, and their spells are of limited usefulness. However, at this breakpoint, spells like Teleport and Disintegrate enter the stage, making casters exponentially more powerful and versatile than casters. You don't notice that at level 20.
That's why I didn't DMed, I only played my character and I was silent about everything the whole time (I'm a strong supporter of the Scientific Method, and saying what I thought was wrong before proving it would give me wrong results), because I was the only one who has followed all announcements since 4th edition was announced.
"Supporter of the scientific method"? Sure... Because writing in your "scientific" test report that the tested product "sucks" and was made by a crappy and lame company full of fanatics was that scientific. That's your personal opinion and about 0% scientifically correct.
So please don't claim you were working according to scientific standards when you are clearly not. That's an insult to every scientist.Also, weren't you the one who insulted people who actually looked at DnD from a scientific (mathematical) point of view - and analyzed the system for weaknesses and breakpoints - as something like "munchkins" some pages ago? And that they couldn't understand the point of roleplaying?
I don't like repeating something I said but here I go again. "We did the 0HP joke about a kobold regenerating his arms because we think on knocking him out instead of killing him, just to see how illogical this system was."
You mean the same 0 HP joke I can make by bashing someone down to 1 HP with lethal damage, and then punching him in the face for 3 nonlethal damage?
How about your "superior" storytelling system? I punch someone in the face once, breaking his nose, inflicting one box lethal damage. No big deal. Then I punch him again 5 more times, and suddenly he's suffering from injuries as severe as if he'd taken a shotgun blast at point blank?
Want me to make jokes of that?
But you took what I mentioned as a joke and stamping it as fact to invalidate my arguments. It was made just once during the testing.
Because admitting that you don't take your "scientific" testing serious (by making jokes about the very thing you're supposed to view in a neutral light) invalidates your whole claim for a neutral (and scientific) review.
We weren't playing (that would take actual roleplaying), we were just betatesting the rulesets. Last night we did the same thing with mid-level characters and the results where pretty much the same. Once you are out of daily and encounter powers (which happens very fast) the enconters slow to a crawl. And we've looked at the numbers of both tests and we saw that with the attack bonuses and defenses at maximum (with the current material) there are more chances of missing than hitting. That's the reason why combats get too slow, it's because most of the time you are doing an insignificant amount of damage.
You did take into account the appropriate gear you're supposed to have at that level, and did use the items' powers?
Of course you possibly can't be talking about DnD 3rd Edition, because in that game a fighter with a +2 greatsword could never hope to damage an iron golem. That must be some other game you're talking about...
A Greatsword +2 is just a better sword. I don't find anything magic about +2. If find it more realistical than you need to use a better metal (ever heard of material hardness, a scale from 1 to 10 where materials with higher hardness scratch materials with lower hardness. Where Diamond is rated at 10?) to damage iron.
"Supporter of the scientific method"? Sure... Because writing in your "scientific" test report that the tested product "sucks" and was made by a crappy and lame company full of fanatics was that scientific. That's your personal opinion and about 0% scientifically correct.
Yes, that's a personal opinion, I've never said otherwise. The scientific method was applied by my group to test all possible combinations and see the results.
"You mean the same 0 HP joke I can make by bashing someone down to 1 HP with lethal damage, and then punching him in the face for 3 nonlethal damage?
Yes, that's why in my games half +1 HP must be non-lethal to be knocked out. Otherwise it's dying.
"How about your "superior" storytelling system? I punch someone in the face once, breaking his nose, inflicting one box lethal damage. No big deal. Then I punch him again 5 more times, and suddenly he's suffering from injuries as severe as if he'd taken a shotgun blast at point blank?
Want me to make jokes of that?
You can kill a person by punching him. It just takes longer to do. And Storyteller reflects that perfectly.
"Because admitting that you don't take your "scientific" testing serious (by making jokes about the very thing you're supposed to view in a neutral light) invalidates your whole claim for a neutral (and scientific) review.
No, we did that after testing the game and the time of acting goofy begun.
You did take into account the appropriate gear you're supposed to have at that level, and did use the items' powers?
Yes, we did. I've played Diablo 2 and game like that for years to know about level restriction on gear. And I've played D&D for years with items that need activation.
I've ridden three times... and crashed THREE times.
One of the two things in my life I found myself completely incapable of. :P
Anyhow, in one crash (when I wasn't driving) my friend was wearing a leather jacket, but I was in a T-shirt (it was mid-July!). After we slid along the road on our side for about 70', my arm looked like pizza. I was picking chunks of asphalt out of my arm YEARS later!
My friends upper body was perfectly fine, although the jacket was trashed - fortunely we were both wearing helmets (as is the law). Unfortunely for him, he was the one who had to go to the hospital - his foot had been twisted completely around.
I hate @#$%ing motorcylcles.
BTW, if I ever make it to one of those Jersey-meets, remind me to show you my arm of scar-tissue.
On Topic:
After looking them over, I don't think the 4e rules are nearly as bad as people are making them out to be. I still don't think they are for me, at least until my favorite classes are put back in - the Monk, Druid, and Bard - but I can see myself using them sometime in the future (once they are complete).
After looking them over, I don't think the 4e rules are nearly as bad as people are making them out to be. I still don't think they are for me, at least until my favorite classes are put back in - the Monk, Druid, and Bard - but I can see myself using them sometime in the future (once they are complete).
I agree with this. I think the current options are not large enough for me to tweak a character with and to fill the shoes of the concepts I can make with 3.5. Some houserules are already brewing in my mind to make the game as deep as I want it to be, but if I wait a few and see the results of the PHB2 and the planar expansion articles I might not have to.
A Greatsword +2 is just a better sword. I don't find anything magic about +2.
Sorry, but that just made my day. And you dare lecture me about roleplaying? In my games, +2 is already a sword of legend, with a background story and history. "Just a better sword..." my arse. I guess that happens when you play Forgotten "every bandit has +3 magic gear" Realms for too long.
If find it more realistical than you need to use a better metal (ever heard of material hardness, a scale from 1 to 10 where materials with higher hardness scratch materials with lower hardness. Where Diamond is rated at 10?) to damage iron.
Realism? Sorry, what's realistic about dragons and demons and freaking magical robots again?
And in case you didn't get it... I was referring to DnD 3rd Edition, where an Iron Golem had DR 50/+3, which was equal to "no fighters allowed if not equipped with +3 weapons". If you meant 3.5, then please say so. After all, 3.5 != 3. And you as an IT developer should know the importance of using and keeping correct version information, anyway.
Yes, that's a personal opinion, I've never said otherwise. The scientific method was applied by my group to test all possible combinations and see the results.
Then you did "scientific testing", but decided to throw the "science" out of the window when presenting your results?
Yes, that's why in my games half +1 HP must be non-lethal to be knocked out. Otherwise it's dying.
Ahh, house ruling again. In Storytelling games I can beat someone down to the last box with lethal and knock him out with 1 box of bashing just fine.
Again, if you want a more "realistic" (aka lethal) combat system, there are plenty of other games to choose from. Or you could use some variant rules (like, say, Vitality and Wound Points) instead of complaining over the "unrealistic" HP that much.
You can kill a person by punching him. It just takes longer to do. And Storyteller reflects that perfectly.
Yes, by inflicting increasingly lethal injuries on the target. But that is not what inflicting a single box of lethal damage represents.
No, we did that after testing the game and the time of acting goofy begun.
Ahh, now suddenly that was done "after" the testing, and not "during" it. I see.
Yes, we did. I've played Diablo 2 and game like that for years to know about level restriction on gear. And I've played D&D for years with items that need activation.
Good. Then why didn't you mention it? Perhaps you should mention the gear you used and to what effect you actually used it?
To summarize:
- You got the books on 05/28
- You've read at least the PHb and the DMG cover to cover
- All your players read the PHb cover to cover
- In that short time you and your players got proficient enough with the system to build strong and suitably equipped level 30 characters ...
- ... learned to play them to their full potential (skill-, power-, and equipment-wise)...
- ... and made a few test combats to reach the conclusion that 4E sucks
Somehow I doubt that...
I will admit I like the race descriptions and info (and may reverse engineer some for 3.5 or SW:SAGA) and the skill system is far easier than in 3.5, so, I do have some positive things to say also, but the classes are the heart of D&D and they just don;t feel right anymore. And then you throw into the mix the abilities of the PLAYERS to determine what the GM's NPC's will do in combat. I'm osrry, this is not WoW or DDO. No PC shoudl have the ability to force one of the GM's creatures to attack them. My enemies are intelligent, except for mindless oozes and undead
- and will fight intelligently.It reminds me of when I saw The Matrix. The first time, in the theatre, I was amazed and thought it was an awesome movie. Then I saw it on video, and looked beyond the special effects, and relaized, the characters and story was bleh. It's the same with 4e. On the surface, looks awesome, then you get into the classes and realise their boring
I prefer a system with two different forms of damage - I was just discussing this over at the Realms Vault. It doesn't make sense that they are the same, unless you do something like they do with structural damge - TEN HP = one structurtal point. That would mean that 10 NL Dmg = 1 HP (lethal) = 1/10 Structural.
But then, a person could punch a wall 100 times to do 1 structural point... and break his hand in the process.
I still prefer to think of HP as Stamina (ending at '0'), and have a different set of points representing a person's actual physical damage - one that is far lower and more static then HP is.
But that adds a level of complexity the new "lean & mean" rules are trying to avoid. For a fast and simple game, the 4e rules are fine. I wouldn't use them for a campaign I wanted to be long-running and 'epic' in scope, but I would use them to run a quick adventure just for fun, which is pretty much how it worked back in ODD.
So, if the designers set out to recapture the original 'feel' of the game, then they succeeded. I would say it is an excellent set of rules for beginners. The rules are written expressly with encounters in mind, and at that they excel.
When people want more out of their games, they can graduate onto more complex systems.
From what Alediran's said, it sounds like he and his group were more interested in looking for reasons to find fault with the game or confirm pre-existing notions then to actually try and enjoy it. Hard to have fun when you go into something with an unrelentingly negative attitude.
Yes, it is best to see this new system as just another option for an RPG game. For me, most of the fun comes from using my imagination anyway. The rules are just there to faciliate play (and make the game an actual game, where failure is possible).
Go with kevlar under leather full body suits... the can definitely save lives, even with spills on an Interstate at 65mph. A friend of mine has done that twice now and walked away with that thing on. Expensive, but well worth it if you live with all of your bodyparts intact.
-A decent jacket is a good thing, sure, but again, it doesn't make the speed seem any less...fast.
About motorcycles -
I've ridden three times... and crashed THREE times.
-Well, you've just got bad luck, then. Never dumped one before, and since I have little interest in buying another motorcycle, I doubt I ever will.
One of the two things in my life I found myself completely incapable of. :P
-Dare I ask what the other is?
Reading through the class descriptions, I saw little difference between a cleric, a rogue, a fighter, and a wizard, outside of power source. Yes, they have their own spells/explotis/maneuvers, but, they're all the same thing, with different names. There is no difference between classes.
-As I said, 'Gauntlet'. Is that all there is in the book, though? Cleric, Rogue, Fighter and Wizard!?
Is that all there is in the book, though? Cleric, Rogue, Fighter and Wizard!?
Nope. Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard. And suffice to say, I disagree with Keryth's assessment. The classes do not play the same at all. You only need to look at the pregens floating around the internet to realize that's not the case.
Nope. Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard.
-Alright, I was going to say...
- Dragonborn
- Dwarf
- Eladrin
- Elf
- Half-Elf
- Halfling
- Human
- Tiefling
In addition, the following races have PC stats in the Monster Manual:
- Bugbear
- Doppelganger
- Drow
- Githyanki
- Githzerai
- Gnoll
- Gnome
- Goblin
- Hobgoblin
- Kobold
- Minotaur
- Orc
- Shadar-Kai
- Shifter, Longtooth
- Shifter, Razorclaw
- Warforged
Thank God! :P
Well, at least I can still watch cute kittens on youtube.:P
Although the comments there are a bit... unexpected...
-Don't worry, though. I can guarantee that some sort of Cat-Folk will appear eventually.
-Poor Gnomes...and Cat-Folk.
Clearly you have not seen the 4E Gnome. ;) To quote someone who saw the Monster Manual weeks ago...
Gnomes. GNOMES. Gnomes are insane. Gnomes can *turn invis* once per encounter after they've taken dmg. They can also choose to roll "hide" instead of intialtive at the start of an encounter. Hello Gnome Rogue. And by "hello" I mean, "Please, for the love of god, stop stabbing me in the back." My friends quote was "Man, I hate gnomes! They're stupid! But now I can't stop picturing a pack of gnomes sitting in the trees doing the clicking noise that the Predators make in the alien movies. Stupid stealth gnomes. I'm going to have to play one."
As for Catfolk, I saw enough of them when I went to Supercon a week-and-a-half ago. NO MORE!!!
For a fast and simple game, the 4e rules are fine. I wouldn't use them for a campaign I wanted to be long-running and 'epic' in scope, but I would use them to run a quick adventure just for fun, which is pretty much how it worked back in ODD.
So, if the designers set out to recapture the original 'feel' of the game, then they succeeded. I would say it is an excellent set of rules for beginners. The rules are written expressly with encounters in mind, and at that they excel.
When people want more out of their games, they can graduate onto more complex systems.
I think your take is correct. Personally, in many ways, I like the 3.5 system better. I also like the idea of an epic game. However, most of the people I play with just was a fun, light game with "cool" (yeah I know) encounters. My friend preferred running OD&D, so this is in many ways going to work wonderfully with the games that we play. I also disagree with the argument that all the classes play alike. Having played the game (in multiple varied combats) the classes are varied in strategy and effect.
Regarding Alediran's tests, I'm also somewhat confused what combat 6? (or was it 5?) characters blew their dailies, ecounters and action points on and then had more than enough enemy left that they resorted to at-will after at-will for a long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to question your honesty or anything, I'm just wondering what it is you fought, and what characters and builds you used against it...
And after that different encounters using the MM enemies.
I think the biggest thing for me is the new Tieflings. I loved the 3e planetouched and the new Tieflings just make me sad. I really really liked the human except for a small offness flavor. I really really dont like the new Tiefling look. More than anything else thats the one thing thats telling me 'dont bother' (I know, I know, not buying the book because of the flavor of one core race is stupid. But how many DMs who run a 4e game are going to let me run a Tiefling in the 3e flavor once this is out?)
I don't know. I always found the "you are special because a demon r***** your great-great-grandmother" a bit silly. Also, when does a half-fiend create tiefling offspring anyway? After 2 generations? 3? 4+7i?
There's neither crunch nor fluff regarding that topic. Also, the question is why are tieflings always medium sized, when there are small half-fiends (e.g. from halflings or gnomes)? Do they suddenly grow after 2 generations?
The rules basically throw the tieflings and half-fiends at the DM and shout "handwave it". There are so many holes and gaps in the whole issue with half-fiends and tieflings, I find the 4E fluff much more probable and believable.
I mean, a race of (iirc) humans who made pacts with demons and devils centuries ago and were cursed for their agreements? Now talking about "original sin" just got interesting again.
I don't know. I always found the "you are special because a demon r***** your great-great-grandmother" a bit silly. Also, when does a half-fiend create tiefling offspring anyway? After 2 generations? 3? 4+7i?
There's neither crunch nor fluff regarding that topic. Also, the question is why are tieflings always medium sized, when there are small half-fiends (e.g. from halflings or gnomes)? Do they suddenly grow after 2 generations?
The rules basically throw the tieflings and half-fiends at the DM and shout "handwave it". There are so many holes and gaps in the whole issue with half-fiends and tieflings, I find the 4E fluff much more probable and believable.
I mean, a race of (iirc) humans who made pacts with demons and devils centuries ago and were cursed for their agreements? Now talking about "original sin" just got interesting again.
I liked that flavor with all the Planetouched in 3e. Not just Tieflings, but also Aasimar, and Genasi. As well as the Cansin (probably my favorite of them all) and Axani in Dragon Magazine. And the name was fitting too, Planetouched, just a touch of the planes. But youre right on the races and in fact when I first saw them my first thought was, "Why are these races and not templates?"
I think the new Tieflings look stupid. I see pictures and I laugh. As for the cursed for trafficing with fiends thing, well, we already have a half a dozen places/peoples with that. Now we just have a stupider looking one.
1) System is more combat oriented, but that may be because combat requires more rules systems to resolve. IMHO 3.5 was getting this way, too.
2) Healing comes much faster - particulary with the use of healing surges (not sure we like them) and the fact that characters recover ALL their lost hit point after a 6 hour rest. Reminds me of a video game e.g. Neverwinter Nights.
3) Combat is more brutal, probably to compensate for the increased hit points at first level.
4) The main tactical decision seems to be whether to use a particular per day or per encounter power or not.
All in all, there are some things I like about it, and some things I don't like. I suppose it will be fine once I get used to it, although I think longtime players will find it harder to adapt than relative newcomers.
-Dan
We are playing Keep this Monday. I am very excited.
The group makeup so far:
Dwarf, wiz (orb)
Dwarf, Pally (Cha)
Human or Gnome ranger
Half-elf, Tiefling or Halfling rouge (Cha)
Unknown Warlord
Everyone was psyched about it last night and it took us an hour to get into our Vampire game since we were geeking out on 4E so much. Gnomes sound pretty fun to play as do rouges.
Also people have decided they want me to run the second chapter of my Eberron game with 4E rules. Some guys like the druid is going to keep his pc but he is switching to the warlord class. The "unexplained wave of magic effect" that swept over EB caused magic to change but nobody can figure out why. He was tired of playing that overpowered class anyhow I think :D .
Some people will transition quite well like the ranger/scout will just be a ranger and the rogue/duskblade will just do rouge (till he sees the swordmage I gather) the imp warlock will convert to a tiefling warlock (his personality will get implanted into a new tiefling body) the minotaur warblade will just be a fighter with the Kensai Paragon Class. Goblins, orcs and Kobolds special abilites are pretty nice. The kobold player who will be the rouge will drive me nuts since his movement is an 8 (40feet). Oi vey!
I think the new Tieflings look stupid. I see pictures and I laugh. As for the cursed for trafficing with fiends thing, well, we already have a half a dozen places/peoples with that. Now we just have a stupider looking one.
Remember that the background in the PHB is just for the core setting. They can have any other kind of background in other campaign settings. Rich has said, for instance, that the background for Tieflings will remain the same in the Realms. There may be examples of the core background Tieflings appearing in the Realms (mostly around Narfell), but their prior background will still be the same (descended from humans who had relations with devils).
As for appearance, well, that's always the easiest thing to houserule, as it doesn't actually affect game mechanics. In Ravenloft, for instance, there's an NPC running around who's essentially a humanoid tiger. He looks just like a hybrid weretiger. You wouldn't know to look at him, though, that mechanically speaking, he was actually a Half-Orc.
[...] As for the cursed for trafficing with fiends thing, well, we already have a half a dozen places/peoples with that. Now we just have a stupider looking one.
In 4E? What would that be?
Again: when discussing the balance of the rules then yes.
I think you can come up with enough examples on your own where ignoring mechanics and using fluff or house rules as a measure of balance just fails horribly.
We cannot assume that the PHb spells were published in such an unbalanced state because the designers thought "Oh, we don't have to balance that stuff. Any DM will house rule it anyway". Imagine you bought a new computer and it doesn't work. You go to the shop where you bought it, complaining about the malfunction, and get told "Oh, that's not a problem. You can easily fix it yourself. Here's a list with the registry hacks you have to make... ".
If I pay for a system, I want it to be runnable without having to tinker and tweak 9 out of 10 spells. I want every player, not matter what class he chose, to be able to have an equally fun and entertaining time. I want the system to actually support me when DMing and not be a chore (e.g., selecting spells known for a high level sorcerer NPC).
I can see your point here, but I tend to think of stuff like this as always needing 'fixing' to suit personal tastes. Different points of view I guess... nothing in gaming is ever going to work 'out of the box' for my satisfaction. I'll play it that way at first to get a feel, but then it gets tinkered with to make it more suitable to my needs.
The way I tend to look at it, the designers (and probably the pool of playtesters) know what they intended, test things out, and view things through that lens of knowing what they meant by it, so that they just aren't going to catch all the stuff that can be messed with in ways that were never intended to be, since they aren't looking to break the system. Hence, where the DM really comes in to the equation.
This is just some sort of gentlemen's agreement. You don't punch me in the face, I don't punch you in the face. You don't introduce horribly abusable house rules, I don't introduce horribly abusable house rules. However, when you've got no gentlemen as players...
You get new players tends to be my answer, but I get what you're saying.
3) Combat is more brutal, probably to compensate for the increased hit points at first level.
-Isn't that all counter-productive, then? What's the use giving everyone more hit points if enemies will be doing enough to compensate? That's the thing I have always hated about video game/computer RPGs. Sure, doing 9999 damage is a nice feeling and all but...
In 4E? What would that be?
-There are various "demon/devil cursed" groups across Faerûn. Nar Sorcerers, Raumathari summoners...
As for appearance, well, that's always the easiest thing to houserule, as it doesn't actually affect game mechanics. In Ravenloft, for instance, there's an NPC running around who's essentially a humanoid tiger. He looks just like a hybrid weretiger. You wouldn't know to look at him, though, that mechanically speaking, he was actually a Half-Orc.
I understand that and as I DM Ill always allow the aesthetics the player wants. But when Im not the DM I dont have that control, and thats when all that really matters for me.
I understand that and as I DM Ill always allow the aesthetics the player wants. But when Im not the DM I dont have that control, and thats when all that really matters for me.
Good point. I'm sure, though, that most DM's would probably be fine with your Tiefling having smaller horns, or hooves, or whatever.
Here you go! ;)
Thank you! They are precious.
Although the comments there are a bit... unexpected...
You can say that again...
I also disagree with the argument that all the classes play alike. Having played the game (in multiple varied combats) the classes are varied in strategy and effect.
I suppose I am once again judging something prematurly then - I have NOT played the rules, only read through them (rather quickly and skipping around), and it appears that characters all progress along very similar lines.
I will play a game this weekend and give a fair assessment. This actually might be just the thing I'm looking for until I decide what world my next campaign will be in (Homebrew, FR, or Golarion). I can just plunk down the PCs where I want and start dungeon-delving.
Lord knows I played this way often enough until I started running Greyhawk - until then, all my adventures existed in Limbo... which is fine and can be very fun.
Come to think of it... even when I ran Greyhawk they pretty much were all like that. :D
I think the new Tieflings look stupid. I see pictures and I laugh. As for the cursed for trafficing with fiends thing, well, we already have a half a dozen places/peoples with that. Now we just have a stupider looking one.
I have to admit it--I actually like the new tieflings.
Not that I didn't like the old ones, though. I simply like both.
-Isn't that all counter-productive, then? What's the use giving everyone more hit points if enemies will be doing enough to compensate?
That's a good question.
I have read, though (in many places) that it's harder for new characters to die than it was in the older systems, so I'm getting the impression that the new system must be doing something right, in that respect.
That's a good question.
I have read, though (in many places) that it's harder for new characters to die than it was in the older systems, so I'm getting the impression that the new system must be doing something right, in that respect.
-Well, that's not necessarily a good thing, that it's harder to die, but...
-Well, that's not necessarily a good thing, that it's harder to die, but...
I think it may be yes
I have read, though (in many places) that it's harder for new characters to die than it was in the older systems,
My (limited) play experience with 4E backs this up.
For example, in the very first encounter we played the Human Wizard player ran himself right up to the two Kobold Dragonshields and got himself surrounded. This was at the start of play and the player didn't realize I as DM hadn't put all the minis on the map yet (as per the encounter instructions).
Despite his tactical blunder and good hits from my attacks I still was unable to drop the wizard in the 2 rounds he was flanked. I even used the Dragonshield Tactics ability of the Kobolds to move them on the player's turn to keep the Human Wizard flanked.
In a 3E game this would have easily got the Human Wizard killed. In 4E it should have at least caused him to drop and go unconscious.
The net result is that I feel the need to thoroughly understand all the monster’s abilities before an encounter starts. I’ll use the Kobold Mob Tactics ability next time and focus on one or two PCs at most instead of spreading my forces out and watching the PCs mow right through them.
That, and the Kobold Victory Chart for the win.
I have really enjoyed the combat. I was playing a 1st level warlock and my friends were a rogue, a fighter and a warlord. We fought kobolds and goblins and all the monsters felt kind of different from each other.
Combat is really more dynamic, and people move around more.
I am very frustrated with the wizard though. Maybe i will just need sometime to adapt to it.
I am very frustrated with the wizard though. Maybe i will just need sometime to adapt to it.
since we have player wizards basically the same way for 25 years of so (at least I have anyway), yes, it may take some getting used to
I think it may be yes
-That depends on who you are, the situation, and so on and so on.
[...]-There are various "demon/devil cursed" groups across Faerûn. Nar Sorcerers, Raumathari summoners...
Sure. In 3.5. But speaking of 4E, there currently are:
- Tieflings
because we don't know yet for sure how the other groups mentioned are going to included in FR.
Especially the Fey'ri are - assuming they are still there at all - likely going to have at least a heavy fluff shift, considering how much the demons changed in fluff.
-Well, that's not necessarily a good thing, that it's harder to die, but...
Ahhh, I take it you also liked the 31 damage crits from CR 1/2 orcs in 3.0? A single attack that meant automatic instant death for a level 1 Con 20 barbarian?
And in 3.5 it got alleviated a bit by reducing the average crit damage to 18 (at least now said barbarian is only going down to -1). However, the threat ranged was tripled in the process.
I repeat: if the DM has to pull punches for CR 1/2 mobs to not TPK the party, then something's wrong.
-Well, that's not necessarily a good thing, that it's harder to die, but...
I think it's a good thing, but that's just me.
Dying in one shot as a low-level character is no fun if it disrupts the story you're trying to play through.Sure. In 3.5. But speaking of 4E, there currently are:
- Tieflings
because we don't know yet for sure how the other groups mentioned are going to included in FR.
-It is quite hard to erase that which has already been. That said, the Forgotten Realms are a bit more than just a series of 1e people and locales, 2e people and locales, 3e people and locales, 4e people and locales, and so on.
Ahhh, I take it you also liked the 31 damage crits from CR 1/2 orcs in 3.0? A single attack that meant automatic instant death for a level 1 Con 20 barbarian?
-Depends on the situation.
I think it's a good thing, but that's just me.
Yep. For instance, often times I like to write long, indepth backstories for my characters (I go a little bit nuts with the names on occasion, though. One character had an exwife named Condwiramurs, for instance. Gave the DM heartburn every time he tried to pronounce it. :D A cookie to anyone who knows where the name came from). You put all that attention, and all that detail into writing a background for the character, tying him into specific events within a region. Sprinkling half-a-dozen plot hooks for the DM to potentially use at a later point...
...and then you get critted by an Orc your first time out and die.
We're not even talking about a character doing something stupid and dying as a result. We're talking about one die roll ending your career even when you're playing things flawlessly. That's just... wow!That's because Orcs should be considered at least CR 2.
Another error which 4E is correcting. :D
Another error which 4E is correcting. :D
There is no need for a new edition, simply a little of common sense. That's not fixing anything. The value lies on the big picture, where it completely fails to even be considered Dungeons & Dragons properly, and the complete lack of diversity. Fixing the CR of orcs is not something even worth mentioning.
I predict your next character will loose his head from a retaliatory strike of the first orc brute he'll encounter.
Greenknight, Are you serious? Orcs have not been nerfed.
I didn't say they'd been nerfed. They are even scarier than that pathethic one crit wonders of CR 1 orcs. Do not let an orc near you!
I predict your next character will loose his head from a retaliatory strike of the first orc brute he'll encounter.
I'm fully aware that they're tougher then ever. The point was, though, that Alediran said that they weren't appropriately costed (Being CR 1/2 instead of CR 2). Now they appear to be appropriately costed, although they're tougher then ever. Which I like. Orcs shouldn't be pushovers. :D
Really looking forward to try out a good tactic fighting a group of 12 orc minions, an eye of gruumsh and a bloodrager elite. Defenders will go down against them as melee is not the place you want to be against orcs.
since we have player wizards basically the same way for 25 years of so (at least I have anyway), yes, it may take some getting used to
Yeah.
Well, in my case it is only 15 years...
Anyway... last night i was testing an eladrin wizard level 20. I kind of liked it. It does not feel the same, but it felt good nonetheless.
Ahhh, I take it you also liked the 31 damage crits from CR 1/2 orcs in 3.0? A single attack that meant automatic instant death for a level 1 Con 20 barbarian?
And in 3.5 it got alleviated a bit by reducing the average crit damage to 18 (at least now said barbarian is only going down to -1). However, the threat ranged was tripled in the process.
I repeat: if the DM has to pull punches for CR 1/2 mobs to not TPK the party, then something's wrong.
The first level is always the toughest to Dm. A crit from almost anything can put some one into the negatives. It happens. Thats why it's recomended that you only pit a 1st lvl party of 4 against 2 of them. At 5hp a piece, the party should come through fine.
Anyhow, I always gave out more HP at first level because I didn't want lowbies dying off because of a single 'lucky' dice roll.
And that pretty much fixed the problem without having to move around CRs or create another edition.
The way I have always broken it down is thus (and some of it is adapted from earler rules) -
A child (up until age 13) is considered a 0 level character. '0' characters get one level of HP (D6). An adolescent (13-15) is considered level 1, and gets a second HD. At 16-20 (when most adventurers start IMG) you are level 2 and get your first 'class related' HD - for NPC commoners, that would be a third D6, and then thats pretty much it for them. So every PC would already have at least 2d6 HP beofre even getting their class HP (and I always started groups at at least lev 2 because of all this, unless someone wanted to run a character younger then 16). NPCs continue to level (in the 'commoner' class) at the rate of 1 level per 5 years after age 20 up until age 50 - they get NO feats, but they do get an editional D6 HP and any skills related to their occupation. I created this system back in 1e/2e, and even though 3e created NPC classes, I still used mine.
I have multiple reasons for that system, ranging from my hatred of 1e wizards getting a single spell to use for an entire adventure (ridiculous!), to hardened farmers who have been working their whole lives in areas where monsters are fairly common only having a couple of HP - I think a forty year old farmer could pitchfork most 18 year old, snot-nosed, lev 1 adventurers to death quite easily, and this helps represent theat to some degree. It also allows for a 50 year old Blacksmith to be much better at his craft then a 20 year old level 4 fighter - another thing I always fond preposterous.
Now, back on topic: It looks like 4e tries to address the problem of "early character death" as well, and perhaps does an adequate job of it.
But my system takes care of multiple problems, and is therefore more efficient in my eyes. I also didn't need to re-write the rulebook. ;)
And that pretty much fixed the problem without having to move around CRs or create another edition.
Would that that was the one and only problem with 3.5. :P
I still found those epic commoners funny, mechanical anomalies that could be found in nearly all large settlements.
Would that that was the one and only problem with 3.5. :P
No, but all it's problems are of that kind, problems that just need a fix, and the system is very solid. I've houseruled lots of things depending on the type of campaign I DMed and they never felt appart.
Would that that was the one and only problem with 3.5. :P
True enough.
Thats why I have tweaked the living hell out of the rules over the past 8 years. I doubt anyone who wasn't taught the game by me could play IMG without a conversion manual. :P
My point is that the game is still pretty much 3e, and I was able to 'fix it' so that it works the way I want it to, just as Monte Cook did with his own Book of Experimental Might, and Paizo is doing with the PRPG.
3e is far from perfect, but it makes an excellent foundation to build upon. I find it hard to justify a completely different system of rules when 3e was pretty damn good.
I kind of liked it. It does not feel the same, but it felt good nonetheless.
There's a dirty joke in there somewhere
As a guy who owned his own Home Improvement company, I can see now why we differ. ;)
I dislike when someone bulldozes a perfectly good house just to build something different - a true artist sees the inner beuty in his medium and works with it.
But I have to agree that in many cases, it is indeed easier to just tear something down and start over.
Yes, 3.5 had its issues. Every game does. I can tell you exploits for every system from 1st Ed AD&D to Shadowrun to Mutants and Masterminds. I repeat, EVERY SYSTEM HAS ITS FLAWS AND EXPLOITS. And 4e will be no less guilty of this than 3.5
Now, as to 4e itself. I've looked it over. Read through both the PHB and DMG, and decided, it is not for me. If someone in my gaming group decides to run it, I'll play, but I will not conisder it D&D any more than I consider Tunnels and Trolls to be D&D. Far too many things I liked about D&D have been decimated, dropped, or changed on the 4e Altar. And too many things I just plain do not like (Evil paladins, evil angels, wizards needing wands and such for spell, and the non-existance of any REAL and SIGNIFICANT differences between classes)
As to the life expectancy of low level characters...1st and 2nd elvel are SUPPOSED to be difficult. They're a characters trial by fire. This belief is why, as a player, I've never really developed my character background till the character hits level 3, and as a DM, why I tend to refrain from really interweaving characters into my story, until 3rd level (or I begin at level 3 to start with)
-That depends on who you are, the situation, and so on and so on.
nope. Its good no matter what
There's a dirty joke in there somewhere
-Seems to be happening a lot lately.
nope. Its good no matter what
-Not if you're the Orc. ;)
[...] how horrible 3.5 was from WOTC [...]
Link?
Also, don't you think that we (read: people who want to give 4E a chance at being played instead of condemned at first sight) are "so SICK of hearing the continuous litany of how" much 4E sucks?
If you don't like it, why do you still keep on posting on 4e it in such a negative and "whiney" fashion? There are already several threads commenting on the various aspects of 4e in a much more sensible manner (actually stating facts and not only ranting).
Afaik there's no WotC hit squad that shows up at your home, burns all non-WotC books, and forces you at gun point to roll a d20, so you can pretty freely switch over to a different, for you more preferrable system without problem. :P
[...] They're a characters trial by fire. This belief is why, as a player, I've never really developed my character background till the character hits level 3, and as a DM, why I tend to refrain from really interweaving characters into my story, until 3rd level (or I begin at level 3 to start with)
So you just skipped over the "important" "trial by fire" part completely or pretended the player characters were not important enough to be actually included in your campaign until 3rd level?
Wouldn't it have been better, you know, for the system to have workable characters right from level 1?
Now, I know of no other (more or less successful) roleplaying game system that has the main protagonists (read: the player characters) being one-shots at beginning, and then slowly transforms them into invincible demigods at the end. I can tell that in The Black Eye (3e, 5e), Blue Planet (v2), Shadowrun (2e, 4e), and (n)WoD the lethality rate did not significantly increase or decrease as the game progressed.
In both Shadowrun and Blue Planet guns were the general equalizer. It wouldn't matter if you had played your street samurai or GEO marshal for years, and pimped him up with the latest cyberware and neural enhancements. If you looked at the wrong end of a vehicle class weapon it was usually "R.I.P." time. The only exception in SR 2e (and from what I've heard 3e, too) were - again :P - casters. If you allowed some of the more freaky Initiation stuff a character could end up pretty tough against any projectile weapons with projectile barrier (or whatever that spell was called). In 4e many of the powerful spells are "Duration: Concentration" and Initiation has not only been made more expensive, but also powered down compared to earlier editions.
In stark contrast to what Alediran said earlier, in WoD mages were not walking ubergods. Especially in the 3rd edition of Mage, where White Wolf finally stepped away from that "mages have magically built bases on Pluto and were fighting the Technocracy's magically powered killer robots with magically powered star fighters" crap 2nd edition Mage was (just read the 2ed Mage corebook's introduction story
). In Mage 3e, you could not only not enter the Umbra without being magically castrated ("Avatar storm"), but also had to basically abstain from using any sort of flashy and/or obvious magic to avoid being *****-slapped by Paradox left and right.And 3rd edition Mage still had all those things. Time of Judgement returned all that and Ascension, the last book returned completely to earlier roots, going even so far that magic wasn't dangerous and didn't made paradoxes anymore since all humans where awakening en mase.
Link?
-The two 4e preview books for one. I know I for one don't really appreciate being called a "power-gamer" (which, regardless, I feel is an insult) because I happen to like playing a Cleric- none of the reason why include mechanical builds of any kind.
Afaik there's no WotC hit squad that shows up at your home, burns all non-WotC books, and forces you at gun point to roll a d20, so you can pretty freely switch over to a different, for you more preferrable system without problem. :P
-Rich Baker has specifically said that WotC does, in fact, have such hit squads prepared to confiscate all 3e material.
-The two 4e preview books for one.
Sorry, I don't pay for beta material.
I know I for one don't really appreciate being called a "power-gamer" (which, regardless, I feel is an insult) because I happen to like playing a Cleric- none of the reason why include mechanical builds of any kind.
Now, I'll let you have 3 guesses how other people feel on being called "fanatics" and "just right to play a dumbed down version of WoW". Oh, and being called a "munchking". Although I guess I should appreciate the royal title... ;)
-Rich Baker has specifically said that WotC does, in fact, have such hit squads prepared to confiscate all 3e material.
Link? :P
Sorry, I don't pay for beta material.
-Nor do I. That doesn't negat the existence of said material, however.
Now, I'll let you have 3 guesses how other people feel on being called "fanatics" and "just right to play a dumbed down version of WoW". Oh, and being called a "munchking". Although I guess I should appreciate the royal title... ;)
-Not my problem. I don't do it, and I am not called said names.
Link? :P
-Feel free to peruse the Ask-Rich-Baker thread.
The only exceptions were the issues "Clerics and Druids are broken" (which came up fairly early) and "Fighters/Non-Casters are broken" (that one emerged when the Tome of Battle was issued).
Link?
I'm not gonna to go and spend time at work I could be wasting on posting, on looking for links for you :D However, as LK said, the 4e Preview books are a good beginning, as are oh, the 4e Preview videos (from Gen Con up through DDXP including the first 4e video) - look for em on You Tube, and then there is all the '4e ROCKS' messages on these boards, most of which tend to be full of phrases that annoy me like noob, and pwn.
Also, don't you think that we (read: people who want to give 4E a chance at being played instead of condemned at first sight) are "so SICK of hearing the continuous litany of how" much 4E sucks?
If you don't like it, why do you still keep on posting on 4e it in such a negative and "whiney" fashion? There are already several threads commenting on the various aspects of 4e in a much more sensible manner (actually stating facts and not only ranting).
Well, I've not been posting whiney fashion posts about 4e. I have complained about how most posts supporting 4e are full of '3.5 sucks and 4e rocks' statements, with no support at all. And, I have posted MY problems with 4e - See the message ou repsonded to. As for why I keep posting, well, I'm bored at work and have nothing better to do :D
So you just skipped over the "important" "trial by fire" part completely or pretended the player characters were not important enough to be actually included in your campaign until 3rd level?
Wouldn't it have been better, you know, for the system to have workable characters right from level 1?
I never said I considered the PC's unimportant enough to be involved in my campign till 3rd level, i said I refrained from interweaving them into the story. BIG differance. This means that I begin to introduce the BBEG, through rumors, pieces of info, etc. Start weaving my plot for the group to see. BUT, what I do not do, is start strongly utilizing character backgrounds as part of the campaign. Considering my BBEGs tend to be near the lvl 20 mark, if not higher, yes, the party of level 1-3 PCs is barely a blip on the BBEG's 'radar'. And if I start the campaign, skipping level 3, its usually because I want to start the campaign at a higher level for story reasosn, and this is usually more like level 5 or 6. Only skip them for a good reason, and that reason depends on the story Im trying to weave. And as for level 1, they are perfectly workable, just understand that, like a rookie cop working the streets of the South Bronx, it is the most dangerous time in a character's career.
Now, I know of no other (more or less successful) roleplaying game system that has the main protagonists (read: the player characters) being one-shots at beginning, and then slowly transforms them into invincible demigods at the end. I can tell that in The Black Eye (3e, 5e), Blue Planet (v2), Shadowrun (2e, 4e), and (n)WoD the lethality rate did not significantly increase or decrease as the game progressed.
In both Shadowrun and Blue Planet guns were the general equalizer. It wouldn't matter if you had played your street samurai or GEO marshal for years, and pimped him up with the latest cyberware and neural enhancements. If you looked at the wrong end of a vehicle class weapon it was usually "R.I.P." time. The only exception in SR 2e (and from what I've heard 3e, too) were - again :P - casters. If you allowed some of the more freaky Initiation stuff a character could end up pretty tough against any projectile weapons with projectile barrier (or whatever that spell was called). In 4e many of the powerful spells are "Duration: Concentration" and Initiation has not only been made more expensive, but also powered down compared to earlier editions.
Never had a group of ganger shadowrunner try and hit a place with guards, and the guards have SMGs - Those starting characters are just as vulnerable as 1st level Cs vs orcs. Beginning Shadowrun characters have smaller die pools, less karma, and smaller resources for gear and spell components, than more advanced groups. It's why a starting group deals with the 4th ro 5th cutout of a megacorp while the more advanced and established group is making runs into the Renraku Arcology (shutdown or otherwise) And as for your street sam vs vehicle weapons, it depends on what gear and how big the Street Sam's die pools are, as to whether that tank round kills him or not.
And its not only D&D or Shadowrun either. Characters bbegin as low man on the totem poll, and as a game progresses, so do they - gaining resources, equipment, experience, skills, etc. This is true of all game systems, whether it be Deadlands or 4e. Starting characters will always be inferior to characters near the end of a campaign.
And as for casters, I still disagree. My current 3.5 campaign, in the last battle, the fighter did over 200+ pts of damage to the monster we were fighting. While the mage's Delayed Blast Fireball (thrown the same round), damaged a bunch of mosters, who all made their ref saves (and many had evasion so they took no damage) The next round, the fighter felled another enemy, while the mage's Power Word Kill did not penetrate the enemies Spell Resistance. And this is a group that is high level (16-18 now and concists of a Fighter, Paladin, Cleric/Spellfire Channeler/True Namer, Mage/Moge (Arcana Unleashed), and a Rogue/Sorceror). I still find the 'casters are ubergods and everyone else sucks at high level' argument to be as big a fallacy as the Stormwind Fallacy.
And I've never played WOD, so I won;t comment on that part, especially since my maor exposure to WOD has been LARPERS, and I consider them...odd.
It being midnight, I can now talk about the book that I have.
Of course due to the recently posted FAQ ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080605a ), neither I nor any other playtesters can talk about our experiences playtesting, or make any reference or comparisons to the playtest materials.
So . . .
4E PHB
1. How to Play
This is a rather generic introduction to the basics of the game. You would expect it would be impossible to mess this up, but then we get to the History of D&D sidebar already mentioned, where apparently Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were the first campaign settings. Add to that the ad for D&D Insider at the end of the chapter, and you begin to really worry. Things do not get better.
2. Making Characters
Once again a relatively simple introductory chapter. There is another ad, this time for the RPGA. The first of the big changes shows up, with alignment being gelded, apparently because the differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic and between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil were too subtle for some people. That such a change, as well as the elimination of Neutral and the introduction of Unaligned trashes a significant amount of past flavor seems to have gone unnoticed. Kord as Unaligned seems more than a little weak. That it trashes the cosmology is irrelevant, as that is trashed utterly anyway.
3. Character Races
Yes, gnomes and half-orcs are out, dragonborn, eladrin, and tieflings are in. I suppose I could tolerate that, but what was hinted at in character creation now becomes more significant. Penalties have been thoroughly given the boot in 4E. Nobody must ever have any penalty for anything ever lest it be judged "unfun" or somesuch. (I suspect it may be related to being declared unmutual at the Village.) So racial penalties are all gone, and only stat bonuses remain.
Well, except for one area - size. Small races take a major step backwards to 1st ed with the massive boning they get for using weapons. Oh sure, they no longer have their weapons doing less damage, but they are also banned from all two-handed weapons and can only use one-handed weapons with two-hands. A hosing by any other name would be as wack.
I also to have to wonder about the balance of some of these racial powers. Dragonborn get a decently strong area effect attack encounter power, and eladrin get a hefty teleport. Half-elves and humans get an extra two bit at-will power that will fade over time. Elves got an attack reroll, halflings get to force a reroll when attacked. Dwarves and tieflings seem to lose big time.
4. Character Classes
This is where it all blows up.
Powers, powers, and more powers. Everything is a power!
And very little of it has any flavor. The differences between exploits (martial powers) and prayers (divine powers) or spells (arcane powers) is vague to non-existent. The biggest differences appear to be in who gets more area attacks, with real flavor seemingly only in the utility powers.
After that it is hard to say what is worse, the limitations or the failed goals.
Two weapon fighting and archery are only for rangers; fighters, rogues, and all others need not apply. Oh, rogues can get away with a bit of ranged sneakiness, throwing shuriken into people's eyes or plugging them with hand crossbows, but that does not compare to what rangers can manage. Paladins can get holy zaps, but no real ranged weapon action.
Then there was the concept of eliminating fighters taking extended periods of time to resolve all their iterative attacks (when they got them of course). Except the higher level martial powers seem chock full of Burst 1 (attack every square around you), or make multiple attacks, often with some moving. I guess it balances with casters now making attack rolls for everything they can hit with an area effect power, but it seems they just punted on that goal.
The one thing I really dislike is the background for warlocks. Apparently the only options to get warlock power are selling out to amoral fey, becoming a Cthulu cultist, or dealing with devils. I guess selling your soul works with roleplaying Lawful Good somehow.
5. Skills
Skills have been cut down from 3E, both in number and acquiring them. That part feels like a big step backwards to NWPs. The worse part is the universal benefit to all skills, so that theoretically the most untrained wizard has olympic quality athletic skill by 20th level. That just comes across as weak to me.
6. Feats
Feats are now divided by minimum level to take them. They also cover fewer of the big ticket items they did in 3E. Two exceptions I dislike are evasion and mettle both now feats. Everyone can take 0 damage from area effects! Bleah.
Multiclassing also appears as feats. With the powers being nearly identical, the power swap feats look like a total waste. The initial multiclass feat looks to have more potential, even though what 4E calls multiclassing has no relationship to what 1st ed or 3E called multiclassing.
7. Equipment
Bleah and more bleah. The horrors of too much standardization and reduction and then some. Sure, lots of weapons and armor were egregiously redundant in 3E. 4E makes more cuts than Freddy and Jason combined. Armor is light or heavy, with 3 types in each. Each type has it own proficiency feat, and has 3 subtypes for use with magic items. As for weapons, including entries for improvised and unarmed, there are 41 weapons in the PHB 4. There were 73 in the PHB 3. Adventuring gear is likewise shortened dramatically.
What is worse is the magic items, now shifted here. There is a decent selection of the 3 "mandatory" slot items - armor, neck, and weapons/implements, but there is a major dearth of items for the other slots. Well, unless you go and pick up the equipment splat book I guess.
As for the economic system, although it looks reasonably balanced by number, the flavor text is stunning. From astral diamonds to the residuum sidebar, I rather wonder why they did not just go all the way and replace gold with residuum. (Residuum is the magical energy, that looks sort of like pixie dust, that you have left over when you disenchant a magic item. It can be used to make new items, or, what the heck, used as a commodity.
8. Adventuring
A rather basic section. The one issue I have with it is why the rules are not there. The rules for everything else to run the game are in the PHB, but apparently the rules for creating an encounter are off in the DMG, while the monsters are in the MM.
9. Combat
Slightly more streamlined, I still find replacing saves with attacks against defenses to be a less than zero sum game. Players like to make their own rolls for such things. While transferring control of all attacks to the creature making them may be consistent, it does not have the same psychological effect. The various conditions and effects are massive cut down, and I do not think the game loses much there. Special actions are equally cut, and I think the game does lose a lot there. However much it may not be done regularly, players are going to want to trip and disarm NPCs. Grapple is fixed, in the sense of being thoroughly neutered. Now all you can do is hold someone in place with it. The system is simpler though.
I do wonder about one absence though. With all the powers, and even basic attacks given a standard format, why did the not do the same with other combat options? It might be a bit cluttered, but they could use power write ups.
Healing is now down with healing surges. I have seen comments about them and their effect on the duration of an adventuring day.
One unusual addition here is subduing creatures. In 4E you get to decide with your killing strike if you want to just knock the creature out so you can take it captive. No penalty to the roll or anything, you just knock it out instead of killing it.
10. Rituals
Rituals replace a whole bunch of spells, from divinations to disease curing to creating magic items. Anybody can learn to use rituals with the proper feat, which wizards and clerics get as a class feature. So yes, a fighter can make magic items or cure diseases.
Since children might be reading, I will edit the naughty words from my comments on that change:
And that's all I have to say about that.
Overall
In many ways I feel bad having to give 4E such a negative review. The people who wrote it are decent people, who despite rants do have a clue about gaming, and very much want to make a great game. And there are more than a few truly great concepts in the 4E rules. Unfortunately, somewhere between getting the ideas and putting them in this book, a whole lot of everything was lost, from flavor in the text to flavor of the game to fun being anything more than "everyone is utterly equal".
A lot of the spirit I am used to is simply nonexistent in the 4E PHB. Of course, for a game that is apparently supposed to be played on a virtual tabletop, I suppose most of it really is not needed any more. At least to someone. And that someone saw it taken out of 4E.
From this and Keep on the Shadowfell I expect 4E will be absurdly easy to write for. I just do not see how I would have any fun playing this system.
About sums up my feelings on 4e. And this is after I've read through all three books and the first adventure. When 3rd ed came out, I was staunchly in the remain 2nd ed crowd. Then I got the books, and decided to change my 2nd ed game in progress to 3rd ed. I miss 2nd ed, but have enjoyed 3rd ed ever since. Reading through the 4e books though, made me sick to my stomach and constantly going 'What?"
I'm not gonna to go and spend time at work I could be wasting on posting, on looking for links for you :D However, as LK said, the 4e Preview books are a good beginning, as are oh, the 4e Preview videos (from Gen Con up through DDXP including the first 4e video) - look for em on You Tube, and then there is all the '4e ROCKS' messages on these boards, most of which tend to be full of phrases that annoy me like noob, and pwn.
Pffff.... n00b. :P
Well, I've not been posting whiney fashion posts about 4e. I have complained about how most posts supporting 4e are full of '3.5 sucks and 4e rocks' statements, with no support at all. And, I have posted MY problems with 4e - See the message ou repsonded to. As for why I keep posting, well, I'm bored at work and have nothing better to do :D
Well, what do you expect? Only 1 out of 100 "my opinion about 4E" actually presents facts and a sensible discussion, the other 99 are "omg 4e sux, D+D is teh d34dz, teh 3nd iz n1gh".
It's the same as with "psionics are overpowered". After hearing and going through all the arguments for what seems to be the 1567894685827890th time, you're just tired of it and throw the poster a bone dripping of sarcasm to choke on.
I never said I considered the PC's unimportant enough to be involved in my campign till 3rd level, i said I refrained from interweaving them into the story. BIG differance. This means that I begin to introduce the BBEG, through rumors, pieces of info, etc. Start weaving my plot for the group to see. BUT, what I do not do, is start strongly utilizing character backgrounds as part of the campaign. Considering my BBEGs tend to be near the lvl 20 mark, if not higher, yes, the party of level 1-3 PCs is barely a blip on the BBEG's 'radar'. And if I start the campaign, skipping level 3, its usually because I want to start the campaign at a higher level for story reasosn, and this is usually more like level 5 or 6. Only skip them for a good reason, and that reason depends on the story Im trying to weave. And as for level 1, they are perfectly workable, just understand that, like a rookie cop working the streets of the South Bronx, it is the most dangerous time in a character's career.
Then why take the hassle and start them at level 1 at all? From what you said, the characters' backgrounds are basically ignored until then, and you don't deeply involve them in your setting either. So, what are they? A bunch of n00bs powergrinding for when the real game starts? :P
Never had a group of ganger shadowrunner try and hit a place with guards, and the guards have SMGs - Those starting characters are just as vulnerable as 1st level Cs vs orcs. Beginning Shadowrun characters have smaller die pools, less karma, and smaller resources for gear and spell components, than more advanced groups.
True, but it holds true at all levels of play. There's no possible way (at least, so far I haven't seen one in SR4e) to completely overpower an encounter. Even when you have a 500 karma point group, a surprise visit from a squad of Banshee vector tanks with APDS2 ammo can seriously ruin their day.
It's why a starting group deals with the 4th ro 5th cutout of a megacorp while the more advanced and established group is making runs into the Renraku Arcology (shutdown or otherwise) And as for your street sam vs vehicle weapons, it depends on what gear and how big the Street Sam's die pools are, as to whether that tank round kills him or not.
Rule #1 of shadowrunning: You don't run against AAA cons.
Rule #2 of shadowrunning: You don't run against AAA cons.
Rule #3 of shadowrunning: You don't run against AAA cons.
Yes, it is that important that it deserves being mentioned thrice. ;)
And rules #4 to #6 of shadowrunning are: Don't deal with dragons. :D
Anyway, the general system changed in SR4e. The dice pools of 2e and 3e are gone. Now task resolution resembles something closer to WoD's "attribute + skill vs difficulty". But it's not a quite accurate comparison.
Also, combat and damage got more deadlier. It is now possible to kill a troll in an armored vest with an assault rifle. It may take some non-standard issue ammo, perhaps some targetting equipment, and a highly trained attacker. But at least it's possible! :P
And its not only D&D or Shadowrun either. Characters bbegin as low man on the totem poll, and as a game progresses, so do they - gaining resources, equipment, experience, skills, etc. This is true of all game systems, whether it be Deadlands or 4e. Starting characters will always be inferior to characters near the end of a campaign.
And that's already the main difference. In DnD 4E, heroes are not made, but rather born. It's far closer to the classical myths and tales from ancient Rome or Greece. Just take a look at the rules for NPCs - they no longer follow the same rules like PCs do (no level 12 commoner out-meleeing a level 1 fighter only by virtue of having plowed the fields for 15 years
)And as for casters, I still disagree. My current 3.5 campaign, in the last battle, the fighter did over 200+ pts of damage to the monster we were fighting. While the mage's Delayed Blast Fireball (thrown the same round), damaged a bunch of mosters, who all made their ref saves (and many had evasion so they took no damage) The next round, the fighter felled another enemy, while the mage's Power Word Kill did not penetrate the enemies Spell Resistance. And this is a group that is high level (16-18 now and concists of a Fighter, Paladin, Cleric/Spellfire Channeler/True Namer, Mage/Moge (Arcana Unleashed), and a Rogue/Sorceror).
I'm repeating myself, but... damage was not the main problem with the fighter. A properly built fighter can lay down the smack quite well (assuming the DM allows certain splats *cough*Leap Attack*cough*Shock Trooper*cough* :D ). It was rather the utter lack of flexibility that killed the fighter for me - and for many others.
Imagine a wizard and a fighter facing of the following situations. What can they do?
- A locked door.
Fighter: draw weapon and start bashing
Wizard: pull out scroll of Knock - An obviously trapped corridor (corpses laying around)
Fighter: grind your teeth and run
Wizard: use a Summon monster spell to trigger the traps or Dimension Door to the end of the corridor - A guard post you need to get past
Fighter:
Wizard: cast Invisibility and Silence - A group of undead with a nasty bite
Fighter: draw weapon and start bashing (or shooting, which would be preferable)
Wizard: cast Control undead or Undeath to death to one-shot the undead - ...
There's only so much need for beating something up in a campaign, that even three times the number of bonus feats for a fighter could never balance or outweigh the incredible flexibility and diversity of a full caster.
I still find the 'casters are ubergods and everyone else sucks at high level' argument to be as big a fallacy as the Stormwind Fallacy.
Then it boils down to two possible situations:
- your casters were all played not to their full potential
or - the DM went out of his way to handwave encounters in favor of the non-casters
There are so many situations where a non-casters is simply reduced to nothing more than a bystander when level 6+ spells start getting flung around.
Forcecage is perhaps the prime offender. If you don't happen to have someone around with Disintegrate, a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, or some way to Teleport in and get you out of there, you'll just suffocate to death if the caster created the windowless version.
The windowless Forcecage is 10x10x10 feet (1000 cubic feet). A portable hole being (for simplicity's sake) 6x6x10 feet (360 cubic feet) can contain enough air to support a medium sized creature for 10 minutes. Thus, the Forcecage will kill your fighter in less than 28 minutes. Too bad the spell lasts for 2 hours per caster level, minimum 26 hours.
And I've never played WOD, so I won;t comment on that part, especially since my maor exposure to WOD has been LARPERS, and I consider them...odd.
I know what you mean... ;)
Then why take the hassle and start them at level 1 at all? From what you said, the characters' backgrounds are basically ignored until then, and you don't deeply involve them in your setting either. So, what are they? A bunch of n00bs powergrinding for when the real game starts? :P
Character Development immediately leaps to mind. I've also found that 1st-2nd level is a good time for people to be sure the character they made is the one they want to play for the whole campaign. Nothing more annoying than someone deciding mid-campaign that they're bored with their character and want to switch, especially after you've weaved them into the story. So, no, their not a bunch of noobs, powergrinding, as you say, they're a bunch of new adventurers learning how to work together, and getting the basics of the overall story. After all, just how much of his over-reaching plan is the BBEG gonna tell a bunch of kobolds that he's using to harrass trade in the area, of his overall plans to conquest and domination? to them, he's 'The boss', if they even know that much about him. It takes time in my campaigns, before the PCs know about who the true source of evil is, and that discovery has nothing to do with level.
True, but it holds true at all levels of play. There's no possible way (at least, so far I haven't seen one in SR4e) to completely overpower an encounter. Even when you have a 500 karma point group, a surprise visit from a squad of Banshee vector tanks with APDS2 ammo can seriously ruin their day.
Rule #1 of shadowrunning: You don't run against AAA cons.
Rule #2 of shadowrunning: You don't run against AAA cons.
Rule #3 of shadowrunning: You don't run against AAA cons.
Yes, it is that important that it deserves being mentioned thrice. ;)
And rules #4 to #6 of shadowrunning are: Don't deal with dragons. :D
Anyway, the general system changed in SR4e. The dice pools of 2e and 3e are gone. Now task resolution resembles something closer to WoD's "attribute + skill vs difficulty". But it's not a quite accurate comparison.
Also, combat and damage got more deadlier. It is now possible to kill a troll in an armored vest with an assault rifle. It may take some non-standard issue ammo, perhaps some targetting equipment, and a highly trained attacker. But at least it's possible! :P
Death was always possible in Shadowrun and D&D. These are the WOTC boards, so, I'm not gonna start a debate of the new edition of shadowrun here. i will say, unlike 4e, I LIKe the new Shadowrun, and have played it quite a bit.
And that's already the main difference. In DnD 4E, heroes are not made, but rather born. It's far closer to the classical myths and tales from ancient Rome or Greece. Just take a look at the rules for NPCs - they no longer follow the same rules like PCs do (no level 12 commoner out-meleeing a level 1 fighter only by virtue of having plowed the fields for 15 years
Uh, actually, in trditional greek mythology, heroes we made, by their cicumstances. Jason went after the Golden Fleece, not because of his being born, but to find a way to avenge his father. Perseus went after Medusa, Theseus the Minotaur, and Odysseus had his adventures all for similar reasons. Only Heracles was BORN to greatness,and he's a demigod. Besides, it is the characters ACTIONS that makes one a hero, not their POWERS. That is what 4e has lost. It is what you do with your abilities that makes you a hero, not the fact that you have fun powers.
I'm repeating myself, but... damage was not the main problem with the fighter. A properly built fighter can lay down the smack quite well (assuming the DM allows certain splats *cough*Leap Attack*cough*Shock Trooper*cough* :D ). It was rather the utter lack of flexibility that killed the fighter for me - and for many others.
The fighter I was discussing has none fo those. He is a fighter, with fairly good magic items, straight from the PHB. No splatbooks used.
Imagine a wizard and a fighter facing of the following situations. What can they do?
- A locked door.
Fighter: draw weapon and start bashing
Wizard: pull out scroll of Knock- An obviously trapped corridor (corpses laying around)
Fighter: grind your teeth and run
Wizard: use a Summon monster spell to trigger the traps or Dimension Door to the end of the corridor- A guard post you need to get past
Fighter:
Wizard: cast Invisibility and Silence- A group of undead with a nasty bite
Fighter: draw weapon and start bashing (or shooting, which would be preferable)
Wizard: cast Control undead or Undeath to death to one-shot the undead- ...
There's only so much need for beating something up in a campaign, that even three times the number of bonus feats for a fighter could never balance or outweigh the incredible flexibility and diversity of a full caster.
Locked door? My fighter's reaction is to call the rogue up to see if it is trapped, then to unlock it.
Trapped Corridor, send up the Rogue
Guard post: Hmm, call up the rogue to go disable them, maybe have the mage hit em, or fight my way through. (Oh, and silence is a CLERIC spell, not mage)
Undead - Cleric turn/destroy what he can and then deal with them with my weapons.
Your entire argument forgets that RPGs are SOCIAL game, not SOLO games. No one class is supposed to be able to deal with everything on their own (and remember, wizards are nice and squishy with low HPs) Every class brings something to the table. And, TBH, I'd rather the mage was carrying AOE's rather than spells that duplicate what the rogue or cleric can do, same as I'd rather the cleric had a healthy amount of healing spells. And as for your comment on bashing things, they're claled FIGHTERS for a reason. Like Conan or Gimli the Dwarf, bashing things is what they do.
Then it boils down to two possible situations:
- your casters were all played not to their full potential
or- the DM went out of his way to handwave encounters in favor of the non-casters
Nope. The people I've played with have been gaming for years. They utilize every tool at their disposal, and so do our GMs. Besides, this argument of yours strikes me as a 'you're not playing right if you don;t have problems' argument, which is nothing but a strawman.
There are so many situations where a non-casters is simply reduced to nothing more than a bystander when level 6+ spells start getting flung around.
Forcecage is perhaps the prime offender. If you don't happen to have someone around with Disintegrate, a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, or some way to Teleport in and get you out of there, you'll just suffocate to death if the caster created the windowless version.
The windowless Forcecage is 10x10x10 feet (1000 cubic feet). A portable hole being (for simplicity's sake) 6x6x10 feet (360 cubic feet) can contain enough air to support a medium sized creature for 10 minutes. Thus, the Forcecage will kill your fighter in less than 28 minutes. Too bad the spell lasts for 2 hours per caster level, minimum 26 hours.
So, a few spells require a mage to be around (or cleric) to get rid of them. So? Last I checked, you weren't a lone character adventuring by yourself. And of course there will be times when your character can do nothing and another can. It's called situational. Thats why your have a group of characters, rather than just one.
And that's already the main difference. In DnD 4E, heroes are not made, but rather born.
Well, that's actually not not far removed from 3E--the sentiment expressed in the 3E was indeed that characters who were PCs are better in terms of adventuring capability (and dare I say it, heroics) than most other people. Whether or not the rules were true to that ideal or whether or not that's even a good ideal isn't something I feel like debating.
Just take a look at the rules for NPCs - they no longer follow the same rules like PCs do (no level 12 commoner out-meleeing a level 1 fighter only by virtue of having plowed the fields for 15 years
I actually did always find the 3E NPC classes to be a bit dodgy.
Besides, it is the characters ACTIONS that makes one a hero, not their POWERS.
I agree with this sentiment, but again I didn't feel like arguing (or starting a debate) over dictionary definition of the word "hero."
That is what 4e has lost. It is what you do with your abilities that makes you a hero, not the fact that you have fun powers.
See, I don't think the rule system has to do with that, nor is the idea of "heroic" = "powerful" something new to 4E. I've seen people using "heroic" to mean powerful long before 4E was announced. And, when I get to play 4E, I will not consider my character a "hero" until she actually has an act of heroism or two under her belt.
PS: (this is directed at everyone) D&D is not based solely on classic mythology, it is based on that and a wide variety of other types of fantasy, including modern fantasy.
Character Development immediately leaps to mind.
And why can't the development start at level 3? Just pretending the first 2 levels didn't exist?
I've also found that 1st-2nd level is a good time for people to be sure the character they made is the one they want to play for the whole campaign.
How could they guess if they like the abilities they get at level 6? At level 12? At level 18? Imho one should have to agree to play a certain concept, rather than an individual class.
Nothing more annoying than someone deciding mid-campaign that they're bored with their character and want to switch, especially after you've weaved them into the story.
Now, that can happen anyway. Perhaps they though that wizards wouldn't be so bookkeeping heavy, or that sorcerers would get more spells per day or something.
So, no, their not a bunch of noobs, powergrinding, as you say, they're a bunch of new adventurers learning how to work together, and getting the basics of the overall story.
I was joking damnit! :P
After all, just how much of his over-reaching plan is the BBEG gonna tell a bunch of kobolds that he's using to harrass trade in the area, of his overall plans to conquest and domination? to them, he's 'The boss', if they even know that much about him. It takes time in my campaigns, before the PCs know about who the true source of evil is, and that discovery has nothing to do with level.
Ideally, a BBEG should never tell the PCs his plans voluntarily. They should be in the dark (almost) all the time, only putting together what they can guess from notes and overheard conversations.
[...] i will say, unlike 4e, I LIKe the new Shadowrun, and have played it quite a bit.
Impossible.
There was the exact same discussion.Wireless Matrix? That's not Shadowrun!
Cyberdecks smaller than the size of a Cherry keyboard? That's not Shadowrun!
Ares having multiple orbital habitats? That's not Shadowrun!
Horizon having a research facility on Mars? That's not Shadowrun!
Shamans using the same mechanics as hermetics? That's not Shadowrun!
etc...
;)
Uh, actually, in trditional greek mythology, heroes we made, by their cicumstances. Jason went after the Golden Fleece, not because of his being born, but to find a way to avenge his father. Perseus went after Medusa, Theseus the Minotaur, and Odysseus had his adventures all for similar reasons. Only Heracles was BORN to greatness,and he's a demigod. Besides, it is the characters ACTIONS that makes one a hero, not their POWERS. That is what 4e has lost. It is what you do with your abilities that makes you a hero, not the fact that you have fun powers.
I admit that I'm a bit rusty with my mythology, but I always thought that most ancient heroes were destined to be something greater pretty much from the beginning, and not just thought "damn, goblins burned my village... so I'm becoming a great warrior and save the world".
The fighter I was discussing has none fo those. He is a fighter, with fairly good magic items, straight from the PHB. No splatbooks used.
Hmmm. Did the number refer to a full-attack, or to a single attack?
[...] Your entire argument forgets that RPGs are SOCIAL game, not SOLO games. No one class is supposed to be able to deal with everything on their own (and remember, wizards are nice and squishy with low HPs)
I should have made clearer what I wanted to say. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm quite aware that DnD is a cooperative game. However, you seem to assume that there always was a rogue and a cleric. Seriously, I know noone who likes being forced into the role of the walking bandaid or the talking lockpick, because "the party needs one".
This is where the aspect of "cooperative" breaks down, and one must see what roles can be - at least partly - covered by other party members (and classes). And in this case, the fighter is the most useless.
Every class brings something to the table.
But the fighter brings the least with him. He barely has any useful class skills (let alone enough skill points to start with). His single class feature (bonus feats) is focused around beating something up (fighter bonus feats != general feats).
And, TBH, I'd rather the mage was carrying AOE's rather than spells that duplicate what the rogue or cleric can do,
The mage can have both. Utility spells on consumables like wands and scrolls, and his "heavy-hitters" prepared in his spell slots.
same as I'd rather the cleric had a healthy amount of healing spells.
Which is not necessary. If I play a good cleric, I always only prepare utility, combat, and buff spells, because I can spontaneously convert them to cure X wounds anyway.
And as for your comment on bashing things, they're claled FIGHTERS for a reason. Like Conan or Gimli the Dwarf, bashing things is what they do.
Now, how much have you seen Gimli doing besides beating some orcs up now and then? He smoked a pipe, he ate something, but other than that he was basically an NPC who just got on screen when there was something in dire need of an axe to the skull.
Nope. The people I've played with have been gaming for years. They utilize every tool at their disposal, and so do our GMs.
Interesting. I assume you had all roles in the party covered.
In my cases, once you have a party lacking a dedicated arcane caster and a rogue, things quickly get "interesting" to say the least.
Besides, this argument of yours strikes me as a 'you're not playing right if you don;t have problems' argument, which is nothing but a strawman.
The same could be said about the "our group never had this problem", as it seems to willingly overlook the - obvious - problems.
So, a few spells require a mage to be around (or cleric) to get rid of them. So? Last I checked, you weren't a lone character adventuring by yourself. And of course there will be times when your character can do nothing and another can. It's called situational. Thats why your have a group of characters, rather than just one.
See my comments above.
Also, we've already had the "Transformers" analogy in this thread. It's bad game design once you need a transformer in your own party to cancel the transformer of the enemy.
But the fighter brings the least with him. He barely has any useful class skills (let alone enough skill points to start with). His single class feature (bonus feats) is focused around beating something up (fighter bonus feats != general feats).
-What else is he/she supposed to do? Fighters...fight. Just like toasters toast. It's as simple as that. :D
Just like toasters toast. It's as simple as that. :D
It is written, "All toasters toast toast!"
It is written, "All toasters toast toast!"
No way man, ever seen ghostbusters? That toaster's sole purpose was too make that evil goo react to music. And if you meant to imply that it still could have even if it didn't....you're wrong because I am right. Logic+1
-What else is he/she supposed to do? Fighters...fight. Just like toasters toast. It's as simple as that. :D
Well, if you're content with playing an ordinary toaster, while the rest of the party consists of
- a microwave-grill-oven that can shoot cruise missiles
- a coffee-cappuchino-mokka machine that can turn water into TNT
- a bread cutter with a diamond edge being able to saw a tank in half
;)
Remember, a toaster that can only toast white sliced toast, no dark toast, no normal bread, no nothing! :P
Damn, why don't I have a microwave-grill-oven that can shoot cruise missiles?
I agree with this sentiment, but again I didn't feel like arguing (or starting a debate) over dictionary definition of the word "hero."
See, I don't think the rule system has to do with that, nor is the idea of "heroic" = "powerful" something new to 4E. I've seen people using "heroic" to mean powerful long before 4E was announced. And, when I get to play 4E, I will not consider my character a "hero" until she actually has an act of heroism or two under her belt.
PS: (this is directed at everyone) D&D is not based solely on classic mythology, it is based on that and a wide variety of other types of fantasy, including modern fantasy.
My signature in The Vault comes to mind:
True heroes are flawed. The superhuman paragon beloved of the Hollywood action movie is no hero. The true hero is human, and just as any other human being, he has limitations.
But the fighter brings the least with him. He barely has any useful class skills (let alone enough skill points to start with). His single class feature (bonus feats) is focused around beating something up (fighter bonus feats != general feats).
That's not true, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus can only be taken by Fighters (unless that you are using ToB but let's not open that can of worms).
An a thing that a fighter have that a wizards doesn't is CONSISTENCY! That Weapon Specialization is goint to do that extra 2 of DMG regardless if is an undead, dragon, magial beast, has DR, SR, Imune to cold or fire or acid or sound, is LG or CE, has high Fort or Ref or Will and blah blah blah.
My favorite class by FAR is Paladin. I play one (pal10 Fist of Raziel4) that if you are Evil (specially CE), you are ****ed up the ass, dry, not KY lube, if anything sand paper.But if is not, it does ok. A fighter may not kick rear end as intenselly but is consistent.
a wizard can't posibly be ready for EVERY encounter either. Wizards are broken in higher lv? YES! and they deserve to be after sucking so bad in lower lv.
Make sense? ;)
That's not true, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus can only be taken by Fighters (unless that you are using ToB but let's not open that can of worms).
An a thing that a fighter have that a wizards doesn't is CONSISTENCY! That Weapon Specialization is goint to do that extra 2 of DMG regardless if is an undead, dragon, magial beast, has DR, SR, Imune to cold or fire or acid or sound, is LG or CE, has high Fort or Ref or Will and blah blah blah.
My favorite class by FAR is Paladin. I play one (pal10 Fist of Raziel4) that if you are Evil (specially CE), you are ****ed up the ass, dry, not KY lube, if anything sand paper.But if is not, it does ok. A fighter may not kick rear end as intenselly but is consistent.
a wizard can't posibly be ready for EVERY encounter either. Wizards are broken in higher lv? YES! and they deserve to be after sucking so bad in lower lv.
Make sense? ;)
you got some weird issues going on with paladins
That's not true, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus can only be taken by Fighters (unless that you are using ToB but let's not open that can of worms).
An a thing that a fighter have that a wizards doesn't is CONSISTENCY! That Weapon Specialization is goint to do that extra 2 of DMG regardless if is an undead, dragon, magial beast, has DR, SR, Imune to cold or fire or acid or sound, is LG or CE, has high Fort or Ref or Will and blah blah blah.
My favorite class by FAR is Paladin. I play one (pal10 Fist of Raziel4) that if you are Evil (specially CE), you are ****ed up the ass, dry, not KY lube, if anything sand paper.But if is not, it does ok. A fighter may not kick rear end as intenselly but is consistent.
a wizard can't posibly be ready for EVERY encounter either. Wizards are broken in higher lv? YES! and they deserve to be after sucking so bad in lower lv.
Make sense? ;)
He won't get it no matter how much you bludgeon him with facts or evidence or anything else. He is so firmly locked into the 4venger mode that he can't, nay, will not see any other point of view as being in any way valid. It's one reason I've largely given up trying to post anything other than tidbits anymore. There are too many like him on these boards.
you got some weird issues going on with paladins
I DO have Torm's holt symbol tattooed after all ;)Completely sense. There are few better partners than fighters when you are in the middle of the carnage. And any player smart to know that concentrating on fighter levels is like training in real life to become the most deadly person in combat. That's why is pretty common that Fighters multiclass to learn how to do other things. The fighter is a specialist class, concentrated on being the best in armed combat.
Like I said we're on the same page 99% of the time :P
I'm afraid to ask where
I'm afraid to ask where
My arm. from shoulder to elbow
Would it blow anyones mind if someone liked both?
Wow, this was close to a civil discussion three days ago.
Would it blow anyones mind if someone liked both?
What do you mean by both? Fighter and wizards?
What do you mean by both? Fighter and wizards?
Sure, I also mean 3rd and 4ed.
Since I was asked, I enjoy the fighter class from 3rd ed. I found it pointless to take past lvl 4 without splat books. But thats my opinion and I will prolly be told any number of derogatory things for it.
Imagine a wizard and a fighter facing of the following situations. What can they do?
- A locked door.
Fighter: draw weapon and start bashing
Wizard: pull out scroll of Knock- An obviously trapped corridor (corpses laying around)
Fighter: grind your teeth and run
Wizard: use a Summon monster spell to trigger the traps or Dimension Door to the end of the corridor- A guard post you need to get past
Fighter:
Wizard: cast Invisibility and Silence- A group of undead with a nasty bite
Fighter: draw weapon and start bashing (or shooting, which would be preferable)
Wizard: cast Control undead or Undeath to death to one-shot the undead- ...
There's only so much need for beating something up in a campaign, that even three times the number of bonus feats for a fighter could never balance or outweigh the incredible flexibility and diversity of a full caster.
I do think that the fighter was short changed on skill points and selections. Anyone can learn to swim, ride, jump, climb, listen, etc... if they work on it. However, a little creativity can go a long ways. After all, look at Jarlaxe. He is a straight fighter
I do think that the fighter was short changed on skill points and selections. Anyone can learn to swim, ride, jump, climb, listen, etc... if they work on it. However, a little creativity can go a long ways. After all, look at Jarlaxe. He is a straight fighter
Actually I see him more as a Rogue/Swashbuckler
That's not true, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus can only be taken by Fighters (unless that you are using ToB but let's not open that can of worms).
Cool. Now, how does Greater Weapon Specialization help with disarming a trap? Or getting the bard back up from -8 HPs? Because, well, I was talking about things OTHER than beating the crap out of something (which is, coincidentally, the only thing the feats you mentioned help). :PAnd how does being shoehorned into using a single type of weapon help, when you don't have the MagicMart around and are dependent on "drops" to get a better weapon? What if you specialized on longswords, and at level 14 you find a +4 holy greataxe? Then you're either stuck with using your +2 flaming longsword to utilize your feats, or use the much better weapon but have a bunch of dead feats.
An a thing that a fighter have that a wizards doesn't is CONSISTENCY! That Weapon Specialization is goint to do that extra 2 of DMG regardless if is an undead, dragon, magial beast, has DR, SR, Imune to cold or fire or acid or sound, is LG or CE, has high Fort or Ref or Will and blah blah blah.
Sure about that? ;) Damage Reduction is the bane of all fighters. It's often the other way round: a spellcaster gives a damn about a monster having DR or not. If you don't have an adamantine weapon handy, you knock off 15 points of damage from each attack that you land on that iron golem. And at level 3 the DR 10/silver on a wererat can be quite a problem without a silver weapon at hand (after all, even a greatsword and Str 18 "only" give an average damage of 13).
A barbarian can try to brute force his way through the DR with his rage and focus on pure strength, a paladin has his smites to deal damage that has a chance of getting past the DR against evil creatures (and eventually spells that generally increase his damage), and a ranger focusing on archery has a much easier time bypassing DR because he can have a load of arrows made from different material or carrying different enhancements (in addition to some combat buff spells later on).
My favorite class by FAR is Paladin. I play one (pal10 Fist of Raziel4) that if you are Evil (specially CE), you are ****ed up the ass, dry, not KY lube, if anything sand paper.But if is not, it does ok. A fighter may not kick rear end as intenselly but is consistent.
I somehow find it highly amusing that you enjoy a PrC from the Book of Exalted Deeds, while labelling the Tome of Battle a "can of worms". ;)Also, I have already admitted that barbarians, paladins, and rangers are better than the fighter in that regard. They all get much more options (other than only more combat bonus feats).
a wizard can't posibly be ready for EVERY encounter either. Wizards are broken in higher lv? YES! and they deserve to be after sucking so bad in lower lv.
At first, no. That's right. But later, scribing scrolls of utility spells is so cheap, a wizard should be beaten to death for not having 2 full scroll cases busting with scrolls of various low- to mid-level utility spells.
Additionally, casters are given options like Contingency or Craft Contigent Spell to "compensate" for the fact that they cannot consciously prepare for any circumstance. But for most. :P
However, a design paradim of "I have to sux for 10 levels so that I can r0xx0r the other 10 levels" is highly flawed and should not be supported. It creates a shift in balance that first steals your fun from the game, and later the other players' fun.
Make sense? ;)
Somewhat... I guess...
I slowly get the impression that most people associate the fighter with "mundane guy who swings a sword really hard but can't do anything extraordinary". People cry foul when a fighter so much as dares to look at Shock Trooper to up his damage output or think about touching the spiked chain to become even remotely more useful when not full-attacking the heck out of something, because that was "evil munchkin'ng".
[...] The fighter is a specialist class, concentrated on being the best in armed combat.
Going by fluff, then yes. Going by crunch, then no. He is easily surpassed by any well built (non-twinked) barbarian in the damage department, paladins have better "anti-evil" stuff and utility/buff abilities, and rangers are the better archers by far (just look at the spells rangers get that enhance their archery skills
).The only case where a fighter is better than the other "martial" classes is an extremely specialized built focusing on a single weapon or tactic/maneuver (e.g. the "chaingun tripper"), or working towards a prestige class with high feat prerequisites.
Coincidentally, often other classes throw in 2 or 4 fighter levels to quickly acquire enough feats for a certain tactic or PrC.
The warblade, however, is a perfect mechanical match for the fighter's fluff. :P
The warblade, however, is a perfect mechanical match for the fighter's fluff. :P
My name is Krevon, and I endorse this statement.
And that's already the main difference. In DnD 4E, heroes are not made, but rather born. It's far closer to the classical myths and tales from ancient Rome or Greece. Just take a look at the rules for NPCs - they no longer follow the same rules like PCs do (no level 12 commoner out-meleeing a level 1 fighter only by virtue of having plowed the fields for 15 years
I think that sentence about summarizes what the difference seems to be between a lot of advocates for 4E and my personal dislike for it. I like heroes having humble beginnings. Not being some sort of superstar from the beginning. Some people want to rock just out of the door, I like when characters have to overcome being rookies.
Well, that and I really dislike a lot of the oversimplifications from 3E to 4E. A good bit too much for my taste. I liked the vast number of class combinations I could use to just build the character according to what and who I wanted to play. That´s gone forever in 4E, unless they introduce a totally new multi-classing mechanic in the future.
Sure, I also mean 3rd and 4ed.
Since I was asked, I enjoy the fighter class from 3rd ed. I found it pointless to take past lvl 4 without splat books. But thats my opinion and I will prolly be told any number of derogatory things for it.
Only on the CO boards, they prolly do like their 2 level Fighter dip there. Four levels is reasonable, because unless you have a very feat heavy build, you can probably get better things in other classes. Yay to real multiclassing!
Sure, I also mean 3rd and 4ed.
Since I was asked, I enjoy the fighter class from 3rd ed. I found it pointless to take past lvl 4 without splat books. But thats my opinion and I will prolly be told any number of derogatory things for it.
I'll say 12 lv (Greater Weapon Specialization is too good to ignore IMO) but yeah i hear you. and in regards of 3E and 4E I just don't think is for me (and my players have shown no interest as of yet) but i'm sure there's people that likes them both
Only on the CO boards, they prolly do like their 2 level Fighter dip there. Four levels is reasonable, because unless you have a very feat heavy build, you can probably get better things in other classes. Yay to real multiclassing!
I say yay to not needing heavy heavy multiclassing to get the concept you desire.
I'll say 12 lv (Greater Weapon Specialization is too good to ignore IMO) but yeah i hear you. and in regards of 3E and 4E I just don't think is for me (and my players have shown no interest as of yet) but i'm sure there's people that likes them both
I do, and my group does!
I think that sentence about summarizes what the difference seems to be between a lot of advocates for 4E and my personal dislike for it. I like heroes having humble beginnings. Not being some sort of superstar from the beginning. Some people want to rock just out of the door, I like when characters have to overcome being rookies. [...]
Then I can assume that you started every PC in your campaigns with at least 1 NPC class level? Because going from the descriptions and actual mechanics, PC classes are "rocking out" from the beginning compared to NPC classes.
Also, how do you explain certain charcter classes to appear at all? For example warlock or favored soul? They usually require a little more than the pure wish to suddenly become one. And pawning your soul to some fiend from one moment to the next seems a little streched. :P
I say yay to not needing heavy heavy multiclassing to get the concept you desire.
If your concept can be done without multiclassing at all, excellent! But I love the *option* to go hog-wild with whatever build you can come up with to really fit your character. In the Silver Marches campaign I am privileged to play in, we have a Ninja/Monk/Swashbuckler/Fighter/Wizard ( with mostly Ninja levels ) character, which isn´t maximised for power, but fits on how the girl who plays her wants to advance her character. Try *that* in 4E. :D
Then I can assume that you started every PC in your campaigns with at least 1 NPC class level? Because going from the descriptions and actual mechanics, PC classes are "rocking out" from the beginning compared to NPC classes.
Also, how do you explain certain charcter classes to appear at all? For example warlock or favored soul? They usually require a little more than the pure wish to suddenly become one. And pawning your soul to some fiend from one moment to the next seems a little streched. :P
That pure NPC´s do have less powerful classes is insubstantial to what my argument is about. I am trying to convey that PC´s in 3E still feel more like normal people in the low levels, than their 4E counterparts. You yourself basically summarized how you think they are different, I am just presenting my counterpoint that a good number of people, whose opinion I read in the last days, feel that having a "destined" character from level 1 is not necessary a good thing.
It all depends on ones style of play and/or how you want your heroic character to begin.
As for your second point, again PCs *are* more powerful than NPCs. But even if a Favoured Soul is blessed by his deity or a Warlock is brimming with arcane power, at low levels one of them still can be put down by two city guards Warriors. I don´t see *that* happening so much in 4E.
Now, how does Greater Weapon Specialization help with disarming a trap? Or getting the bard back up from -8 HPs? Because, well, I was talking about things OTHER than beating the crap out of something (which is, coincidentally, the only thing the feats you mentioned help).
But he's the um fighter.... If I pick fighter as a Class I wanna you know, fight....please
And how does being shoehorned into using a single type of weapon help, when you don't have the MagicMart around and are dependent on "drops" to get a better weapon? What if you specialized on longswords, and at level 14 you find a +4 holy greataxe? Then you're either stuck with using your +2 flaming longsword to utilize your feats, or use the much better weapon but have a bunch of dead feats.
Fighters have SO many bonus feats that he can be able to actually specialize in two (maybe three) weapons. And I can ask you the same thing about a Arcane scroll of cure spells
Sure about that? ;) Damage Reduction is the bane of all fighters. It's often the other way round: a spellcaster gives a damn about a monster having DR or not. If you don't have an adamantine weapon handy, you knock off 15 points of damage from each attack that you land on that iron golem. And at level 3 the DR 10/silver on a wererat can be quite a problem without a silver weapon at hand (after all, even a greatsword and Str 18 "only" give an average damage of 13).
I can say the same about SR A fighter doen't care about SR. and at DR reduces damage vs SR that DENIES spells. Again consistency, you can have DR but eventually a Fighter "will get there" we can say the same about a Wiz but it might cost him more spells that a Wiz was willig to lose... oh yeah there's also Anti-Magic fields, creatures inmmune to magic and (since this IS a FR forum) DMZ to consider....;)
A barbarian can try to brute force his way through the DR with his rage and focus on pure strength, a paladin(:cloud9
Again Consistency, barbarians have a fixed amounts of rage per day (and calm emotions spell can take care of that) and so does have a pali(:cloud9
w smite evil a fighter won't run out of combat specializations and bash (to a lesser degree of course) Evil,Good,lawful,Chaotic,Neutral etc.
Hey
My pali(:cloud9 ain't on trial here, I was just poining out that my pali(:cloud9 is a Anti-Evil guy VS a Fighter that can do a almost as good as a job w/o having to focus against one element (evil,magial beats, spell caster, etc) and I didn't want to mention ToB for the same reason I don't wanna bring let's say Spell compendium (to many variables and I'm just trying to explaint my point not win a Character opimization even or a debate)Also, I have already admitted that barbarians, paladins(:cloud9
Meh, Ranger and pali(:cloud9
,yes. but how much options rage gives you?not[/i] having 2 full scroll cases busting with scrolls of various low- to mid-level utility spells.
A honest question and I'm not trying to mess with you but... Where's the fun in that? I can see and support a Wiz doing that if there's a Rogue missing in a party but every class should have a chance in the syop light. And a rouge can do the same via Use magical device.
Contingency[/i] or Craft Contigent Spell to "compensate" for the fact that they cannot consciously prepare for any circumstance. But for most. :P
True, but a) is a one time use (in case of contingencies) and b) I have never said that Fighter> Wiz just saying that is not the piece of **** that you think it is
Well I personaly like lower lvs myself (it makes you think outside the box and show resoucefulness) and as much as the Wiz in my party becomes we still have your roles, for intance:
Rouge: "the Evil Necromancer summoned The 'half-dragon-half-fey Terrasque from hell!"
Pali(:cloud9
It Does?
I don't
That is something
Hey that counts
and that why I don't use ToB ( and I do own it mind you) it mahe other classes obsolite(sp)
I like heroes having humble beginnings. Not being some sort of superstar from the beginning. I like when characters have to overcome being rookies.
My name is Ody, and I endorse this statement;)
I say yay to not needing heavy heavy multiclassing to get the concept you desire.
I do, and my group does!
Hey. That's great I DO hope you have all the fun that you expect from 4E and then some!:D It's just not for me
But he's the um fighter.... If I pick fighter as a Class I wanna you know, fight....please
Does a little more flexibility stop you from fighting? Does a feat that allows you to substitute Open Lock with an attack roll at -10 stop you from fighting? Does a class ability that allows you to add 1/2 your BAB to all craft/profession/knowledge checks that somehow relate to warfare, weapons, strategy & tactics, and running and leading military units stop you from fighting? Does a 3/day ability that allows you to heal your fighter level in HP when doing a heal check on someone stop you from fighting?
No, no, and no. But those would add more flexibility, more depth, and more motivation to play a fighter but "it's the quickest way to grab enough bonus feats for combat maneuver X".
Hell, currently that sorry excuse for a bard is better at training and rallying a militia than a fighter!
:raincloudFighters have SO many bonus feats that he can be able to actually specialize in two (maybe three) weapons. And I can ask you the same thing about a Arcane scroll of cure spells
Instead of really specializing in a single weapon (WF -> WS -> GWF -> IC -> GWS -> WM*), you dabble in several? Why would you do that? And have you ever seen one fighter do that?
(* Weapon Mastery, or whatever that feats from PHb2 were called :P )
I can say the same about SR A fighter doen't care about SR. and at DR reduces damage vs SR that DENIES spells. Again consistency, you can have DR but eventually a Fighter "will get there" we can say the same about a Wiz but it might cost him more spells that a Wiz was willig to lose... oh yeah there's also Anti-Magic fields, creatures inmmune to magic and (since this IS a FR forum) DMZ to consider....;)
However, a wizard has access to spells that either completely invalidate SR as a defense (*cough*Assay Resistance*cough*) or spells that completely ignore it (*cough*Orb of X*cough*). The latter can also conveniently be fired into anti-magic fields because they are instantaneous creation effects, and affect constructs or other creatures with magic immunity just as well because "An iron golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance [...]".
Again Consistency, barbarians have a fixed amounts of rage per day (and calm emotions spell can take care of that) and so does have a pali(:cloud9
I see your point. However, the fighter is a class that, forgive me using 4E terminology, is stuck with basic attacks forever, while all other classes are throwing around powers left and right.
Hey
Hey, I was not trying to invalidate your character. I was just making a little fun of the fact that you're fine with BoED, which is regarded the most stupid and rediculous book from WotC (and having some pretty broken stuff in it as well), while having a resentment against Bo9S, which is deemed one of the most balanced books from Wotc (of course besides XPH ;) ).
Meh, Ranger and pali(:cloud9
At least rage can be used for more things than beating up stuff. Lifting a pillar off of someone, bending bars, toughing something out, ...
On how many occasions exactly can you use Improved Critical? Only in combat.
A honest question and I'm not trying to mess with you but... Where's the fun in that? I can see and support a Wiz doing that if there's a Rogue missing in a party but every class should have a chance in the syop light. And a rouge can do the same via Use magical device.
So we're at the point again that it becomes a problem when the wizard is actually played to his full potential, when the player tries to play out that Int 26 (which translates into roughly IQ 260!).
Is it really good game design that the fun is ruined for other players when one class is played to its full potential?
True, but a) is a one time use (in case of contingencies) and b) I have never said that Fighter> Wiz just saying that is not the piece of **** that you think it is
I don't think the fighter is a "piece of ****". The class has its merits... although from a mechanical point of view the class table could stop at level 4. Again, the fighter lacks flexibility, and while he has 11 more feats to spend than other characters, these feats require you to specialize in a single field (damage output, battlefield control, ...) and often a single weapon.
The fighter is a "5ft step -> full attack" class, no flexibility in combat once your feats are set, no uses outside of combat. The class has abysmal skills, and no other class features whatsoever.
The focus on often a single weapon brings even more problems with it.
Well I personaly like lower lvs myself (it makes you think outside the box and show resoucefulness) and as much as the Wiz in my party becomes we still have your roles, for intance:
Rouge: "the Evil Necromancer summoned The 'half-dragon-half-fey Terrasque from hell!"
Pali(:cloud9
I see. But what does the fighter do if the hd-hf-t-fh decides to take to the air? To make fly-by attacks or something? Sure, if he's hung like a christmas tree full with magic items he probably has boots of flying or somesuch.
But what works well against monsters, becomes a liability at best and a fatal flaw at worst against classed NPCs. A wizard (or other caster, for that matter) hit by a Disjunction is stripped of all protection and buff spells, as is the fighter. However, in addition, the fighter probably loses over 3/4th of his magical gear in the process which leaves him stranded. The casters can still cast their spells, but the fighter is effectively removed from the game.
It Does?
Perhaps. :P
I don't
But isn't the CW samurai only a fighter with predistributed bonus feats? :P
That is something
Hey that counts
But it's not enough, sadly.
and that why I don't use ToB ( and I do own it mind you) it mahe other classes obsolite(sp)
Shapechange (into marilith) + Tenser's Transformation. Makes a normal (or twf specialized) damage focused fighter completely obsolete. These were only 2 of ~40 spells the wizard can cast at any given day, not counting consumables and one-use items (scrolls, wands, staffs, ...). And Shapechange lasts for a total of one hour per casterlevel, making it a generally useful "all day buff".
Making other classes completely obsolete is already included in the PHb.
Going by that last example (Shapechange + Tenser's), as a DM I'd just tell them it doesn't stack and be done with it, what the 'rules' say be damned... guess that's too easy a solution though. :P :D
But we've had that discussion before, so... anyway, agree to disagree over what constitutes 'broken' seems to be the wisest course.
Though by the by, I'd always hard the exact opposite in regards to the Bo9S and the BoED. Depends on who you ask I guess. Don't really care though, I like both quite a bit.
I don't think it would ever occur to me to hit PCs with Mordenkainen's Disjunction... Certainly not 'realistic', although the merits of that word in a game that features magic and dragons is dubious in the first place, but a lot more fun for the players... nor give them situations where at least one of them is going to be useless. The PCs are the heroes, and I'm a crap DM if I take that away simply to satisfy my own cleverness... and let them do that to each other. It's their bloody story afterall, I'm just being the narrator for them...
Now you start to see the real problem with Disjunction, and several other high-level spells, too.
If the party uses them, they lessen the fun of the game. Disjunction blows through magical defenses like a searing greatsword through warm butter, yes, but also destroys magical loot. SoDs are just a cheap and highly anticlimactic shortcut to carefully prepared "boss" encounters.
If the DM uses them, they lessen the fun of the game. Disjunction destroys possibly irreplacable (at least within a reasonable amount of time) gear that many melee and ranged combat focused party members depend upon to survive. SoDs are binary to such an extend, that the DM could just as well flip a coin of a PC dies or not.
In the widest sense of the word, Disjunction is also a save or die. For the fighter it definitively is - do my magic sword, magic armor, healing belt, and boots of flying save, or do I die the next encounter because I can do crap against that monster?
Going by that last example (Shapechange + Tenser's), as a DM I'd just tell them it doesn't stack and be done with it, what the 'rules' say be damned... guess that's too easy a solution though. :P :D
So you're house-ruling it because the rules are not fun to play by? Doesn't that actually proof that there's something terribly wrong with those spells?
But we've had that discussion before, so... anyway, agree to disagree over what constitutes 'broken' seems to be the wisest course.
Agreed.
Though by the by, I'd always hard the exact opposite in regards to the Bo9S and the BoED. Depends on who you ask I guess. Don't really care though, I like both quite a bit.
Well, BoED not only has some very wonky PrC, but also makes no sense from an alignment point of view. The BoVD has definitively explained that "using poison == evil". Period. Now the BoED comes around, also saying that "using poison == evil", but "good guys have these special poisons that only damage bad guys", and therefore "using good poison != evil".
As to the house-ruling, I don't think they were ever intended to stack to be honest, though if they were, then yes, that is pretty broken. Beyond that, its nothing I can't fix easily as a DM to fix them. However, having said that, none of my players ever use tactics like that for spellcasters, since they've gotten used to the idea that spellcasters support and don't head to the front unless the fighter is down and someone has to step into the breach... though they generally prefer to 'buff' the others up to cover the cleric while they get the fighter back up. Different style of play issue there I guess...
Can't say the Ravage/Affliction thing ever bothered me much though. Won't work if you aren't evil, so its righteous punishment of the heavens for your sins versus an indiscriminate method of killing sort of arguement for me. If you're relatively clean of conscience, so to speak, the ravage/affliction doesn't function, so no worries about harming an innocent there.
It is written, "All toasters toast toast!"
-Whoops. Didn't know I wrote it wrong.
Well, if you're content with playing an ordinary toaster, while the rest of the party consists of
- a microwave-grill-oven that can shoot cruise missiles
- a coffee-cappuchino-mokka machine that can turn water into TNT
- a bread cutter with a diamond edge being able to saw a tank in half
;)
Remember, a toaster that can only toast white sliced toast, no dark toast, no normal bread, no nothing! :P
-You dodged the question. What else are Fighters supposed to do asides for fight?
Can't say I disagree with the Disjunction stuff too much, but generally I know what spells my players have at their disposal and tailor encounters and 'boss fights' around them in terms of how I arrange things. Though I've yet to have a player actually select that one as a spell for their spellcasters... at least not until later in the game.
Imho Disjunction is the DnD equivalent to a tactical nuclear weapon. Each side could bring them to bear, but no side actually does because of the unforseen consequences.
As to the house-ruling, I don't think they were ever intended to stack to be honest, though if they were, then yes, that is pretty broken. [...]
RaW the spells stack. There's nothing even hinting at that they wouldn't. My point is, only because some people or groups do not actually suffer from those problems does not imply that the problems were not there to begin with.
I agree that usually spellcasters buffing the fighter or rogue is a much more sensible approach (that actually makes the party work together). However, some spells either only work on the caster (like Shapechange or Transformation).
[...] so no worries about harming an innocent there.
Which is, coincidentally, my major gripe with it. DnD alignment is too weakly defined for an absolute mechanic like that.
What does constitute evil? According to the SRD this:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Now, does any one of the following deserve to die a painful and agonizing death:
- the greedy merchant that trades with an evil magocracy to maximize his profits
- the abusive tavern owner who pays the girls poorly and beats them now and then
- the spartan mother who kills her underdeveloped, weak, and sick child after birth
- the egoistical nobleman who treats and abuses his household servants like slaves
- the desperate scoundrel who waylays merchants and travellers and strikes to kill if attacked
- the hungry orc who raids a farm to steal a pig in order to feed his mate and his three kids
? When you answer, assume that these are the most evil deeds those people have committed.
It's this hypocrisy about the BoED that ticks me off. "Ohnoes, hurting others is teh EVILZ, but let's go ahead and torture and maim and slaughter others because they don't agree on our perspective on 'How to treat others 101' ".
Yeah, staring into the abyss, and all that...
Eberron has proven that evil comes in shades of black, and that not every "evil" creature is a rampaging sociopath that slaughters everything that moves in its way - unlike, say, many PCs. :P
Even in the FR morality is highly flexible. Do you really think that PCs would refrain from buying some needed scrolls or potions from a Thayan enclave because "Thay was teh Evilz"? When the decision boils down to "do or die", I bet most characters would gladly pay the price for these Remove Curse and Remove Disease scrolls before succumbing to mummy rot, or something.
-You never showed a picture of it.
Sure, I also mean 3rd and 4ed.
Since I was asked, I enjoy the fighter class from 3rd ed. I found it pointless to take past lvl 4 without splat books. But thats my opinion and I will prolly be told any number of derogatory things for it.
:: Says derogatory things ::
[...] What else are Fighters supposed to do asides for fight?
I'd suggest: "providing a fun and entertaining class, that is not locked into being a stupid one trick pony or punished for the rest of the character's life for a bad feat choice made at level 1, and allows the player to participate and contribute in encounters that are not centered around splitting skulls".
But your mileage may vary.
// Edit:
Actually, your statement is dead wrong. Why do clerics have spells other than Cure X Wounds on their list? Why do rogues have other abilities but "Sneak Attack" and other skills besides Move Silently, Search, Open Lock, and Disable Device? Why can wizards cast spells other than Fireball and Magic Missile?
After all, clerics are for healing, rogues are for picking locks and disarming traps, and mages are for frying enemies. Options? Flexibility? Depth? Variety? Bullocks, that's crap nobody needs. :P
I felt that the classes were all very similar in function and execution. Differentiating them was in the flavor and not the rules (read, DM ability and not game system). I was disappointed to see some abilities in the rogue and ranger lists that were exact duplicates. The flavor blurb was different but the mechanics were exactly the same. To quote one of our group members after he had played both a fighter and a wizard, 'Same s**t different shovel'.
The multiclassing really disappointed me. I found that instead of giving me better customization that the class system, and specifically the multiclassing served to more heavily restrict me. I felt this was a big step backwards. The way it functions is the taking of a single feat (you cannot multiclass in more than 2 classes total, your base class and 1 other) which allows you training in one skill from that class, a single ability defined by the feat (not your choice from the class list), and the ability to qualify for feats that are class specific.
Magic has been gone over many times on this thread so no need to revisit that.
I found epic destinies to be a pretty asinine idea that I would rather just not use. I have a friend who plays an MMORP called Final Fantasy 11, and these reminded me of what that game calls 2 hour abilities which are abilities that are so powerful they can only be used once every 2 hours real time.
I didnt like the Tiefling as expected. In fact I hated it. Dragonborn and Eladrin were at best disliked universally in the group. We found a lot of the flavor for many many of the various monsters to just be something we would just end up changing. I did very much like the humans mechanics though.
All in all my group was undivided in that the system was not for us. I returned all 3 books this morning and we will be using the Pathfinder alpha rules until August when we will give their published rules the same playtest we gave 4e. Sorry WotC, the cup of tea you gave us just isnt a leaf we like.
My group loved almost everything it appears. The new races were well received as well. The abilites are different for many of the classes. It appears you can make a cleric that is good at blasting and healing or melee and healing which I was pleased with.
As for your second point, again PCs *are* more powerful than NPCs. But even if a Favoured Soul is blessed by his deity or a Warlock is brimming with arcane power, at low levels one of them still can be put down by two city guards Warriors. I don´t see *that* happening so much in 4E.
The 4e MM has an entry for Human Guard, a 3rd level soldier. Two of these should pretty easily kill a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-level player character.
-You never showed a picture of it.
:: Says derogatory things ::
Well I don't know how......
Does a little more flexibility stop you from fighting? No, but that's not what I pick a Fighter for.... and I'm dare say that my most powerful/interesting/intimidating NPCs have been fighters (with the exeption of a (red Wizard I did once)Hell, currently that sorry excuse for a bard is better at training and rallying a militia than a fighter!
ouch!Instead of really specializing in a single weapon (WF -> WS -> GWF -> IC -> GWS -> WM*), you dabble in several? Why would you do that? And have you ever seen one fighter do that?[?QUOTE] Yes one guy in my party actualy did a lonbow/greatsword SpecialitsHowever, a wizard has access to spells that either completely invalidate SR as a defense....
There's also a magical weapon property in Magic Item Compendium that becomes cold iron or adamantine and all that kind of stuff but i hear you....I see your point. However, the fighter is a class that, forgive me using 4E terminology, is stuck with basic attacks forever, while all other classes are throwing around powers left and right.
I agree and that DOESN't have to be a bad thing. Look I have a player called Pedro Nicest guy ever BUT he's as sharp as a bowling ball I like him playing with my group but he doen'y like spell and the like so 9 out of 10 he plays Fighters and you know what he NEVER grows tired of them cuz u can customize him as you see fit (specially with books like CW and so on)Hey, I was not trying to invalidate your character. I was just making a little fun of the fact that you're fine with BoED, which is regarded the most stupid and rediculous book from WotC (and having some pretty broken stuff in it as well), while having a resentment against Bo9S, which is deemed one of the most balanced books from Wotc (of course besides XPH ;) ).
It's cool I was joking too ;) and I only use (or let my players use)BoED when I use BoVD that's a lil broken in itself (diciple of dispater, nuff said) and I have no (much) resenment with Bo9S if anything it will help in my caseAt least rage can be used for more things than beating up stuff. Lifting a pillar off of someone, bending bars, toughing something out, ...
On how many occasions exactly can you use Improved Critical? Only in combat.
Well WS can be used to break doors and such....So we're at the point again that it becomes a problem when the wizard is actually played to his full potential, when the player tries to play out that Int 26 (which translates into roughly IQ 260!).
Is it really good game design that the fun is ruined for other players when one class is played to its full potential? I never said that 3.5 is flawless but luckly my players don't go all CO like thatI don't think the fighter is a "piece of ****". The class has its merits... although from a mechanical point of view the class table could stop at level 4. Again, the fighter lacks flexibility, and while he has 11 more feats to spend than other characters, these feats require you to specialize in a single field (damage output, battlefield control, ...) and often a single weapon.
well one of my player made a pretty balance one Grappler/rangefocus/defender :D
I see. But what does the fighter do if the hd-hf-t-fh decides to take to the air? To make fly-by attacks or something? Sure, if he's hung like a christmas tree full with magic items he probably has boots of flying or somesuch. There's a saying in english (sorry if i maim it) you like people by their talents but love them by their defects... If he get in a bad situation that's cool, an IMO is alot of fun :D (I feels like yester day when my pali (:cloud9But what works well against monsters, becomes a liability at best and a fatal flaw at worst against classed NPCs. A wizard (or other caster, for that matter) hit by a Disjunction is stripped of all protection and buff spells, as is the fighter. However, in addition, the fighter probably loses over 3/4th of his magical gear in the process which leaves him stranded. The casters can still cast their spells, but the fighter is effectively removed from the game.
Two words Vow Of Poverty...no wait...Perhaps. :PBut isn't the CW samurai only a fighter with predistributed bonus feats? :P
THAT'S low
All in all it all come down to taste. Fighters are really fun to play IMO. and I wanna thank you for the chat I haven't been this active around here in ages (aside for P.issing people off) Enjoy your 4E and I hope it brings you countless hours of fun. As of me I have over 50 3.x books and I see no problems in them and God knows My party and me haven't even touch half of the material we have (I swear there's like 50+ PrC and about 4-5 base classes that we haven't touch yet)
The 4e MM has an entry for Human Guard, a 3rd level soldier. Two of these should pretty easily kill a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-level player character.
Oh? I assumed they´d be of NPC status.
I'd suggest: "providing a fun and entertaining class, that is not locked into being a stupid one trick pony or punished for the rest of the character's life for a bad feat choice made at level 1, and allows the player to participate and contribute in encounters that are not centered around splitting skulls".
But your mileage may vary.
-Should fighters not have their primary focus on hitting things with their weapons? Yes or no?
// Edit:
Actually, your statement is dead wrong.
-What, Fighters fight, or toasters toast toast? Both seem to be right on.
Why do clerics have spells other than Cure X Wounds on their list? Why do rogues have other abilities but "Sneak Attack" and other skills besides Move Silently, Search, Open Lock, and Disable Device? Why can wizards cast spells other than Fireball and Magic Missile?
After all, clerics are for healing, rogues are for picking locks and disarming traps, and mages are for frying enemies. Options? Flexibility? Depth? Variety? Bullocks, that's crap nobody needs. :P
-I never said that Clerics are for healing, Rogues are for picking locks and disarming traps, and mages are for frying enemies. You did.
Well I don't know how......
-Take a picture of it...? When you can, of course.
-Should fighters not have their primary focus on hitting things with their weapons? Yes or no?
Now it is you who dodges the question. Should fighters be a fun class to play? Yes or no?
But if you insist... my answer is NO! Now matter what the primary focus of a class is, it should never sacrifice playability and its entertainment factor for that.
And if reaching that goal means that a class has to not be the ultimate be-all-end-all answer to twacking / sneaking / blasting / healing / whatyouvegot, then so be it. It can only become a better game for all.
A class uberspecialized in Craft (basketweaving) may be the ultimate basketweaving specialist you could ever imagine. However, if the only thing it possibly can do is weave baskets, being a member of this class quickly becomes very boring and lame when there are no baskets around to be woven.
-What, Fighters fight, or toasters toast toast? Both seem to be right on.
OneTrickPony, this is Lord Karsus. Lord Karsus, this is OneTrickPony. It seems you'll get along with each other just fine.
-I never said that Clerics are for healing, Rogues are for picking locks and disarming traps, and mages are for frying enemies. You did.
Short term memory challenged? Let me help you:
[...] What else are Fighters supposed to do asides for fight?
If you reduce one class to its very (primitive and stereotypical) basics and block and nay say any possible extension of their abilities with absurd arguments, then you have to do that to any and all classes.
Fine. Let's say the fighter is only there to hit orcs over their heads with a pointy metal stick. But what happens now to other valid fighter archetypes?
The cunning general who leads his army with a carefully planned strategy? Not a fighter.
The ruthless commando who performs special ops behind enemy lines for his king? Not a fighter.
The dashing musketeer (think "D'Artagnan") who fights with a rapier instead of an axe? Not a fighter.
If the fighter was not so utterly castrated regarding options we would never have had a need for classes like knight, swashbuckler, or marshal. The existence of theses classes only proves my point.
Heaven forbid we give the player an actual freedom of choice with the class he selected instead of shoving another half a dozen super-limited classes down his throat.
Now it is you who dodges the question. Should fighters be a fun class to play? Yes or no?
-Sure. I find them a fun class, when I play them. They are what they are. They run into combat and hit things with their weapons. They have lots of Hit Points, and versatility in combat. I don't expect them to be able to fly, polymorph, or breathe underwater. I expect them to hit things with their weapons, and not die after being hit by the attack of an enemy. None of which has anything to do with playability or entertainment value. Fighters can be fun and entertaining to play, and Pun-Pun, the end-all, be-all, isn't necessarily fun or entertaining to play.
But if you insist... my answer is NO! Now matter what the primary focus of a class is, it should never sacrifice playability and its entertainment factor for that.
-So, fighters shouldn't fight?
OneTrickPony, this is Lord Karsus. Lord Karsus, this is OneTrickPony. It seems you'll get along with each other just fine.
-Hello, OneTrickPony. How are you? Would you like a carrot?
Short term memory challenged? Let me help you:
-How does "What else are Fighters supposed to do asides for fight?" translate into "After all, clerics are for healing, rogues are for picking locks and disarming traps, and mages are for frying enemies."? That's reaching for straws to the umpteenth degree.
-Now, if they were called "Lock Pickers", "Healers" or "Enemy Blasters", this would be a different discussion. But, they're not.
That pure NPC´s do have less powerful classes is insubstantial to what my argument is about. I am trying to convey that PC´s in 3E still feel more like normal people in the low levels, than their 4E counterparts. You yourself basically summarized how you think they are different, I am just presenting my counterpoint that a good number of people, whose opinion I read in the last days, feel that having a "destined" character from level 1 is not necessary a good thing.
I look at it this way. When characters get to level 20, they choose an epic destiny. However, there is no guarantee that they will even survive to make it to that level.
Therefore, it's easy enough to say that your PC isn't starting off special and is making his/her own destiny, if that's what you want.
Sure, I also mean 3rd and 4ed.
Yes, it is possible to like both 3E and 4E. In fact, it doesn't seem all that uncommon.
I like 3E, and I like what I know so far of 4E.
I say yay to not needing heavy heavy multiclassing to get the concept you desire.
Agreed!
-Whoops. Didn't know I wrote it wrong.
That was a bit of a double joke--"Squadala Man" whips out an ancient scroll and states, "It is written, [insert whatever you want here]."No, but that's not what I pick a Fighter for.... and I'm dare say that my most powerful/interesting/intimidating NPCs have been fighters (with the exeption of a (red Wizard I did once)
To be honest, the last FR DM I had was quite on the optimization heavy side. We never had any problems with the melee brutes he threw at us (aside from the two seperate situations where two players decided to do something utterly stupid and suicidal
). However, whenever he put a caster against us it and that caster got initiative on us, it was always close to a TPK. And he usually used only Core material for his casters... ouch!
But you know it's true.
Yes one guy in my party actualy did a lonbow/greatsword Specialits
Would he have done the same if his melee choice was longsword and heavy shield? So that he couldn't switch from melee to ranged with (assuming Quick Draw) two free actions?
There's also a magical weapon property in Magic Item Compendium that becomes cold iron or adamantine and all that kind of stuff but i hear you....
Sorry, I admit I forgot about the things from the MIC.
I agree and that DOESN't have to be a bad thing. Look I have a player called Pedro Nicest guy ever BUT he's as sharp as a bowling ball I like him playing with my group but he doen'y like spell and the like so 9 out of 10 he plays Fighters and you know what he NEVER grows tired of them cuz u can customize him as you see fit (specially with books like CW and so on)
Does your player enjoy fighter PrC that focus on a certain aspect of combat? The options and flexibility I'm talking about wouldn't be in the same range of quantity and complexity as the 3.5 spellcasters (and imho shouldn't either).
Just a few more class options, that allow him to gain a few other stuff. A very short list of some of my ideas:
- allow him to add his half (or even full) class level to certain skills under a specific set of circumstances (like Diplomacy when dealing with a known military unit, or Intimidate when threatening someone with a weapon)
- grant him a class ability to grant bonuses to his allies (or force penalties upon his enemies) whenever he kills an opponent or makes a critical hit (moreale bonus/penalty to saves and attacks, fast healing)
- let him substitute his BAB (with appropriate feats) for certain skill checks (substitute Open Lock to simulate a clean strike to the mechanism instead of bashing the whole door to splinters; substitute Heal to simulate that he knows how to treat injuries he typically inflicts himself), even like 1/day would be fine
- give him a special Knowledge (warfare and tactics) skill that he can use to good effect (allow the skill to have synergy with spot and listen to notice ambushes; set fixed DCs for the skill to increase certain bonuses in combat, e.g. from high ground)
It's cool I was joking too ;) and I only use (or let my players use)BoED when I use BoVD that's a lil broken in itself (diciple of dispater, nuff said) and I have no (much) resenment with Bo9S if anything it will help in my case
Ah, ok.
I guess we can agree that all alignment themed books are equally broken. :DWell WS can be used to break doors and such....
You've got a point. But it's still woefully restricted.
I never said that 3.5 is flawless but luckly my players don't go all CO like that
I hope you understand that when I say that even I would never consider things like the H.I.V.E., the Hulking Hurler, or even PunPun to be usable in actual play. Pretty much anything in that league is only a thought experiment, a test of theoretical optimization - how much and how hard you can brake the system, if you take it that way.
But optimizing does not automatically have to mean that you work towards one of those theoretical builds. Optimization starts the moment you put the 14 in Int and the 13 in Con, and not the other way round.
It just always strikes me as a little... "hypocritical" when someone claims that casters should reign supreme, but in the next paragraph shoots down all my non-twinked spell combinations as powergamed and munchkin'ed and whatever.
But that a caster played up to his superhuman intelligence would actually use exactly these combos... naaah, what am I thinking?! :P
well one of my player made a pretty balance one Grappler/rangefocus/defender :D
How did this grappler/defender do against some of the more powerful monsters? I mean, even an "ordinary" purple worm has a +40 bonus on his grapple check at CR 12. That's basically unbeatable without really heavy optimization or magic.
There's a saying in english (sorry if i maim it)
Don't worry, I'm not a native speaker either.
you like people by their talents but love them by their defects...
If I were cynical I would add "... and see them die by their inabilities". :evillaugh
If he get in a bad situation that's cool, an IMO is alot of fun :D (I feels like yester day when my pali (:cloud9
I'm not sure I want to know how that had happened...
Two words Vow Of Poverty...no wait...
Vow of Poverty is a trice edged sword imho. First, you're bound by ridiculous roleplaying prerequisites (keeping your "exalted" status). Second, a gear-dependent class like most melee combatants gets relatively little from it, because important things (like flight or dimensional travel) cannot be gained from the Vow. Third, if you happen to be specialized in something other than a quarterstaff or club, you've just wasted 17+ levels worth of bonus feats.
;)
THAT'S low
Teasing. TEASING! :P
All in all it all come down to taste. Fighters are really fun to play IMO.
In a "low-powered" campaign, or a campaign with tight restrictions on magic (like iirc Ravenloft), I'd agree. In a "nukcing futs magic is teh leetz" setting like FR, I can only disagree.
and I wanna thank you for the chat I haven't been this active around here in ages (aside for P.issing people off)
You're welcome. I'll send the bill on monday. :P
Enjoy your 4E and I hope it brings you countless hours of fun.
I guess I'll see that on tuesday. ;)
As of me I have over 50 3.x books and I see no problems in them and God knows My party and me haven't even touch half of the material we have (I swear there's like 50+ PrC and about 4-5 base classes that we haven't touch yet)
And that is probably the decisive difference between us two. You've got a bookshelf full of splats for 3.5. I've got only the PHb (because I was only a player, not a DM). I lose basically nothing from going full 4E compared to players like you.
-Sure. I find them a fun class, when I play them.
Good for you.
They are what they are. They run into combat and hit things with their weapons.
... and stfu and sit in the corner outside of combat.
They have lots of Hit Points,
Not a real argument.
Paladins have just as much, can also hit stuff with a pointy stick, and have spells, better skills, and something like "social abilities".
Barbarians have more, hit stuff usually much harder with their pointy sticks, have better skills, and can actually get along in the wilderness.
and versatility in combat.
And once their feats are selected they are set in stone - and by RAW not even a Wish could change that - and lose their flexibility and are forced to run on the rails they built themselves with their feats.
I don't expect them to be able to fly, polymorph, or breathe underwater.
Do you even read my posts? Or shall I spell it out in size 30 bright red letters what I'm talking about? I'm neither arguing for the fighter to become a second monk with absurd nonmagical magical abilities.
I expect them to hit things with their weapons, and not die after being hit by the attack of an enemy. None of which has anything to do with playability or entertainment value.
Depending on the setting, I beg to differ. The fighter fails in a wilderness campaign, because of the lack of wilderness skills (Know. Nature, Survival, Spot). The fighter fails in a social campaign, because of the lack of social skills (Bluff, Sense Motive, Gather Information). The fighter fails in a mystery campaign, because of the lack of knowledge skills (well, duh).
Being the "5ft step full attack" bot doesn't sound like fun to me.
Fighters can be fun and entertaining to play, and Pun-Pun, the end-all, be-all, isn't necessarily fun or entertaining to play.
You fail at understanding practical optimization. You fail to understand that the H.I.V.E, the Hulking Hurler, PunPun, and all the other abominations created by the CO board were never meant to be actually used in a game.
Those builds are theoretical in nature, thought experiments to show how much and how hard one can break the system. Nothing more, nothing less.
-So, fighters shouldn't fight?
You fail at logic. "A implies B" does not automatically mean "B implies A".
-How does "What else are Fighters supposed to do asides for fight?" translate into "After all, clerics are for healing, rogues are for picking locks and disarming traps, and mages are for frying enemies."? That's reaching for straws to the umpteenth degree.
Fixed that emphasis for you.
And a special prize for ignoring the obvious intent of my point on purpose.-Now, if they were called "Lock Pickers", "Healers" or "Enemy Blasters", this would be a different discussion. But, they're not.
Let's see what wiki tells us, shall we?
Fighter: "[...] This class may also be referred to as Fighter, as in Dungeons and Dragons. It is sometimes also referred to as a Knight, although in some games this is a separate class with a more chivalric aspect. The Warrior is skilled in combat, and usually can make use of some of the most powerful heavy armor and weaponry in the game. As such, the warrior is a well-rounded physical combatant. [...]"
Sounds pretty clear. Fighters are only about weapons and armor and combat skills.
Now, because you basically support this rather limited definition to the "umpteenth degree", let's take a look at the other three.
Rogue: "The Thief or Rogue is a character class in many role-playing games, including Dungeons & Dragons, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft and many MMORPGs. Thieves are usually stealthy and dextrous characters able to disarm traps, pick locks, and perform backstabs from hiding. [...]"
Conclusion: rogues are only about stealth, picking lock, disarming trap, and backstabing enemies.
Cleric: "[...] Clerics are usually members of religious orders, with the original intent being to portray soldiers of sacred orders who have magical abilities granted by the gods. Most clerics have powers to heal wounds, protect their allies and sometimes resurrect the dead, as well as summon, manipulate and banish undead. [...]"
Conclusion: clerics are only about healing wounds, protecting and resurrecting allies, and smashing undead.
Wizard: "[...] The Wizard is a magical character class in many role-playing games and computer role-playing games. Wizards wield powerful magic spells, but are often physically weak as a trade-off. They are primarily based on wizards from assorted fantasy literature. [...]"
Conclusion: wizards are only about being squishy and frail, and throwing craploads of magic around.
You see, reducing classes to utterly stupid stereotypes that are exclusively focused on only one or two fields does harm the game. After all, if you reduce the fighter to only fighting because of the freaking name of the class you're putting him right in D2.
Just out of curiousity: if the class was called "basher", would you argue that they shouldn't be able to use piercing weapons?
... and stfu and sit in the corner outside of combat.
-Um...Okay.
Not a real argument.
-You are the only person making an argument. I am explaining what I expect of Fighters.
Paladins have just as much, can also hit stuff with a pointy stick, and have spells, better skills, and something like "social abilities".
Barbarians have more, hit stuff usually much harder with their pointy sticks, have better skills, and can actually get along in the wilderness.
-That's nice.
And once their feats are selected they are set in stone - and by RAW not even a Wish could change that - and lose their flexibility and are forced to run on the rails they built themselves with their feats.
-None of which changes the versatility in combat that the Figher class has.
Do you even read my posts? Or shall I spell it out in size 30 bright red letters what I'm talking about?
-I'd probably be better off if I didn't read your posts, but I don't possess that ability.
I'm neither arguing for the fighter to become a second monk with absurd nonmagical magical abilities.
-Nor am I. I, however, don't have preconcieved notions that Fighters should do anything more or less than fight. Hence their monkier. Fighter.
Depending on the setting, I beg to differ. The fighter fails in a wilderness campaign, because of the lack of wilderness skills (Know. Nature, Survival, Spot). The fighter fails in a social campaign, because of the lack of social skills (Bluff, Sense Motive, Gather Information). The fighter fails in a mystery campaign, because of the lack of knowledge skills (well, duh).
Being the "5ft step full attack" bot doesn't sound like fun to me.
-Just like the Stormwind Falalcy cites that optimization does not result in a character that "fails" when it comes to roleplaying, so too is the opposite true.
You fail at understanding practical optimization. You fail to understand that the H.I.V.E, the Hulking Hurler, PunPun, and all the other abominations created by the CO board were never meant to be actually used in a game.
Those builds are theoretical in nature, thought experiments to show how much and how hard one can break the system. Nothing more, nothing less.
-I understand that, which is why I brought Pun-Pun up. Just because he is "super kick ass" doesn't mean that he is fun to play in a game.
You fail at logic. "A implies B" does not automatically mean "B implies A".
-Actually, logic dictates that if A is B, than B is A.
-You didn't answer the question at hand, either.
]Fixed that emphasis for you.
-Ignoring your attitude problems, you haven't answered the question.
]Let's see what wiki tells us, shall we?
Fighter: "[...] This class may also be referred to as Fighter, as in Dungeons and Dragons. It is sometimes also referred to as a Knight, although in some games this is a separate class with a more chivalric aspect. The Warrior is skilled in combat, and usually can make use of some of the most powerful heavy armor and weaponry in the game. As such, the warrior is a well-rounded physical combatant. [...]"
Sounds pretty clear. Fighters are only about weapons and armor and combat skills.
Now, because you basically support this rather limited definition to the "umpteenth degree", let's take a look at the other three.
Rogue: "The Thief or Rogue is a character class in many role-playing games, including Dungeons & Dragons, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft and many MMORPGs. Thieves are usually stealthy and dextrous characters able to disarm traps, pick locks, and perform backstabs from hiding. [...]"
Conclusion: rogues are only about stealth, picking lock, disarming trap, and backstabing enemies.
Cleric: "[...] Clerics are usually members of religious orders, with the original intent being to portray soldiers of sacred orders who have magical abilities granted by the gods. Most clerics have powers to heal wounds, protect their allies and sometimes resurrect the dead, as well as summon, manipulate and banish undead. [...]"
Conclusion: clerics are only about healing wounds, protecting and resurrecting allies, and smashing undead.
Wizard: "[...] The Wizard is a magical character class in many role-playing games and computer role-playing games. Wizards wield powerful magic spells, but are often physically weak as a trade-off. They are primarily based on wizards from assorted fantasy literature. [...]"
Conclusion: wizards are only about being squishy and frail, and throwing craploads of magic around.
-What? And, what does WoD, Final Fantasy, and assorted other tangents have to do with Dungeons and Dragons, and specifically, the Forgotten Realms?
You see, reducing classes to utterly stupid stereotypes that are exclusively focused on only one or two fields does harm the game. After all, if you reduce the fighter to only fighting because of the freaking name of the class you're putting him right in D2.
-Answer me, then: What else should Fighters be able to do, asides for fight?
Just out of curiousity: if the class was called "basher", would you argue that they shouldn't be able to use piercing weapons?
-Depends on the write-up of the class.
[...] I am explaining what I expect of Fighters.
As am I. You are, apparently, expecting them to have no other abilities besides "attack roll, damage roll, attack roll, damage roll, ...".
-None of which changes the versatility in combat that the Figher class has.
I don't get it. Perhaps I'm too smart for it. Why in all Nine Hells are people saying the 3.5 fighter with his 3 or 4 tricks he can reliably pull off is fine, but whine about how a 4E wizard with 14 utility spells and 12 (or so) daily spells was weak and restricted?
How can you call the first "versatility", and the second "restricted"?
If you want to be really good at something (tripping, grabbling, damage output, ...) you have to invest more than 1 feat. Often it takes 3 or more feats to get to the peak ability of a certain combat maneuver, which completely eats the fighter's "flexibility" up.
And in contrast to spellcasters, he cannot even "prepare for an emergency", because by RAW he cannot swap his feats or change the weapon his feats apply to. It's like a wizard who cannot would have to select what spell he prepared in which spell slot and was stuck with this choice for the rest of his life.
-Nor am I. I, however, don't have preconcieved notions that Fighters should do anything more or less than fight. Hence their monkier. Fighter.
You are reducing them to a single meme because of the class's name. You completely ignore any possibility of a fighter having other options at all.
And you conveniently ignored the last 1/3rd of my last post where I was just talking about that.
-Just like the Stormwind Falalcy cites that optimization does not result in a character that "fails" when it comes to roleplaying, so too is the opposite true.
Ok. Then you always metagame? How does a fighter without Survival get along in a desert? How does a fighter without Sense Motive get a hint that the baron is lying? How does a fighter without Knowledge know that a vampire's bite is extremely dangerous?
I was only talking about the practical application of skill checks, not about roleplaying. The one has nothing to do with the other.
-I understand that, which is why I brought Pun-Pun up. Just because he is "super kick ass" doesn't mean that he is fun to play in a game.
Are you just baiting now, or do you really not understand what I try to explain?
I DON'T WANT THE FIGHTER TO BE "SUPER KICK ASS". I ONLY WANT HIM TO BE USEFUL WHEN TIME IS NOT MEASURED IN ROUNDS. I WANT HIM TO HAVE UTILITY ABILITIES THAT ARE USEFUL OUT OF COMBAT.
Which, actually, he currently is not. He has not class abilities that provide usefulness out of combat. He cannot contribute to a situation with skills, well, because he has no useful ones.
-Actually, logic dictates that if A is B, than B is A.
Please, don't talk about things you don't understand.
Think for a second about what you're statement means with the following statements A and B:
A = My brakes don't work.
B = I have a crash.
A -> B: My brakes don't work -> I have a crash.
B -> A: I have a crash -> my brakes don't work.
According to your "logic", every crash automatically means that the brakes are malfunctioning. Which is obviously not true (the driver could be sleeping or been drinking, a tyre could have blown, ...).
Even with substituting "is" for "implies", your statement falls apart:
A = Square
B = Rectangle
A is B: "Square is Rectangle" is true
B is A: "Rectangle is Square" is obviously false
-What? And, what does WoD, Final Fantasy, and assorted other tangents have to do with Dungeons and Dragons, and specifically, the Forgotten Realms?
See my point at the beginning of this post. You reduce the fighter to only what is generally considered the stereotypical basics of the class, willfully ignoring even the slightest chance of a fighter being something else than a stupid thug.
-Answer me, then: What else should Fighters be able to do, asides for fight?
Read my posts. My posts directed to you, and to Ody. I've given more than half a page of examples and repeatedly made my points. However, when you're ignoring my points - on purpose? - I can't help you.
You keep asking (baiting?) this single question "what else should the fighter do?" over and over again, totally oblivious to the examples and points I've given. With your utter restriction on beating up orcs (or other uglies), you invalidate several other common fighter archetypes (stated in my next to last post directed at you). You apparently cannot even understand what I try to get across (stated in my last post directed at Ody).
-Depends on the write-up of the class.
Take the fighter. Rename it to basher. Done. Now it's obviously a class made for "bashing", and you cannot bash with pointy sticks but only with blunt sticks, and therefore the fighter shouldn't be able to use pointy sticks. Or at least so would you likely argue, if I look at what your arguments so far have been.
. Even though palis(:cloud9 can heal and all that they are Resticted because of their alightments, they can't lie cheat use poison and such a fighter has no AL rescrictions. and mechanicaly a pali(:cloud9 as much as it hurt me to admit is non distinct from another out sidegear selection. Two fighters can be TOTALLY different.Also a Fighter can take have a Grapple check of 26 (A hopeful STR of 18 (+4),BA(12), Improved Grapple (+4), Clever Wrestling ( +2 for every category smaller than the enemyfor a +6 IIRC...) and i'm sure it can go higher but I cant remember how that Giant killer feat works...)
Now you start to see the real problem with Disjunction, and several other high-level spells, too.
If the party uses them, they lessen the fun of the game.
Behold, the arguent of the 4e Supporter. lessens the fun of the game.
Bull.
If that were true, then why have oyu played the game for so long? Were you not having fun?
Imho Disjunction is the DnD equivalent to a tactical nuclear weapon. Each side could bring them to bear, but no side actually does because of the unforseen consequences.
Heh, can't say I ever looked at it in that respect, but you've definitely got a point there.
RaW the spells stack. There's nothing even hinting at that they wouldn't. My point is, only because some people or groups do not actually suffer from those problems does not imply that the problems were not there to begin with.
I agree that usually spellcasters buffing the fighter or rogue is a much more sensible approach (that actually makes the party work together). However, some spells either only work on the caster (like Shapechange or Transformation).
Point taken there. Though to be honest, as a player and DM, polymorph and transformation like spells are on my definite avoid list. One successful dispel magic and you're probably utterly screwed and in a very bad position tactically. The few times Shapechange has come up in my games, the players used them to turn into dragons to fly the party back and forth over a canyon that was blocking their path, since they tend to view it as more of a utility spell these days.
Which is, coincidentally, my major gripe with it. DnD alignment is too weakly defined for an absolute mechanic like that.
Now, does any one of the following deserve to die a painful and agonizing death:
- the greedy merchant that trades with an evil magocracy to maximize his profits
- the abusive tavern owner who pays the girls poorly and beats them now and then
- the spartan mother who kills her underdeveloped, weak, and sick child after birth
- the egoistical nobleman who treats and abuses his household servants like slaves
- the desperate scoundrel who waylays merchants and travellers and strikes to kill if attacked
- the hungry orc who raids a farm to steal a pig in order to feed his mate and his three kids
? When you answer, assume that these are the most evil deeds those people have committed.
It's this hypocrisy about the BoED that ticks me off. "Ohnoes, hurting others is teh EVILZ, but let's go ahead and torture and maim and slaughter others because they don't agree on our perspective on 'How to treat others 101' ".
Yeah, staring into the abyss, and all that...
Eberron has proven that evil comes in shades of black, and that not every "evil" creature is a rampaging sociopath that slaughters everything that moves in its way - unlike, say, many PCs. :P
Even in the FR morality is highly flexible. Do you really think that PCs would refrain from buying some needed scrolls or potions from a Thayan enclave because "Thay was teh Evilz"? When the decision boils down to "do or die", I bet most characters would gladly pay the price for these Remove Curse and Remove Disease scrolls before succumbing to mummy rot, or something.
Of all those examples, I'd say the orc and the mother were the only ones I didn't think was deserving of death on some level... what that says about me, I'm not sure, but oh well. As to the slaughter of those on 'the other side' of the moral equation, that doesn't bother me that much when put in the context of there being definable and quantifiable measurements of that moral divide. The torture thing doesn't work, but I don't see there being any mention of that ever being acceptable for good in the BoED. As far as maiming goes, that was usually the result of the evil persons nature showing on the outside as well as the inside from what I recall of it, so...
As to PCs rampaging and slaughtering everything in their path... well, I'd definitely start moving them towards evil if they started doing that. If they complained, well, my best advice to them would be to get a DM who was more tolerant of the attack first, ask questions later mentality. Maybe I have a really different group of people gaming with me, but they tend to look at the source of stuff as quite important, and I've watched them toss perfectly good potions because they didn't want to taint themselves with something some evil cleric crafted, even if they were in his personal stores... they're generally more interested in destroying or redeeming magical items found in the Lairs of Evil (tm) rather than using them and giving me some excuse to trigger some evil side effect on them for using evil items... could be a holdover from some other DM, since I've never pulled anything like that on them. Makes for some interesting gaming, and has definitely made me re-tool some of the item creation rules to make it a bit easier on the wizard and cleric who generally make all of the groups magical items, usually by ignoring the XP cost thing, which I was never really that fond of in the first place.
If you reduce one class to its very (primitive and stereotypical) basics and block and nay say any possible extension of their abilities with absurd arguments, then you have to do that to any and all classes.
Fine. Let's say the fighter is only there to hit orcs over their heads with a pointy metal stick. But what happens now to other valid fighter archetypes?
The cunning general who leads his army with a carefully planned strategy? Not a fighter.
The ruthless commando who performs special ops behind enemy lines for his king? Not a fighter.
The dashing musketeer (think "D'Artagnan") who fights with a rapier instead of an axe? Not a fighter.
If the fighter was not so utterly castrated regarding options we would never have had a need for classes like knight, swashbuckler, or marshal. The existence of theses classes only proves my point.
Heaven forbid we give the player an actual freedom of choice with the class he selected instead of shoving another half a dozen super-limited classes down his throat.
That is an excellent point there.
Just like Wizard is the most focused Class in arcane magic.
Behold, the arguent of the 4e Supporter. lessens the fun of the game.
Bull.
If that were true, then why have oyu played the game for so long? Were you not having fun?
I've only seen Disjunction used once in a gaming session. The whole thing ground to a halt while the effects were worked out, and some people were really bitter about it for a long time after magic items they'd "worked hard for" became so much dead metal (cloth, parchment, etc.).
In my experience people avoided using the really "broken" stuff in a game, simply because of the trouble it caused. It's still worth amending or getting rid of it, simply because not everyone will realise the problems with it.
Why take the time to relearn all the new powers, rules, and abilities? Because it looks like once I have learned it all again it will be a ton of fun.
Regarding the repeated complaint about 4E servicing "powergamers"--I've recently read some good arguments that put forth that the opposite is true. For example, this system is trying to put everyone on the same page in terms of power, and it's supposed to be harder to make a character that "sucks" or is less effective than it should be. If that's truly the case, then the system is actually more helpful to people who aren't so good at character optimization.
Hence the argument that they have "dumbed down the game".
People who knew all the rules like the back of their hand had an edge over everyone else - now they've leveled the playing field and everyone is the same.
No power-gamers... no crap builds...
Everyone is a nice, neat cog that fits into the machine.
Not dissing the new rules here - I'm still looking forward to teach my two younger kids how to RP with them. I unfortunetly couldn't get my two older boys over here this weekend, and I didn't want to run a game just for the little ones (I wanted a couple of experienced players to help them along). I'll probably get a chance this Sunday on father's day... the HAVE TO do whatever I want that day.
Bwa Ha ha Ha!!! :evillaugh
I think these new rules are ideal for beginners - the've streamlined them to the point where there is no confusion anymore. Can't wait to see how they play...
I will have the best of three worlds #1 Forgotten Realms, #2 Golarion, #3 The 4e Core World. I am tired of being negative about a game. Hell I am in a great position, I now have a choice on what and where I want to play! Sure WotC Sucks, because of what they did to the Realms. Yet I still have almost every single 3.5 FR Product, and I downloaded alot of the 2nd edition FR product from the downloads section. So I am one happy camper!-My
18D
-I like the 4E rules. I try not to look at them with any pre-conceived ideas about them. Sure there are parts I don't like about them(Magic Items) But I am willing to be opened minded about them. And play this version of DnD. I am going to run the 4E Adventures that WotC is going to produce, in the assumed world not FR. when that's over. I will probably run Rise of the Rune Lords Adventure Path, OR Curse of the Crimson Throne by Paizo using parts of Pathfinder Alpha. But I may just run Red Hand of Doom in the Realms where the modual says to run it in the Realms, The shinning South!
-My
18D
sound good to me. a lot of people seem to like the core world. I wonder why?
Hence the argument that they have "dumbed down the game".
People who knew all the rules like the back of their hand had an edge over everyone else - now they've leveled the playing field and everyone is the same.
See, I don't see it in such a negative light. It shouldn't be easy to build a "crap character" in the first place. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just those who are highly adept with the rules.
sound good to me. a lot of people seem to like the core world. I wonder why?
I do actually like a lot of the 4E design principles, such as the world being "PoL". I am just not in favor of changing around an established setting (such as the FR) to fit different principles.
... and stfu and sit in the corner outside of combat.
Fighter: "[...] This class may also be referred to as Fighter, as in Dungeons and Dragons. It is sometimes also referred to as a Knight, although in some games this is a separate class with a more chivalric aspect. The Warrior is skilled in combat, and usually can make use of some of the most powerful heavy armor and weaponry in the game. As such, the warrior is a well-rounded physical combatant. [...]"
Sounds pretty clear. Fighters are only about weapons and armor and combat skills.
Rogue: "The Thief or Rogue is a character class in many role-playing games, including Dungeons & Dragons, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft and many MMORPGs. Thieves are usually stealthy and dextrous characters able to disarm traps, pick locks, and perform backstabs from hiding. [...]"
Conclusion: rogues are only about stealth, picking lock, disarming trap, and backstabing enemies.
Cleric: "[...] Clerics are usually members of religious orders, with the original intent being to portray soldiers of sacred orders who have magical abilities granted by the gods. Most clerics have powers to heal wounds, protect their allies and sometimes resurrect the dead, as well as summon, manipulate and banish undead. [...]"
Conclusion: clerics are only about healing wounds, protecting and resurrecting allies, and smashing undead.
Wizard: "[...] The Wizard is a magical character class in many role-playing games and computer role-playing games. Wizards wield powerful magic spells, but are often physically weak as a trade-off. They are primarily based on wizards from assorted fantasy literature. [...]"
Conclusion: wizards are only about being squishy and frail, and throwing craploads of magic around.
You see, reducing classes to utterly stupid stereotypes that are exclusively focused on only one or two fields does harm the game. After all, if you reduce the fighter to only fighting because of the freaking name of the class you're putting him right in D2.
Just out of curiousity: if the class was called "basher", would you argue that they shouldn't be able to use piercing weapons?
Oh, I see. So, you let your character be defined by his CLASS, rather than his personality. There is no 'stfu and sit in a corner' issue when one ROLE PLAYS. You can have all the feats, HPs, and skills for combat, and still participate in the non-combat stuff, because your character is more than just that. Unless you don't RP, then, well, I'm sorry. As far as I am concerned, the only thing stats and skills and feats and gear are for is combat/traps/locks. The rest is handled by RP and therefore not limited at all by what my class is. I've seen diplomatic barbarians and mooronic wizards as much as the typical fighter whow is all brains and no brawn and mage who is a source of intelligence.
Don;t let yourself be limited by numbers on paper. Role play your character and make it truly become a person.
See, I don't see it in such a negative light. It shouldn't be easy to build a "crap character" in the first place. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just those who are highly adept with the rules.
I agree, but I think is the DM responsability to make it enjoyble for every one. for instance: PrC are a privilege. DM has every right to say no to that PrC. If a Spell is over-powered.
DM has every right to say no to that spell and so on.
Now that being said I don't mind "over-powered PC as long as no one is stealing another's thunder and one gets "left behind" so to speak.
Rhee, it's not that hard to create a character that is effective even when you are new to the game. Even less when you have a good DM that helps you with that.
Of course.
Having help is always a good thing.I'm not sure what to think of the argument that the experts at CO should have an "edge" over those who aren't so good at CO, though. To me, if they have so much of an edge, that probably means there is plenty of room for error (that is, danger of making a "weak" character) at character creation. There shouldn't be options that are awesome and also some that are crappy--they should all be effective, at least if the challenge of D&D is in actually playing, not building effective characters.
So I think is futile to try making a system that prevents that because it's impossible, the best you can do is make a system that is fun to play, that's the best that can be done. And 3.5 is fun to play.
So I think is futile to try making a system that prevents that because it's impossible, the best you can do is make a system that is fun to play, that's the best that can be done. And 3.5 is fun to play.
I agree that there are always going to be some people who "have an edge", but I don't think trying to make a system that prevents that is pointless just because it might be impossible. I think trying to curb the problem (as 4E is attempting to do) is a step in the right direction.
Oh, I see. So, you let your character be defined by his CLASS, rather than his personality. There is no 'stfu and sit in a corner' issue when one ROLE PLAYS. You can have all the feats, HPs, and skills for combat, and still participate in the non-combat stuff, because your character is more than just that. Unless you don't RP, then, well, I'm sorry. As far as I am concerned, the only thing stats and skills and feats and gear are for is combat/traps/locks. The rest is handled by RP and therefore not limited at all by what my class is. I've seen diplomatic barbarians and mooronic wizards as much as the typical fighter whow is all brains and no brawn and mage who is a source of intelligence.
Don;t let yourself be limited by numbers on paper. Role play your character and make it truly become a person.
You didn't understand my comment. I was obviously tesing Lord Karsus, because in his opinions fighters are not allowed to have any other options and variety for their build. He says they should be only able to fight because they were fighters.
I was pointing out that reducing a class to a single, completely restricted role only because of the name of the class was, well, less than clever.
Also, you forget one thing. The stats of a character define his abilities. Of course you can roleplay your character no matter what class he is. However, the fighter suddenly saying "excuse me, mylord, but I think you are mistaken in that case; the royal decree from 1367DR clearly states that baronies are only to pay wartaxes when the kingdom has officially declared war, which is currently not the case" with Cha 8, Int 10, Diplomacy -1, and Knowledge (History) 0 is not only extreme metagaming, but also steals the spotlight from the characters who actually do have ranks in that skills.
You didn't understand my comment. I was obviously tesing Lord Karsus, because in his opinions fighters are not allowed to have any other options and variety for their build. He says they should be only able to fight because they were fighters.
I was pointing out that reducing a class to a single, completely restricted role only because of the name of the class was, well, less than clever.
Also, you forget one thing. The stats of a character define his abilities. Of course you can roleplay your character no matter what class he is. However, the fighter suddenly saying "excuse me, mylord, but I think you are mistaken in that case; the royal decree from 1367DR clearly states that baronies are only to pay wartaxes when the kingdom has officially declared war, which is currently not the case" with Cha 8, Int 10, Diplomacy -1, and Knowledge (History) 0 is not only extreme metagaming, but also steals the spotlight from the characters who actually do have ranks in that skills.
Well, something we agree on then. Asoutnding :D
This is exactly what I was talking about.
However, to get back on topic, I feel 4th edition is moving away from this. The books OVEREMPHASIZE combat, even more than previous editions (and therefore the mentality of kill-loot-kill) To me, power gaming is a bad thing. RP comes first and foremost and should be emphasized as such
Well, something we agree on then. Asoutnding :D
Yeah, really strange. Must be some wierd cosmic radiation or something...
:PThis is exactly what I was talking about.
What exactly do you mean? Your comment sort of conflicts with your previous statement... at least the way I read it.
Anyway, I still wonder what was so terrible about allowing a fighter more choice.
No, seriously. I'd like to hear actual mechanical or roleplaying reasons why giving a fighter more class skills ("as the PH fighter, but additionally select any two from: Diplomacy, Gather Information, Hide, Knowledge (history), Knowledge (royalty and nobility), Move Silently, Survival, and Spot") was bad.
Why giving him a selection of class abilities that broadened his scope of usefulness was bad.
Why giving him the actual mechanical foundation for being a good character to roleplay was bad.
Because as it currently stands, you cannot effectively play a fighter who is the scion of a noble family (lack of knowledge and social skills), or who stems from a frontier settlement (lack of wilderness skills), or who is part of a larger military organization (lack of leadership skills and abilities).
Currently (leaving splatbooks out), every "noble fighter" or "commander" is basically forced into the paladin class, as this class has the only mechanics that support the character's fluff (read: social skills and abilities affecting your allies). But that seriously doesn't fit for example a mercenary commander, or a renegade noble.
And every "dextrous swordsman" is forced into some wierd rogue/fighter multiclassing madness, which in return means that every "dextrous swordsman" automatically knows how to pick locks and disarm traps the most efficient way, and how to cut out your kidneys when you're not looking. :P
However, to get back on topic, I feel 4th edition is moving away from this. The books OVEREMPHASIZE combat, even more than previous editions (and therefore the mentality of kill-loot-kill)
Because combat is the only thing that necessarily requires to be put into rules and defined in a very strict and clear way.
How well a character can play an instrument, sing, or smith can usually completely be regarded as fluff, thus saying "Bob plays the lute like no other, but his voice turns milk sour in a moment" is enough, or can be easily houseruled with a "skillful" ability check (1d20 + 1/2 level + ability mod + 5 (if background indicates a strong talent or training in this profession)).
To me, power gaming is a bad thing. RP comes first and foremost and should be emphasized as such
I think the PH and DMG put sufficient pages towards aiding and encouraging new players in roleplaying. If you want an actors' guide, you probably should be looking elsewhere. :P
Also, the fact that all classes now work very similar to each other (not only in power level, but also in mechanics) makes sytem mastery far less important. In 3.5 the casters were especially prone to this problem, that a player with a strong grasp of the spells and class features could easily do better than a similar character played by a newbie. Which, in the end, works to prevent powergaming as there is no real benefit to be gained from intensive system mastery (yeah, yeah, I've seen the issue with Blade Cascades already :P )
My first 4E game went great. I loved my high int, high, wis decent str dwarven wizard (29 HP also;). Thunderwaving those kobolds was alot of fun. More comments to come.
I saw this link http://www.gamegrene.com/node/20?fro...ts_per_page=70 and laughed. I loved the "3E is going to be like a video game on paper" comment. :D
That link pwnz! :PMy first 4E game went great. I loved my high int, high, wis decent str dwarven wizard (29 HP also;). Thunderwaving those kobolds was alot of fun. More comments to come.
29 HP? You took Toughness, right? Anyway, happy gaming... and show them kobolds what's coming at them! :DI saw this link http://www.gamegrene.com/node/20?fro...ts_per_page=70 and laughed.
MarkusTay63 = rabbitman?
MarkusTay63 = rabbitman?
-The dislike of the 4e Forgotten Realms (remember, he likes the 4e ruleset) is hardly confined to one or two individuals.
-Anyway, this is the best response there:
2nd Edition AD&D is by far the worst RPG ever made. It was a money-making piece of crap, and those of you who defend it have supported its crap. Now it is time for something that is truly playable and fun to take its place -- I hope that is D&D 3E. I am waiting for my PH to come in the mail, but from what reviews I have seen, it is a very promising time for D&D.
Give up 2nd Edition AD&D and move to 3rd. Its time to change.
-It's telling on so many different levels.
I've played 2nd edition and never had any problems with it.
Why switch then? (just curious)
sound good to me. a lot of people seem to like the core world. I wonder why?
Because they haven't screwed it up.
Yet. ;)
Because they haven't screwed it up.
Yet. ;)
I rather think there are several other reasons. My personal feel is that the general flavor of the core world is highly inspired by Barsaive (the core region from the EarthDawn rpg).
First, the world is not completely mapped. There are actually only a few spots that are well known, and the rest of the world is basically a huge unknown. This encourages exploration and expeditions, and the DM can easily drop a huge ruin, destroyed bridge, devastated rain forest, necrotic lake, etc into the game as needed, without being bound by some freaking map screaming "there is no bridge" at him.
Second, PCs are something special. Yes, there are level 3 human guards. But non of them can even remotely match the power of a level 3 fighter. Also, magic users are really special, and not some run-of-the-mill occurance. This is quite unlike how especially the FR are often perceived: that a level 8 wizard PC cannot go anywhere without meeting a level 10 wizard NPC. The realms are so saturated with low- to mid-level NPCs having PC classes that one more paladin or sorcerer barely stands out.
Third, the world is dangerous. It says in the DMG that all civilized (read: player) races generally (need to) work together and help each other out. This encourages cooperation and a feel of unity. Not unlike certain other settings, where for example some elves are sitting on their island, guarded by mythals and several dragons. There's no race that's ultimately better off than any others, creating a certain sense of equality.
I rather think there are several other reasons. My personal feel is that the general flavor of the core world is highly inspired by Barsaive (the core region from the EarthDawn rpg).
First, the world is not completely mapped. There are actually only a few spots that are well known, and the rest of the world is basically a huge unknown. This encourages exploration and expeditions, and the DM can easily drop a huge ruin, destroyed bridge, devastated rain forest, necrotic lake, etc into the game as needed, without being bound by some freaking map screaming "there is no bridge" at him.
Second, PCs are something special. Yes, there are level 3 human guards. But non of them can even remotely match the power of a level 3 fighter. Also, magic users are really special, and not some run-of-the-mill occurance. This is quite unlike how especially the FR are often perceived: that a level 8 wizard PC cannot go anywhere without meeting a level 10 wizard NPC. The realms are so saturated with low- to mid-level NPCs having PC classes that one more paladin or sorcerer barely stands out.
Third, the world is dangerous. It says in the DMG that all civilized (read: player) races generally (need to) work together and help each other out. This encourages cooperation and a feel of unity. Not unlike certain other settings, where for example some elves are sitting on their island, guarded by mythals and several dragons. There's no race that's ultimately better off than any others, creating a certain sense of equality.
Well it IS your realms ;) you can do whatever you want (see Ody's Up coming campaing thread of an example how i'm making my own FR :cool
I saw this link [url]My first 4E game went great. I loved my high int, high, wis decent str dwarven wizard (29 HP also;). Thunderwaving those kobolds was alot of fun. More comments to come.
Do share them.
First, the world is not completely mapped. There are actually only a few spots that are well known, and the rest of the world is basically a huge unknown. This encourages exploration and expeditions, and the DM can easily drop a huge ruin, destroyed bridge, devastated rain forest, necrotic lake, etc into the game as needed, without being bound by some freaking map screaming "there is no bridge" at him.
A necrotic lake. Hmm, that's a good idea...
I like the core world.
Toughness is correct. The guy is a rather surly (8cha) dwarf who is as tough as nails. I carry my warhammer around "just in case". It is alot of fun so far.
Can't trust Delfina espcially since my insight check let me know something was "off" about her. Homeless elf that sells flowers indeed!
We have a tiefling warlord that may be the laziest pc ever. He stayed in one spot giving us "orders" and basically hellping us with his inpiration abilities. He is a very dour fellow as well.
The rogue was a real swashbuckler, moving all over the place until he was imobilized. The pally rolled horribley the whole time and was just a meat sheild. That was just due to rolls though. His needs to switch his stats around since he did not realize he needs str to hit thing with some prayers and cha for other prayers. The fighter was doing pretty nicely too. I just wished the DM bunched up the kobolds in more than pairs. I wasn't as effective as I could be and ended up just killling 3 minions and taking out a skirmisher. The rping in town was alot of fun.
The dwarves ability to healing surge as a minor action and not a standard action is pretty nice. The pally is a dwarf so he will benefit greatly from it. The rogue is a human and has got three at wills and is pretty versatile. Backstabber seems to be a must have for rogues, d8s instead of d6's? Yes please. He had fun using his cha skills and be a kick butt guy.
A necrotic lake. Hmm, that's a good idea...
I like the core world.
-I always knew you are the
:D Yeah I like the Points of Light Setting. You should have see my groups faces when I said that loot is worth ONLY 25% of its gold piece value! :evillaugh 
I guess 4E isn't about the PHAT LOOTZ! :P I am going to build off of Fallcrest. 18DELTA
-I always knew you are the
18DELTA
Yeah, Fallcrest is a neat little town!
18DELTA
Yep. Magic items are nice but are not really needed to have fun or to beat the bad guys.
-Yeah some of the guys I game with suffer from the "golf bag syndrome"
They try to keep 15 different things for every situation. Now that it's 3 times a day at epic level for the items special powers, well the golf bag just isn't as powerful anymore! :D Then I got the Christmas Tree player also. Their PC is like a christmas tree with all the bells and whistles going off. One thing I like about the Pathfinder Rules, is for right now one can only have 3 buffs going at one time! :P ;)18DELTA
[...] I also had their gear "level up" with them. My players were happy and it really never broke my game. [...]
If you really liked that idea, you could perhaps take a look at EarthDawn. It has a similar mechanic basing on "thread weaving".
Each discipline (class) in EarthDawn is inherently magic, and can - from a certain point on - weave magical connections (threads) into special items. The more threads an adept (follower of a discipline) has woven into an item, the more powerful the item becomes.
The bonuses, however, only work for the person who wove the threads.
You can improve weapons, armor, cloaks, boots, bracers, earrings, etc with that system, and it's a very good idea imho. It serves the exact same purpose you mentioned.
And I'm sure, with a reasonable explanation it could work in DnD as well - as long as you don't have any "but that's not DnD" whiners at your table.
:P ;)Luckly me neither.
You do realize that that was including the DM? ;)
And they don't mind Disjunction since they know sooner or later they'll get something in return.
Why in the Nine Hells should any sane PC want to use Disjunction? A chained targeted Greater Dispel Magic is basically just as good for getting rid of enemies' buffs, without nuking possible loot, or grinding the game to a halt as the DM has to make dozens of will saves and recalculate the enemies' stats.
I use Disjunction as a tactical challenge to them,
But Disjunction does not challenge the party. Disjunction puts up absolutes.
I'm sure especially characters with a weak will save are terribly proud of you to take away basically all their hard earned magic items. The minimum DC against Disjunction is 23 (10 + 9 + 4), but a reasonably powerful NPC could easily reach a DC as high as 30.
to see how they fare without magic equipement.
Which means to completely take out any non-casters. The game is built with the assumption that characters of a certain level have access to a certain amount of magic items, including weapons, armor, and wonderous items.
Of course, if you then go back and have the party fight enemies from 5 or 6 levels ago, that's fine. :P
You do realize that that was including the DM? ;)
He was mentioning the players.
Why in the Nine Hells should any sane PC want to use Disjunction? A chained targeted Greater Dispel Magic is basically just as good for getting rid of enemies' buffs, without nuking possible loot, or grinding the game to a halt as the DM has to make dozens of will saves and recalculate the enemies' stats.
Ladies and gentlement, we have a lootnatic here :P.
Not everything is about the loot, hell in my games I rarely use the loot tables and just handle the kind of treasure that would be important for the party. The money they would get comes mostly from the quest rewards and for one or two magic items I put that are going to be sold.
And as soon as any player gets MD I start keeping two stat blocks for NPCs. And believe me, sometimes the best option for my players is to cast MD, they've learned that lesson after a couple of cursed items.
But Disjunction does not challenge the party. Disjunction puts up absolutes.
It does, and I have many years of experience to know that.
I'm sure especially characters with a weak will save are terribly proud of you to take away basically all their hard earned magic items. The minimum DC against Disjunction is 23 (10 + 9 + 4), but a reasonably powerful NPC could easily reach a DC as high as 30.
They now I'm going to be fair with them after I pull that trick and they never protest. They know that MD is not I destroy everything to laugh at your disgrace but: I stole your equipement, you are going to get it in a fashion after a while.
Which means to completely take out any non-casters. The game is built with the assumption that characters of a certain level have access to a certain amount of magic items, including weapons, armor, and wonderous items.
And that's why I custom build everything, based on what I'm going to do.
Of course, if you then go back and have the party fight enemies from 5 or 6 levels ago, that's fine. :P
I usually do. The capture scene is one of those examples.
Because as it currently stands, you cannot effectively play a fighter who is the scion of a noble family (lack of knowledge and social skills), or who stems from a frontier settlement (lack of wilderness skills), or who is part of a larger military organization (lack of leadership skills and abilities).
Currently (leaving splatbooks out), every "noble fighter" or "commander" is basically forced into the paladin class, as this class has the only mechanics that support the character's fluff (read: social skills and abilities affecting your allies). But that seriously doesn't fit for example a mercenary commander, or a renegade noble.
And every "dextrous swordsman" is forced into some wierd rogue/fighter multiclassing madness, which in return means that every "dextrous swordsman" automatically knows how to pick locks and disarm traps the most efficient way, and how to cut out your kidneys when you're not looking. :P
That is what cross class skills were for. You want to play a fighter as an intelligent Mercenary Commander, fine. Put a decent score in INT, then use the extra skill points on the knowledge and social skills. Combine that with a decent CHA, and you have your intelligent commander. You may not have a super high DEX or STR, but hey, you would have the same problem with a paladin.
And, as for your dextrous fighter, well, you COULD go the route of F/R, or you could go with high DEX, Weapon finesse, Weapon Focus Rapier, Improved Critical Rapier, and Improved Intiative. If you WANt Rogue levels for sneak attack, fine, take em, and if you don;t want the Open Locks, etc, don;t put points in em and don;t use em.
Because combat is the only thing that necessarily requires to be put into rules and defined in a very strict and clear way.
How well a character can play an instrument, sing, or smith can usually completely be regarded as fluff, thus saying "Bob plays the lute like no other, but his voice turns milk sour in a moment" is enough, or can be easily houseruled with a "skillful" ability check (1d20 + 1/2 level + ability mod + 5 (if background indicates a strong talent or training in this profession)).
I think the PH and DMG put sufficient pages towards aiding and encouraging new players in roleplaying. If you want an actors' guide, you probably should be looking elsewhere. :P
Also, the fact that all classes now work very similar to each other (not only in power level, but also in mechanics) makes sytem mastery far less important. In 3.5 the casters were especially prone to this problem, that a player with a strong grasp of the spells and class features could easily do better than a similar character played by a newbie. Which, in the end, works to prevent powergaming as there is no real benefit to be gained from intensive system mastery (yeah, yeah, I've seen the issue with Blade Cascades already :P )
Actually 4e barely mentions role playing. Space that should have been given to explaining RP, providing an example or two, etc, is instead devoted to ads for the RPGA and DDI.
The entire book focuses on killing things and taking their treasure. That, is a bad thing for a new player to learn.
I rather think there are several other reasons. My personal feel is that the general flavor of the core world is highly inspired by Barsaive (the core region from the EarthDawn rpg).
First, the world is not completely mapped. There are actually only a few spots that are well known, and the rest of the world is basically a huge unknown. This encourages exploration and expeditions, and the DM can easily drop a huge ruin, destroyed bridge, devastated rain forest, necrotic lake, etc into the game as needed, without being bound by some freaking map screaming "there is no bridge" at him.
Second, PCs are something special. Yes, there are level 3 human guards. But non of them can even remotely match the power of a level 3 fighter. Also, magic users are really special, and not some run-of-the-mill occurance. This is quite unlike how especially the FR are often perceived: that a level 8 wizard PC cannot go anywhere without meeting a level 10 wizard NPC. The realms are so saturated with low- to mid-level NPCs having PC classes that one more paladin or sorcerer barely stands out.
Third, the world is dangerous. It says in the DMG that all civilized (read: player) races generally (need to) work together and help each other out. This encourages cooperation and a feel of unity. Not unlike certain other settings, where for example some elves are sitting on their island, guarded by mythals and several dragons. There's no race that's ultimately better off than any others, creating a certain sense of equality.
OK, to your first point, FR had plenty of places to drop convienent ruins before WOTC decided to shrink the map in 3rd ed. And even with that, I've not met a single GM that did not find somewhere to plave their 'Tomb of Horrors' or 'White Plume Mountain' or 'Generic Dungeon 12345'. So, the only boundaries are those placed upon oneself, not by the game. Also, if you fell bound by these supposed barriers, why are you playing FR in the first place?
Point 2: PC's are important because the PLAYER makes them so, not by gift of their freaking level. This idea that, by virtue of my having taken a fighter class I am special, is utter tripe. Ones actions, for good or ill, makes one special. Not that fact that they can cast spells or Power Attack. The PC is supposed to stand out because of what they do. Go look at ANY Movie or novel. Is John McClain special because he's a lvl 5 cop, or because of how he single-handedly defeats the plans of the thieves/terrorists who seize Nakatomi Plaza one Christmas Eve? Is Luke Skywalker special because he's a lvl 3 Fringer, or because he flies his x-wing into the trench of the Death Star and uses his fledgling control of the Force to guide his proton torpedo into the thermal exhaust port, destroying the Death Star? Is Frodo Baggins special because he is a lvl 5 rogue, or because he travels accross Middle Earth, struggling against the powers of the One Ring, to bring it to Mount Doom to destroy it? Hell, you cna even look at Sports. Alex Rodriguez, Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter, Emmet Smith, Mark Messier - all famous sports names, admired for their ACCOMPLISHMENTS and ACTIONS, not because they are hockey/baseball/basketball/football players.
Point three: i fail to see how this is different from 1st, 2nd, or 3rd ed D&D. Even in FR, where you had nations, mnany would work together. Evermeet (that island behind mythals with dragons you mention) has supporter Evereska agaisnt the Shades (bleech) with the help of Waterdeep. Silverymoon and the towns of the Silver Marches lent aid to fight off the drow invasion of Mithral Hall, and the King of Cormyr led a crusade containing armies from the Dales, Sembia, even orcs from Zhentil Keep, against the invasion fo the tuigans. Sounds like co-operation to me.
Actually 4e barely mentions role playing. Space that should have been given to explaining RP, providing an example or two, etc, is instead devoted to ads for the RPGA and DDI.
Saying silly things like this makes me think you don't even have the books.
Saying silly things like this makes me think you don't even have the books.
I have them and Keryth is right, RP is only present in one very small chapter in the PHB and barely there in the DMG, nothing at all in the MM.
The chapter in the PHB is going to be skipped by 90% of those who where hooked by the 4th = WoW propaganda because they only care about the rules and how to make the best build to kill monsters and loot stuff and be the most powerful character in the party.
Actually 4e barely mentions role playing. Space that should have been given to explaining RP, providing an example or two, etc, is instead devoted to ads for the RPGA and DDI.
The entire book focuses on killing things and taking their treasure. That, is a bad thing for a new player to learn.
In comparison to what, the 3.5 PHB? I'm flipping through it, now, and I can't seem to find anything at all talking about roleplaying. So what in the 3.5 PHB doesn't focus on killing things and taking their treasure? The 4E PHB, though, has a page titled "A Roleplaying Game", where they explain what a roleplaying game is. And later on in the character creation section the PHB talks about things like character personality traits, how your character responds to social interactions, your characters mannerisms, appearance, background, etc. The 3.5 PHB has about a page on page 110 (and even then, half of that talks about customizing your character mechanically. Not RP-wise). In comparison to that, which book has more to offer when it comes to giving new players tips on roleplaying?
I have them and Keryth is right, RP is only present in one very small chapter in the PHB and barely there in the DMG, nothing at all in the MM.
Saying silly things like this makes me think you haven't even read the books.
Check your 3e books. Now compare them to 4e.
I have them and Keryth is right, RP is only present in one very small chapter in the PHB and barely there in the DMG, nothing at all in the MM.
1. Because the 3.5 books had so much more regarding that topic. :P
2. Roleplaying tips? In the MONSTER MANUAL?
Are you really believing what you're typing, or was that your cat running over the keyboard?
The chapter in the PHB is going to be skipped by 90% of those who where hooked by the 4th = WoW propaganda because they only care about the rules and how to make the best build to kill monsters and loot stuff and be the most powerful character in the party.
Yeah... propaganda like the one you throw around in this very thread.
So, your argument goes something like "because people believe what I said, 4E is bad, and I was saying all the way that 4E was bad".
Which leads me to the believe that you didn't actually read the books either.
Check your 3e books. Now compare them to 4e.
Lost Empires of Faerûn, 80% fluff and roleplay options.
FRCS, fluff book.
BoED, great fluff on good aligned characters.
Power of Faerûn, fluff and more fluff with a lot of roleplay info.
Do you want me to continue?
Lost Empires of Faerûn, 80% fluff and roleplay options.
FRCS, fluff book.
BoED, great fluff on good aligned characters.
Power of Faerûn, fluff and more fluff with a lot of roleplay info.
Do you want me to continue?
Wow. Just wow. You're literally comparing apples to oranges. The Player's Handbook is supposed to be a rulebook for the game. A better comparison is 3.5 PHB to 4E PHB. And the 4E PHB discusses roleplaying far more then the 3.5 PHB does.
1. Because the 3.5 books had so much more regarding that topic. :P
Yes they do, read my previous post.
2. Roleplaying tips? In the MONSTER MANUAL?
Ecologies of the monsters, way of thinking, organization. Those are important things that make monsters be more than XP chunks.
Are you really believing what you're typing, or was that your cat running over the keyboard?
I do, and 2nd edition was even better at this.
Yeah... propaganda like the one you throw around in this very thread.
No, propaganda made by WotC to promote 4th edition. A DM from Chile that I know already has suffered from that propaganda. He invited a couple of his friends, who only played WoW and had looked at the 4th propaganda, and did the exact same things they would do during WoW, the first thing they tried to do was finding the NPC who had a shinny ! on top of it.
Which leads me to the believe that you didn't actually read the books either.
I've read the PHB and DMG and RP aspect was almost unexistant, compartimentalized so readers could skip them and not bother with the RP aspect of the game. 3rd edition books with RP elements mixed crunch and fluff together.
Wow. Just wow. You're literally comparing apples to oranges. The Player's Handbook is supposed to be a rulebook for the game. A better comparison is 3.5 PHB to 4E PHB. And the 4E PHB discusses roleplaying far more then the 3.5 PHB does.
In a single chapter that is going to be skiped by all the new players that have experience with MMORPGs. (excepting rare cases, who were going to be good RP even without that chapter).
In a single chapter that is going to be skiped by all the new players that have experience with MMORPGs. (excepting rare cases, who were going to be good RP even without that chapter).
So 4E is bad, because it talks about roleplaying more then the 3.5 PHB ever did, and had the temerity of putting all that information together in a clean and concise way?
So 4E is bad, because it talks about roleplaying more then the 3.5 PHB ever did, and had the temerity of putting all that information together in a clean and concise way?
No, what I'm telling is that chapter is just a smokescreen (like what politicians do all the time to increase their popularity without actually doing anything important), it's not going to be useful and it was included just so they could say how good they are by including a complete chapter with roleplaying information.
I live in Argentina and I'm well aware when something is a smokescreen because I've seen that trick being done for years and smokescreens don't decieve me.
No, what I'm telling is that chapter is just a smokescreen (like what politicians do all the time to increase their popularity without actually doing anything important), it's not going to be useful and it was included just so they could say how good they are by including a complete chapter with roleplaying information.
No no no, all the "fluff" in FRCS, Power of Faerûn, Lost Empires, etc. is just a smokescreen. It's not useful at all, it's there just so they could say how good they are by including chapters with roleplaying information.
Trust me.
No no no, all the "fluff" in FRCS, Power of Faerûn, Lost Empires, etc. is just a smokescreen. It's not useful at all, it's there just so they could say how good they are by including chapters with roleplaying information.
Trust me.
Yeah right....
One thing is producing fluff books for a setting by a group of authors who are specificaly do that job and which their purpose is to bring roleplaying information, another thing is including a very small (and it's really small) part of the book dedicated to RP just to say they care about roleplay (when it's not their objective because they want a piece of the MMORPG market and both purposes can't mix because MMORPGers don't care about RP and 90% of them even trear RP like they where trash) and use the rest of the space to put only mechanics (seriously, the 3rd edition MMs had more fluff than all 4th edition books put together) in a way that all the teenagers who are playing MMORPGs don't need to bother reading a single line of fluff mixed with their shinny mechanics.
This doesn't mean I'm not willing to be persuaded otherwise. Maybe the revamp will open up new vistas for D&D. It certainly seems better geared for online or other video game play, which might find a new incarnation in a few years. Since I enjoyed the hell out of Neverwinter Nights, there's always the chance that I will be persuaded by an enjoyable gaming experience (video or otherwise).
I hope those who enjoy the new books continue to do so. Not trying to kill another person's joy. Just, for me, not really motivated to plunk down the cash.
All previous editions to 4e, didn't need to make a distinction between fluff and crunch. They were intertwined because anyone picking up the books already knew it was a roleplaying game. And if they didn't know, it would soon become apparent. People didn't need to be spoon fed like they do now. The introduction page contained enough information to tell any prospective player what the game entailed and how it ran, just not the details. And if someone just couldn't figure it out, the DM was there to set things straight.
Player's Handbook - teach the rules of the game.
Dungeon Master's Guide - teach the DM how to run the game.
Monster Manual - detail the creatures of the world, where they live, how they live, how they interact with their neighbors (mostly absent with 4e), and detailing their abilities (all that 4e has...)
The purpose of each book is the same throughout the editions (except the 4e MM as outlined above). All 4e does is break it down Barney style so any 2 year old can understand, which on the surface sounds good, but what happens is that people expect to continue to be spoon fed after that. There is no longer any real thought or interpretation involved to make the game your own. You may as well play a video game...
4e rules put roleplaying in a box and it can't ever come out, making the fluff a slave to the crunch. For this reason I'll stick with 3.x.
Basically what it boils down to is, 4e is for beginners who don't want to put forth any effort and all previous editions are for those that want some detail or customizability or distinction between classes.
If you like 4e fine that's fine, enjoy.
That is what cross class skills were for. You want to play a fighter as an intelligent Mercenary Commander, fine. Put a decent score in INT, then use the extra skill points on the knowledge and social skills. Combine that with a decent CHA, and you have your intelligent commander. You may not have a super high DEX or STR, but hey, you would have the same problem with a paladin.
Cool. A perfect example of something that works well in 3.5 - on paper.
Please show me how to do that with a 28 point buy without castrating your combat abilities. Also, please show me how you can get cross-class skills quickly to a sufficiently high level so that they can actually make a difference in opposed checks or against the typical (high) DCs. Thanks.
And, as for your dextrous fighter, well, you COULD go the route of F/R, or you could go with high DEX, Weapon finesse, Weapon Focus Rapier, Improved Critical Rapier, and Improved Intiative. If you WANt Rogue levels for sneak attack, fine, take em, and if you don;t want the Open Locks, etc, don;t put points in em and don;t use em.
Interesting. And what about Tumble and Balance, the key skills for every "dextrous fighter" swashbuckler stereotype out there?
Actually 4e barely mentions role playing. Space that should have been given to explaining RP, providing an example or two, etc, is instead devoted to ads for the RPGA and DDI.
Please repeat after me: ROLEPLAYING IS WHAT THE PLAYERS AND THE DM MAKE OF IT.
And yeah, that 1/4 of a page those two sidebars take up is totally relevant to a 200something pages book.
The entire book focuses on killing things and taking their treasure. That, is a bad thing for a new player to learn.
No. Apparently you didn't bother to actually read the PH and DMG either, or you should return your books as defective because they are missing some pages.
What the heck do you think is the example of a skill challenge in the DMG for? To have the 3.5 bard grin, announce "I'm going to convince the baron to give us all his gol... uh... help", make a Diplomacy skill check and reduce the whole royal banquet scene to a single die roll?
Oh yeah, I really see how 3.5 encouraged roleplaying.
Oh yeah, I really see how 3.5 encouraged rollplaying.
-Fixed it for ya! Just didn't look right. ;)
18DELTA :D
I mean I own about 50 3.x books 4E just got 3 and in the 3E MM and maybe MMII it doesn't have Ecologies and that kind of crap.
In no way 4E restrain roleplaying (it might encourage rollplaying and looting pero no es lo mismo)
And if "all classes are the same"(that i do belive mind you) "how to make the best build to kill monsters and loot stuff and be the most powerful character in the party" can happen? they are all the SAME?
A lv 12 Fighter is the same sh*t that a lv 12 wizard so where are you wrong brother
Here: Don't bother with 4th edition, playing a Wizard is the same as playing a Fighter. There is no point on choosing. WotC could've just made one class and it would be the same.
or here: 4th = WoW propaganda because they only care about the rules and how to make the best build to kill monsters and loot stuff and be the most powerful character in the party.
Cool. A perfect example of something that works well in 3.5 - on paper.
Please show me how to do that with a 28 point buy without castrating your combat abilities. Also, please show me how you can get cross-class skills quickly to a sufficiently high level so that they can actually make a difference in opposed checks or against the typical (high) DCs. Thanks.
Point but sucks, period. It makes characters feel like carbon copies. I'll keep with 4d6, take the best 3, do it six times, thank you very much.
Interesting. And what about Tumble and Balance, the key skills for every "dextrous fighter" swashbuckler stereotype out there?
You ask your DM to replace Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency (that you aren't going to use anyway) with the change of both skills into class-skills.
What the heck do you think is the example of a skill challenge in the DMG for? To have the 3.5 bard grin, announce "I'm going to convince the baron to give us all his gol... uh... help", make a Diplomacy skill check and reduce the whole royal banquet scene to a single die roll?
What 4th edition calls skill challenges is something I've been doing with 3.5 my whole carrer as a DM, you don't even need a system or change the rules of 3.5 to do it, just common sense as a DM.
Oh yeah, I really see how 3.5 encouraged roleplaying.
What it encourages and 4th edition will never match is the flexibility needed to be able to create a character that can fit any possibility, it's the second most flexible character development system after classless systems like Storyteller. I hate systems that constrain you to create cookie-cutter characters (like WoW).
I mean I own about 50 3.x books 4E just got 3 and in the 3E MM and maybe MMII it doesn't have Ecologies and that kind of crap.
It may not have Ecologies, but at least it had something for them. The 4th edition MM doesn't has anything more than combat stats.
In no way 4E restrain roleplaying (it might encourage rollplaying and looting pero no es lo mismo)
Any system that kills flexibility and forces you to play a character as a straight jacket is a system that fails with the most important aspect of Role-Play: Choice. With 4th edition I can't create the infinite possible characters I can with 3rd edition because the system gimps characters who "multiclass". If a system doesn't allows me to create the character I want to play then it's a complete failure, no matter how good mechanics and overrated balance it has and that's the aspect I hate the most of 4th edition, how it forces you to play cookie-cutter characters without any chance of making something unique.
And if "all classes are the same"(that i do belive mind you) "how to make the best build to kill monsters and loot stuff and be the most powerful character in the party" can happen? they are all the SAME?
A lv 12 Fighter is the same sh*t that a lv 12 wizard so where are you wrong brother
Here: Don't bother with 4th edition, playing a Wizard is the same as playing a Fighter. There is no point on choosing. WotC could've just made one class and it would be the same.
or here: 4th = WoW propaganda because they only care about the rules and how to make the best build to kill monsters and loot stuff and be the most powerful character in the party.
The first quote is my opinion on the game, the seccond is WotC propaganda created to attract MMORPG players to the game, which is the most important objective of WotC with 4th edition. It's going to fail big time, I know how MMORPGERs think (I was one of them, although at least I know what Ultima Online is) and they love the graphics.
I have them and Keryth is right, RP is only present in one very small chapter in the PHB and barely there in the DMG, nothing at all in the MM.
The chapter in the PHB is going to be skipped by 90% of those who where hooked by the 4th = WoW propaganda because they only care about the rules and how to make the best build to kill monsters and loot stuff and be the most powerful character in the party.
It's more than "barely there" in the DMG. The "very small chapter" in the PHB is right there in the beginning, one of the first things that is theoretically going to be read. Neither of those are why I felt the need to reply though. May I ask, what exactly is it you want them to say about role-playing in the Monster Manual? :P
It may not have Ecologies, but at least it had something for them. The 4th edition MM doesn't has anything more than combat stats.
I just got my books today, so I'm just going to have to have to use the first thing in the Monster Manual. I hope this is breaking any copyright laws. If I do, sorry it wasn't my intention, just trying to make a point.
"The Aboleth is a hulking amphibious creature that hails from the Far Realm, a distant unfathomable plane. They live in the Underdark, swimming through drowned crannies and creeping through lightless tunnels and leaving trails of slimy mucus in their wake. Malevolent and vile, aboleths bend humanoid creatures to their will, and more powerful aboleths can transform their minions into slimy horrors."
I am also seeing a small section on "Aboleth Lore." I will admit this is not as much as we got from the 3.5 Monster Manual, but it's not large difference in actual substance in the MM, and it's certainly stuff that doesn't comprise "combat stats."
The 4E DMG in particular is leaps and bounds ahead of what we're given to work with in 3E.
Much more user friendly.
In 2002 I first listened to Nightwish (I'm sure you know that band, since it's from your country). I was able to but all their CDs and a couple DVD, they were unique (I was even able to go to their last concert in Argentina in 2004). When Tarja left the band and they brought the new singer I stoped buying anything from them. The new singer couldn't hold a candle to Tarja. It went from a unique sound to an Evanescense clone. And that's what 4th edition is for me, it's Nightwish without Tarja.
Or another musical analogy, 1st to 3rd edition where the Mozart of D&D while 4th is the Britney Spears (and I hate pop music, it's too shallow for my tastes).
I made up a few templated NPC baddies for my future games the other night. I find that making up characters helps me learn the system better. Anyway I looked through the higher end wizard spells and was happy to see how blur and other defensive spells work. Disguise self is a daily but it works for an hour. The rogues get some great at will utility exploits. So now my 2nd character I play has to be a half-elf rogue perhaps with some fey pact powers.
Many kids may pick this game up and strictly use it for dungeon crawls just like they did in the 70's and 80's. What will happen if they stick with it is that they will find other games and gamers that play differently than they do. They will learn to roleplay through other, or never learn since they just like hack n slash. I know a few 30/40+ gamers that are all about the combat and ifnore roleplaying. They played through 1E, 2E and 3E with no roleplaying because it was not their cup of tea. Books cannot teach you to want to roleplay, hell they really can't even teach you the basics IMO.
That's exactly why the statement that 4th edition promotes Roleplay just because it has a single separate chapter for it is a fallacy.
[...] In 2002 I first listened to Nightwish (I'm sure you know that band, since it's from your country). I was able to but all their CDs and a couple DVD, they were unique (I was even able to go to their last concert in Argentina in 2004). When Tarja left the band and they brought the new singer I stoped buying anything from them. The new singer couldn't hold a candle to Tarja. It went from a unique sound to an Evanescense clone. And that's what 4th edition is for me, it's Nightwish without Tarja. [...]
You know, this is just a perfect example of your "omg it changed therefore it's crap and never deserves a chance to proof itself" attitude.
Nightwish is better off without Tarja, anyway:
Show
Dear Tarja,
It's time to choose whether the story of Nightwish ends here or whether it will still continue an undetermined period of time. We've been working with this creation for 9 years and we are not ready to give up yet. Nightwish is a way of life, something to live for, and we're certain we can't let it go.
Equally certain is the fact that we cannot go on with you and Marcelo any longer. During the last year something sad happened, which I've been going over in my head every single day, morning and night. Your attitude and behavior don't go with Nightwish anymore. There are characteristics I would never have believed to see in my old dear friend.
People who don't talk with each other for a year do not belong in the same band.
We are involved in an industry where the business-side of things is a necessary evil and something to worry about all the time. We are also a band which has always done music from the heart, because of friendship and the music itself. The mental satisfaction should always be more important than money! Nightwish is a band, it's an emotion.
To you, unfortunately, business, money, and things that have nothing to do with those emotions have become much more important. You feel that you have sacrificed yourself and your musical career for Nightwish, rather than thinking what it has given to you.
This attitude was clearly shown to me in the two things you said to me in an airplane in Toronto: "I don't need Nightwish anymore." and "Remember, Tuomas, that I could leave this band at any time, giving you only one day's warning in advance".
I can't simply write any more songs for you to sing.
You have said yourself that you are merely a "guest musician" in Nightwish. Now that visit ends and we will continue Nightwish with a new female vocalist.
We're sure this is an equally big relief to you as it is for us. We have all been feeling bad long enough.
You told us that no matter what, the next Nightwish album will be your last one. However, the rest of us want to continue as long as the fire burns. So there's no sense in doing that next album with you, either.
The four of us have been going over this situation countless times and we have realized that this is the thing we want to do in life. It´s all we can do. In December 2004, in Germany, you said that you will never tour again for more than two weeks at a time. You also said that we can forget about U.S. and Australia because the fees and the sizes of venues are too small.
In interviews I've mentioned that if Tarja leaves, that would be the end of the band. I understand that people will think this way. Nightwish is, however, a scenery of my soul and I'm not ready to let go because of one person. A person who wants to focus her creativity to somewhere else, a person whose values don't match mine.
We were never bothered by the fact that you didn't participate in writing/arranging songs, you never in 9 years came to rehearse the songs with us before going to the studio. Not the fact that while on tour you always wanted to fly, separately from us with your husband. Not the fact that you are an undisputable front image of the band.
We accepted and felt ok about everything except greed, underestimating the fans, and breaking promises. It was agreed by the five of us that Nightwish would be the priority in everything that we do during 2004-2005. Still so many things were more important to you. The ultimate example being the already sold-out show in Oslo, which you wanted to cancel because you needed to rehearse for your solo concerts, meet frieds and go to the movies. Those were the words Marcelo used in an e-mail explaining the cancellation. This being just one example of so many. I couldn't think of a worse way of being selfish and dismissing our fans.
Nightwish is a way of life and a job with many obligations. To each other and to the fans. With you we can't take care of those duties anymore.
Deep within we don't know which one of you drove us to this point. Somehow Marcelo has changed you from the lovely girl you were into a diva, who doesn't think or act the way she used to. You are too sure of your irreplaceableness and status.
It's obvious that you blame your stress and misery on us four. And you think we don't respect or listen to you. Believe us; We have always had the uppermost respect towards you as a wonderful vocalist and as a friend. And very often during the past couple of years the plans were made according to your decisions only. You were always the only one who wanted more money from the shows.
This "compensation and more money from everything" -attitude is the fact that we are most disappointed of!
We wish that from now on you will listen to your heart instead of Marcelo. Cultural differences combined with greed, opportunism and love is a dangerous combination. Do not wither yourself.
This decision is not something we are especially proud of but you gave us no choice. The gap between us is too wide. And the decision is made by us four unanimously. We are beyond the point where things could be settled by talking.
All the best for your life and career,
Tuomas
Emppu Jukka Marco
I just hope they come with shield for this years concert in argentina because they are going to feel an egg rain (I'm not even bothering to go, it's a waste of money and I'm going to see Kiss).
BTW, weren't you leaving this thread for good? Because people who can't keep to their word aren't to be trusted.
The new singer can't sing a single Nightwish song that wasn't made to her voice. And Nightwish now is just a clone of Evanesence (and yes, I've listened to their new album and I've watched live shows and she is just another singer who can't hold Tarja's candles, and btw, she looks very stupid with those long socks).
I just hope they come with shield for this years concert in argentina because they are going to feel an egg rain (I'm not even bothering to go, it's a waste of money and I'm going to see Kiss)
So, to sum it up: you'd rather have an arrogant b*tch as a lead singer, who's dismissive of the fans, cancels concerts to meet with her friends, demands more money, doesn't care about the band, and generally sees her time with the band as a waste of time, than an idealistic woman who's into the band and singing with her full heart, and takes care for the band and the fans?
And that only because the former sounds a little better?
Good to know...
And at least in Argentina Tarja was always good with the fans (she signed autographs in all their concerts here) and it's the reason all the fans Nightwish had at that time aren't going to the concert unless it is to insult the new singer.
[...] to insult the new singer.
Which is a perfect way to show one's appreciation of the hard work and amount of time spent the band went through to provide the concert.
Of course, the "fans" always know everything better, be it soccer / roleplaying games / metal bands. Because the actual members of the soccer team / rpg company / metal band are completely unable to judge what fits their needs/style and what does not.
And never forget that the client is always right when it comes to what he wants to buy.
Saying silly things like this makes me think you don't even have the books.
Saying silly things like that makes me think you're a drooling 4e fanboy.
I have the books. I've read them. And Was annoyed by the RPGA and DDI ads in the 1st chapter or two.
No no no, all the "fluff" in FRCS, Power of Faerûn, Lost Empires, etc. is just a smokescreen. It's not useful at all, it's there just so they could say how good they are by including chapters with roleplaying information.
Trust me.
Saying silly thngs like tis makes me think yu don;t even have the books. :D
Yeah, but I bet your 3e books can't transform your wooden table into a full-fledged World of Warcraft raid. Pretty sweet.
Yea, that's JUST what I want. To spend 8-12 hours with a bunch of whiney, annoying people doing the same damned thing over and over again in the slim hopes that one piece of gear I need drops. No thank you. Raiding is boring, especially in WoW, which is why, after 3 years of playing it, I've moved on.
It was good to feel how role playing and all the other elements of a game such as dungeons and dragons could work together without it feeling to much like a lesson theoretical logic and mathematics. It was nice to be able to sit down with calm fun loving individuals who wanted to experience a fantasy world, and not just some combat scenerio where the object of the game was to be the first to kill everything in sight and not be afraid of dying because nothing can possibly hurt you.
It was also great to see that every class had something to offer and that no one class clearly dominated all aspects of play regardless of the level. It was also nice to see that adventuring could continue even after the wizard blew his load, because in this edition thats pretty much impossible. Buying and making magic items have never been more fun and less time consuming, I remember playing the last edition and just shopping alone took 2 to 3 hours and only got worse with each completed adventurer.
Tactical Warfare has always been the heart of dungeons and dragons and has been ever since the games predecessors were created, I do not even pretend to think of it as only a role playing game, I know all to well that combat is a very big part of it, but after experiencing 3ed combat, where things never seemed quiet balanced, I'm glad for 4e has corrected this.
To me 4e is like that song you just never wished stopped while 3ed was that cute pop song that everyone played until it got played out and now hearing it is a time for laughter for how weird and bad it was.
I also enjoyed how it rewarded non combat skill encounters, whether they be physical or social skills. Also informing DMs how to rewarded quest completions and divide gold between levels was so good it encouraged me to even consider Dming, I felt less taxed and time consumed in comparison to 3.5, where I would much rather run a module than come up with any of the neat story ideas I day dream about nearly constantly day in and day out.
When everybody is special nobody is special.
And it's funny that you mention music, because for me 3rd and earlier editions are like Mozart (complex and unique) while 4th is Britney Spears (simple, made in a production line of pop artists and repetitive).
Yea, that's JUST what I want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
It was good to feel how role playing and all the other elements of a game such as dungeons and dragons could work together without it feeling to much like a lesson theoretical logic and mathematics. It was nice to be able to sit down with calm fun loving individuals who wanted to experience a fantasy world, and not just some combat scenerio where the object of the game was to be the first to kill everything in sight and not be afraid of dying because nothing can possibly hurt you.
-Of course, what you just described has no bearing on the ruleset, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
-I think one of the best things is people not picking up on sarcasm. Makes me chuckle.
The new rule set makes designing the type of character I want to play a lot easier. If I want to be a Fighter who knows a lot about the Arcana, I can simply take a feat or if I pick the right race pick it up as a additional skill. With it I no longer have to freight about not having enough skill points to make sure it isn't a wasted affront to a character concept. I don't have to do this to qualify for any prestige class either, I can do it simply for the fact that I'm interested in the arcana and still find plenty of relevant uses for it. Such as being able to detect magic, understand magical lore and creatures, to be able to identify magical properties in on going spells and magic items. It all works now, no longer do I have to play a fighter who although lives in a magic heavy world, knows nothing of it. However this isn't just about the fighter, its about all classes being more open to be developed toward a ideal the player conceives as oppose to the publisher.
The new rules allow my skills to go up automatically every even level, and while that doesn't guarantee that I will make every check its a whole lot better than I previously had it in 3.5, where if it wasn't a class skill then it cost me double, and only went up half as much as a class skill, which really discouraged any kind of true believability in terms of characters learning as they gained levels.
The new rule set allows for characters to play more evenly through all levels by giving us a hp system that works more closely to the scaling of damage in the game. Characters start out with more hp, and while each class gains a certain amount each level its still enough to strongly show the differences in roles, so that Fighters still feel like fighters in comparisons to controllers in terms of endurance. It also rewards constitution improvement more evenly making the increase in hp from boosting ones con more sparse, so that constitution doesn't become some all important stat. You can now play a low con character without feeling like you'll instantly die now.
feats are more than a bag full of hit or misses now. There are no general feats that are simply better than all others. Feat classes are more strongly defined. Class Initiate Feats > Racial Feats > General Feats. It now takes all of 2 minutes to realize this. This also makes class customization (which now replaces optimization) more important, Racial customization, and leaves general feats to basically flush out the rest of the character. In other words feats are actually something that don't necessarily break or make a character, finally.
Enjoy that the rules are actually clear on all the different actions a person might want to take during combat or skill encounters now. It's pretty straight forward, any question you might have or try and flub around with are answered before you even needed to ask them in tons of rules clarifications phone calls to wotc. Saves are simple, grabbing is simple, escaping a grab is simple, knowing when you provoke a opportunity attack simple, when you grant or gain combat advantage easy. Everything is fully described to you in the most straight forward and minuet detail.
The only thing anyone should really have a problem with is the level of fluff, however I was always under the impression thats what our imaginations were fore. I don't appreciate being told my origin, or why I adventurer like they did in past editions, and I especially don't like being told how my actions must be displayed. So while 4 to 5 paragraphs of fluff and detail might have been fine for other people who don't know how to describe a fireball, or a Leaping Dragon Stance, I am perfectly fine with describing it in narrative myself.
Their I hope that was enough to describe my view on the new rules set for you.
In resume: All classes are exactly the same thing, to which I say no thanks, if I wanted to make a fighter that knows about magic I can do it in 3.5 just a fine. It's obvious that a fighter will never match the arcane lore of a sorcerer or wizard, and that's how I want it, the way it works in 4th edition makes true uniqueness a lie, because every time I increase a level I'm suddenly a better acrobat or climber without actually doing that. The skill points system is 10 superior over that (and the Pathfinder Alpha 3 is even better) because it allows characters that are good in some skills, mediocre in others and useless in the rest, just like in the real world, it gives me customization and the power of choice.
Incorrect.
While a Fighter can learn Arcane Lore never did it say anything about him casting meteor swarm and what you consider knowing about Arcane Lore is what I consider casting spells or having arcane power, they are two different things, and this again is something the Fighter invested in, not something he automatically starts with means, by your understanding a Fighter should never be able to do anything other than what the Publisher of the class says. If a Player wants to know knowledge arcana then tough, he should either multiclass away from his true profession, or should have played a wizard. This sir is wrong and isn't even supported in fictional novels. As even Drizz't himself spent a tenure at the school of Socery so that he knows what magic is, and what is and isn't a magical item, and perhaps even magical creatures.
So what you like isn't fantasy, what you like is whatever you say you like, and that sir just doesn't stand.
When everybody is special nobody is special..
This is one of those meaningless generalizations that are worthless in a real discussion.
Looking forward to my next 4E session. :P
-Of course, what you just described has no bearing on the ruleset, really.
Not really. He spoke specifically about how the play had less to do with mathematics. That's rules-talk.
So what you like isn't fantasy, what you like is whatever you say you like, and that sir just doesn't stand.
Very well said. Well said indeed.
In 4E a 20th level Fighter would have a 20+intelligence mod to any Knowledge Arcana checks. What that means is he has been hanging out with a Wizard and has learned a thing or two about Magic. What 4E creates is party or group synergies. One class isn't more important than the other. I for one think that is bad ass. My two favorite chapters of the 4E DMG are the last two, "A DM's Tool Box and Fallcrest" :D My
18DELTA ;)
-Some people like the "The Big Stupid Fighter"
Exactly. That's what 4e brings to the table. Fun play through 30 levels for ALL classes.
My two favorite chapters of the 4E DMG are the last two, "A DM's Tool Box and Fallcrest" :D
Seconded!
With some more digestion of all the material, I believe I could create a great character on my own with little outside help. That's a great feeling.
I'd definitely play a 4E game when I get the chance.And, as for your dextrous fighter, well, you COULD go the route of F/R, or you could go with high DEX, Weapon finesse, Weapon Focus Rapier, Improved Critical Rapier, and Improved Intiative. If you WANt Rogue levels for sneak attack, fine, take em, and if you don;t want the Open Locks, etc, don;t put points in em and don;t use em.
I just want to point out that I think it's great that fighters don't have to multiclass to have tons of great options, though. Honestly, I was a bit floored by all the options PCs of any class have. That's one of the reasons why I want to try playing a game.
Basically what it boils down to is, 4e is for beginners who don't want to put forth any effort and all previous editions are for those that want some detail or customizability or distinction between classes.
With all due respect, I saw tons of options for PC customization.
As for the classes not being distinct from each other enough? Maybe--I can't say yes or no at this time, since I only just started going through the books.
It may not have Ecologies, but at least it had something for them. The 4th edition MM doesn't has anything more than combat stats.
Actually, there is some monster lore, although admittedly it's not that much.
I also enjoyed how it rewarded non combat skill encounters, whether they be physical or social skills. Also informing DMs how to rewarded quest completions and divide gold between levels was so good it encouraged me to even consider Dming, I felt less taxed and time consumed in comparison to 3.5, where I would much rather run a module than come up with any of the neat story ideas I day dream about nearly constantly day in and day out.
I've actually thought about whether or not I'd want to DM. I'm still not sure--maybe someday I'll be a pro at the rules (which are supposedly easy to learn and remember) and will give it a shot.
With all due respect, I saw tons of options for PC customization.
As for the classes not being distinct from each other enough? Maybe--I can't say yes or no at this time, since I only just started going through the books.
You really have to dig for it, IF it's there at all. Perhaps I will run a little experiment to see just how interchangeable the powers are from class to class, and what impact on balance they really have...
You really have to dig for it, IF it's there at all. Perhaps I will run a little experiment to see just how interchangeable the powers are from class to class, and what impact on balance they really have...
Not a bad idea.
I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, so much as saying that your impression was the opposite of mine. I will say that I haven't exactly read the books cover to cover yet. That said, I like what I see.
Not really. He spoke specifically about how the play had less to do with mathematics. That's rules-talk.
-The poster agreed with my input, concentrating on the rules only, in his/her next post. But, really, what does, "It was nice to be able to sit down with calm fun loving individuals who wanted to experience a fantasy world, and not just some combat scenerio where the object of the game was to be the first to kill everything in sight and not be afraid of dying because nothing can possibly hurt you" have to do with a ruleset? Nothing. All of that happens/doesn't happen regardless of the ruleset. Such situations unfold while playing 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and any other systems.
Not a bad idea.
I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, so much as saying that your impression was the opposite of mine. I will say that I haven't exactly read the books cover to cover yet. That said, I like what I see.
If it works for you, thats cool, I'm just pointing out that I as well as many others have made the same observations.
When everybody is special nobody is special.."
Awesome. This quote is pretty much right out of The Incredibles and was used by the villain. Ya just needed a "Mwahahahaha" after it to be effective though. I love watching that movie with my kids.
Evidently my DM just told me I was using my Thunderwave wrong and I should have been killing more baddies than I was. If I was having fun before this will make it even better. We gotta take down Delfina. She seems pretty shady.
If it works for you, thats cool, I'm just pointing out that I as well as many others have made the same observations.
Oh, I understand that. And I think you should do what works for you, too.
-The poster agreed with my input, concentrating on the rules only, in his/her next post. But, really, what does, "It was nice to be able to sit down with calm fun loving individuals who wanted to experience a fantasy world, and not just some combat scenerio where the object of the game was to be the first to kill everything in sight and not be afraid of dying because nothing can possibly hurt you" have to do with a ruleset? Nothing. All of that happens/doesn't happen regardless of the ruleset. Such situations unfold while playing 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and any other systems.
I am pretty sure his post was as relevant as some other peoples posts around here (not sure every posters content since some are ignored).
Anyway I think he was put off because your retort was unnecessary.
When I first read it I was like "Why is LK jumping on this guy already."
You probably did not mean it to come off this way but that is how it sounded to me. Just saying.
I am pretty sure his post was as relevant as some other peoples posts around here (not sure every posters content since some are ignored).
-No one said his (who is him, anyway?) posts are irrelevant.
Anyway I think he was put off because your retort was unnecessary.
-Who is put off? Yokou Korama? Mr. Misc?
When I first read it I was like "Why is LK jumping on this guy already."
-Who is LK jumping on? Yokou Korama? Mr. Misc?
You probably did not mean it to come off this way but that is how it sounded to me. Just saying.
-Who was I mean to? Yokou Korama? Mi. Misc?
Actually, there is some monster lore, although admittedly it's not that much.
-Yeah that means if I want my 4E Goblins to be like Pathfinder Goblins, well I can do that! :lightbulb :evillaugh
-The poster agreed with my input, concentrating on the rules only, in his/her next post. But, really, what does, "It was nice to be able to sit down with calm fun loving individuals who wanted to experience a fantasy world, and not just some combat scenerio where the object of the game was to be the first to kill everything in sight and not be afraid of dying because nothing can possibly hurt you" have to do with a ruleset? Nothing.
Aside from being fortunate enough to sit down with calm and fun loving individuals (that's luck and real life friend skills) the play experience has everything to do with the rules.
The poster expressed enjoyment at having a different experience from the same old same old. If the rules promoted more of the same for the poster, he/she wouldn't have posted what he/she did.
All of that happens/doesn't happen regardless of the ruleset. Such situations unfold while playing 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and any other systems.
I've played 1E as much or more than anyone on these forums. Same goes for 2E. Especially true for 3E.
I'm already in the mix on 4E.
In my experience, the extent to which "all of that happens/doesn't happen" is a function of the rules set being used.
How the rules work is related. How the rules promote (or don't) smooth play at the gaming table is related. How well or poorly the rules push players to imagine the setting while simultaneously allowing them to extrapolate what's going on in the game is related.
Especially if it's a new rules set.
It's a game. Games have rules. Rules that facilitate an enjoyable experience are good, those that don't are bad.
:D
You really have to dig for it, IF it's there at all. Perhaps I will run a little experiment to see just how interchangeable the powers are from class to class, and what impact on balance they really have...
I take what I said back, whatever makes a character more enjoyable to another person is fine, I've seen things changed in part because of house rules and I myself didn't mind a lot of the variant rules in 3.5 as they only added to the experience so maybe messing around with interchangeable class powers will work for people.
Aside from being fortunate enough to sit down with calm and fun loving individuals (that's luck and real life friend skills) the play experience has everything to do with the rules.
...
-That's where I don't agree. Being able to sit down and enjoy the game doesn't have much to do with rules. I'll elaborate below. And, to specifically mention 4e, in relation to the other editions, there isn't anything in the 4e ruleset that magically causes enjoyment no matter what.
-When I first started playing D&D, I was blissfully unaware of most rules. I was constantly forgetting to add by Base Attack Bonus to my attack, I was constantly forgetting to update my skills, I was constantly forgetting what die was for what roll. But, I still had fun. I enjoyed just being able to say that I played D&D, the group I was in, and so on and so on. I still know people who aren't 100% versed in the rules, but still manage to have a lot of fun playing, and have fun because of their character, the group, and so on and so on. The rules don't really have much of an impact on how much fun a group has- which is why people can have an equal amount of fun using different rulesets, be it 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, Pathfinder, GURPS, and so on- because most factors that cause people (that I know, anyway) to enjoy the game aren't tied to rules. Character creation, roleplay, the group itself, hanging out...None of those things are tied in any way to any ruleset.
-Now, if there was some categorical study demonstrating how people who play 4e are having more fun than people who play 2e, then maybe I'd agree with what you are saying. But, there hasn't been, nor will there ever be, in my estimation. Every group has different dynamics, unrelated to D&D in general, and those are the factors that determine if a person is having fun or not.
-That's where I don't agree. Being able to sit down and enjoy the game doesn't have much to do with rules. I'll elaborate below. And, to specifically mention 4e, in relation to the other editions, there isn't anything in the 4e ruleset that magically causes enjoyment no matter what.
-When I first started playing D&D, I was blissfully unaware of most rules. I was constantly forgetting to add by Base Attack Bonus to my attack, I was constantly forgetting to update my skills, I was constantly forgetting what die was for what roll. But, I still had fun. I enjoyed just being able to say that I played D&D, the group I was in, and so on and so on. I still know people who aren't 100% versed in the rules, but still manage to have a lot of fun playing, and have fun because of their character, the group, and so on and so on. The rules don't really have much of an impact on how much fun a group has- which is why people can have an equal amount of fun using different rulesets, be it 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, Pathfinder, GURPS, and so on- because most factors that cause people (that I know, anyway) to enjoy the game aren't tied to rules. Character creation, roleplay, the group itself, hanging out...None of those things are tied in any way to any ruleset.
-Now, if there was some categorical study demonstrating how people who play 4e are having more fun than people who play 2e, then maybe I'd agree with what you are saying. But, there hasn't been, nor will there ever be, in my estimation. Every group has different dynamics, unrelated to D&D in general, and those are the factors that determine if a person is having fun or not.
Hi Karsus, how have you been?
As to the matter of rules=fun, I present to you Rifts. I love the story and background of it but the rules are too wonky to have fun playing it.
Hi Karsus, how have you been?
As to the matter of rules=fun, I present to you Rifts. I love the story and background of it but the rules are too wonky to have fun playing it.
Somebody will love those rules and be natural for them.
Hi Karsus, how have you been?
-Good. How 'bout you?
As to the matter of rules=fun, I present to you Rifts. I love the story and background of it but the rules are too wonky to have fun playing it.
-Never heard of it, or played it. That said, just because you find the rules weird doesn't mean that everyone finds them weird. I find the 2e rules weird, from having never played that system before, but not only have plenty of other people played in 2e, but they also seemingly enjoyed doing so. Don't take that the wrong way, of course.
As to the matter of rules=fun, I present to you Rifts. I love the story and background of it but the rules are too wonky to have fun playing it.
DUDE I can't agree more. We did the best we could back in the day and we really had a blast but the rules could get involved to the point where you spent forever building characters only to see your character get evaporated by an MDC blast that overcame whatever armor/power armor he was in.
We had a rocking time with our own theme music though. Metallica's Disposable Heroes was our absolute anthem song for Rifts, as we played a lot of Coalition characters.
Kinda like how Megadeath’s Countdown to Extintion was our theme music when we played Werewolf.
Those indeed were the days.
:D
-Good. How 'bout you?
Pretty good, adjusting to my new job.
-Never heard of it, or played it. That said, just because you find the rules weird doesn't mean that everyone finds them weird. I find the 2e rules weird, from having never played that system before, but not only have plenty of other people played in 2e, but they also seemingly enjoyed doing so. Don't take that the wrong way, of course.
I would encourage you to look into it. It's a great setting and story that would be so much more popular if the rules weren't clunky.
Off topic reply follows.
DUDE I can't agree more. We did the best we could back in the day and we really had a blast but the rules could get involved to the point where you spent forever building characters only to see your character get evaporated by an MDC blast that overcame whatever armor/power armor he was in.
We had a rocking time with our own theme music though. Metallica's Disposable Heroes was our absolute anthem song for Rifts, as we played a lot of Coalition characters.
Kinda like how Megadeath’s Countdown to Extintion was our theme music when we played Werewolf.
Those indeed were the days.
:D
Or if you play a shifter and open a rift only to be devoured by a demon.
Pretty good, adjusting to my new job.
-Good, good. I've refined your *punch* technique. Tell me what you think: *karate chop*
I would encourage you to look into it. It's a great setting and story that would be so much more popular if the rules weren't clunky.
-Eh, to tell the truth, I'm not particularly interested.
-Good, good. I've refined your *punch* technique. Tell me what you think: *karate chop*
If it works for you, go for it.
-That's where I don't agree. Being able to sit down and enjoy the game doesn't have much to do with rules.
I could go on at great length, explaining why the observations you have made based on your recent gaming experiences are not applicable or true for the majority of most games, but I won’t.
Just like me, you rely on experience.
Certainly I accept as credible the experiences of others that have played longer than me, where you don’t as much, but that’s neither here nor there. ;)
So I think I’ll pass on this one and let experience be your teacher. I’m confident that in time (say 15 years or so) you’ll come to see the bigger picture.
:D
Have you ever gone to a session and you haven't seen one of the guys in a whole so you know, you get involved start eating Doritos/Pizza While drinking a Soda/beer next thing you know BAM a whloe hour just passed w/o you even pulling out your dices?
I mean you CAN have fun regardless of ruleset ....
... next thing you know BAM a whloe hour just passed w/o you even pulling out your dices?
More often then you, I'd wager. ;)
I mean you CAN have fun regardless of ruleset ....
Yes, of course you can.
It's the pretending that the rules don't matter/fun just happens I have a problem with, because it doesn't comport with reality.
My point is that 9 out of 10 D&D is just a common denominator for friends to
gather and have fun.
That was rather his point as well if I'm not mistaken... except that he added in the caveat that in actual gameplay, the rules will go a long way as to how much fun a particular game is. Ease of play comes out to less frustration on the part of players and DMs alike and lends itself to a more positive gaming experience overall. Of course, the mileage may vary for any given ruleset and any given gaming group, but I have a feeling Misc is more than aware of that.
Yep. When it comes to actual gameplay itself, some systems are just more condusive towards that. I used to play Rifts on a regular basis, and ye gods what a pain that was! I got aggrivated every time the rules came up. They're just so damned frustrating and monotonous. The setting was great, but the rules, ARRRGH! The rules made me want to rip my hair out. They had all these fiddly bits which you had to keep track of but only came up once in a blue moon, called shots, having to keep track of the damage inflicted on each piece of a robot (I.E. The left arm had its own HP. The right arm had its own HP, etc. Sometimes the hands had their own HP equivalents, too!), and so on.
Character creation was nightmarish, and the GM! Poor bastard didn't even have a Monster Manual to work with. No CR system or anything of the sort. Just throw something in and hope it's appropriate (nevermind that the utter disparity between PC classes meant you could never provide an 'appropriate' encounter. A challenge for the Glitter Boy is certain death for a City Rat).
So yeah, the rules can and do impact gameplay. Especially when they're so complex that you have to stop and look them up in the middle of a game, bringing the game to a grinding halt, and even then you're not clear on the answer. Or when they introduce lots of unnecessary rolling which does nothing but eat up game time (there's a good reason D&D has AC, for instance. Otherwise you get nonsense like in Rifts where everyone can dodge a shot, roll with a punch, etc). God, I feel like vomiting just thinking about it. That being said, the setting IS nice (although some of the later books introduced lame stuff). One of these days I'm gonna convert it over to Mutants & Masterminds (a very nice rules system) or maybe Hero System (gotta give that one a thorough readthrough someday, though).
So yeah, the rules can and do impact gameplay.
-No one ever contested that.
-No one ever contested that.
I could have sworn you did.
I could have sworn you did.
-Nope. I said that rules don't have much of an impact on the net fun of the game. GreenKnight said that rules "can and do impact gameplay".
-That is obviously true, as the ruleset regulates gameplay. ;)
Nope. I said that rules don't have much of an impact on the net fun of the game. GreenKnight said that rules "can and do impact gameplay".
Splitting the hair pretty thin, there. But if it makes you feel any better, rules can and do have an impact on the net fun of the game, too. The Rifts system, for instance, certainly impacted how much fun I had out of playing in comparison to other RPG's. These days, I'd rather visit a dentist and have my teeth pulled then use that system, again.
-Nope. I said that rules don't have much of an impact on the net fun of the game. GreenKnight said that rules "can and do impact gameplay".
-That is obviously true, as the ruleset regulates gameplay. ;)
:raincloud :surrendercan we drop the BS and actually discuss a topic without devolving into a 4e-sucks-because-I-say-so/pointless & irrelevant semantics discussion?
Of course! :D
Since this is a thread about 4th edition books and I just received my books only a few days ago, i'd be more than happy to divulge any information people would like to know.
Of course! :D
Since this is a thread about 4th edition books and I just received my books only a few days ago, i'd be more than happy to divulge any information people would like to know.
Are you sure you didn't get mine by mistake? :D
I still know people who aren't 100% versed in the rules, but still manage to have a lot of fun playing, and have fun because of their character, the group, and so on and so on.
People such as myself, for instance.;)
Splitting the hair pretty thin, there. But if it makes you feel any better, rules can and do have an impact on the net fun of the game, too.
-Yes, that was the part I didn't agree with.
People such as myself, for instance.;)
-You were my inspiration.
Part of why I opted out of that particular "discussion" a page or so back.
::::::::::::::::::::::
So, with a beer in hand and the house to myself late last night, I decided to turn off the TV, shut down the laptop and sit down to read the 4E PHB front to back.
I came away really liking the rules consistency. WotC seems to have learned to answer the obvious questions that come up in a gamer’s mind right after they read a rule by putting the answer immediately after the rules text, either in the form of another rule or by showing an example of how to do something with the rule. (Bag of rats, anyone? Well, it’s in there. :D)
I felt like compared to 3E they certainly oversimplified things. A little too much, IMO.
I noticed they used classic names like Drawmij's in the ritual descriptions. You'd think that's make me happy, but really it only served to tick me off a bit, as WotC has gone out of their way in the later stages of 3.5 to erase such names wholesale from their core products (without explanation, so far as I know).
I guess it's the flip-flopping they're doing that pisses me off. Consistency over editions is better than changing the little things all the time just because someone new has gotten the keys to the game.
Other than those few negatives, I feel like I have a good grasp of the mechanics and can successfully run 4E down the road.
-You were my inspiration.
Aww.:embarrass
Of course, one reason why I still have a lot of fun not knowing all the rules is because I'm lucky enough to have people who are willing to help me out.
not that I've never done it, but this anti-4e/pro-4e garbage is getting on my last nerve.
Hey, it could be worse.
It could be like the 4E General Forum. Every other topic there seems to be some type of pro/anti-4E argument.
And I avoid that place for a reason... ;)
Smart guy.
In my mind, tactical simulation never really left D+D. It shouldn't, it's an integral part of the game.
I am highly displeased with the vast array of powers that force you to move. It creates so much out of character nonsense and metagaming that it eats roleplaying alive.
Imagine this situation:
You've battled through goblins and orcs and ogres to face Hobgoblin General Kraal. Kraal is a wily bastard, he's cunning, he's sneaky, he's capable, he's talented, and he's down to his last ten elite troops. You beat down his door and it's showdown time.
Your fighter wins initiative. He uses Come and Get It. Despite the fact that there is no reason for Kraal to move two squares. Remember, talented tactician, capable, and smart, he moves two squares and is under attack.
This is patently ridiculous. I hate that you can just spontaneously move people and there's no way to resist it. It makes NO sense at all. If I were playing Hero System, moving that guy those three squares probably costs more points than actually dealing the damage.
Movement is life in tactical battlemap combat. So now, other people can move me and affect the way I move? What's the justification? How does this function? Why is my character's choice of whether or not to move into melee range taken away? That's not fun. It means they don't have to out-think General Kraal's tactics, he has to outthink their "Come and Get It" by dressing some clown up in his armor, and he dies, and then General Kraal comes out from behind a secret door. What's the problem with this?
Ready?
It only works once. When a character has a power that allows him to engage the BBEG like that, he wants to use it and have it BE EFFECTIVE! The moment you do that, over and over again, that player is going to pick up his stuff and walk out.
The problem is that abilities like this are counterintuitive to combat. Especially if you use them on someone who's not a fighter, like a Wizard, who would NEVER willingly step within three squares of this guy. The problem is "Why would he move there?" There's no logical reason for someone like that to blindly leap into the fighter's Bastard Sword.
I don't like being forcibly moved, or mind controlled to move, or being placed in a bad tactical position because someone used their power to move me as a freebie. There's no resistance test. At all.
-Said fighter busts down door and charges into the ranks screaming a challenge to ALL the enemies. Kraal, crafty, shifty, and capable that he is, knows that by not joining the ranks with his elite troops to kill this stupid infidel will show them weakness or maybe cowardliness and that is somthing Kraal doesn't want. His troops are relying on him to meet this warrior's call with his own and behead him before his friends so they know the true might and power of their chief. Granted, I think it's a bit cheesy as well but i would probably give my enemies powers and abilities to use against my PCs as well. Those lovely powers could be a double edged sword if done right.
Flavor text (such as it is) reads as follows: You call your opponents towards you and deliver a blow they will never forget.
There is no save against it, but if an opponent is too far away the Exploit doesn’t affect them.
That is, if an opponent can’t shift 2 squares and end up adjacent to the Fighter, the exploit has no effect.
Thus, if you’re a Big Bad Evil Guy and you stand two squares behind a line of minions and a Fighter with this Exploit moves up to that line and uses it, nothing happens to the BBEG.
Instead the minions surround the Fighter and all of them get whacked by the Fighter’s Strength Attack against them.
Next round the Fighter closes in on the BBEG (if the BBEG hasn’t already attacked the fighter on its turn).
I think the flavor text sucks. It should read, “you bellow out a snarling challenge to your enemies that causes them to swarm towards you in response.”
There, that wasn’t so hard.
“Come and Get It” is a level 7 Encounter Exploit (“Exploit” being a redundant term for Fighter Class Powers) that --as its name suggests-- can be used once per encounter.
Flavor text (such as it is) reads as follows: You call your opponents towards you and deliver a blow they will never forget.
-I think I'm going to get the 4e books just for this.
Regdar went down... for the Count...
-Do they still have those..."Base NPC", like Redgar, Mialee, and so on? I hated them...All of them...
-I think I'm going to get the 4e books just for this.
Oh crap....how did I not see that when I quoted it??
:embarrass :embarrass :embarrass
To think I'm the guy that posted that.....
Heh, it's funny though, aint it?
-Do they still have those..."Base NPC", like Redgar, Mialee, and so on? I hated them...All of them...
Some of them show up here and there, or get brief mentions, but not all of them. Though if it makes you feel better, Regdar's dead on page 297. Killed by Drow (although it looks like a Dragonborn Cleric may be trying to raise him).
As for the Iconics, I liked some of them. Vadania, for instance, and... Ok, I liked one of them. The rest of them sucked. I especially hated Krusk (couldn't stand his haircut), Ember (she looked like a man), Alhandra (disliked her haircut, too), Hennet (what's up with all the leather and buckles), and Mialee (ewww).
“Come and Get It” is a level 7 Encounter Exploit (“Exploit” being a redundant term for Fighter Class Powers) that --as its name suggests-- can be used once per encounter.
Flavor text (such as it is) reads as follows: You call your opponents towards you and deliver a blow they will never forget.
There is no save against it, but if an opponent is too far away the Exploit doesn’t affect them.
That is, if an opponent can’t shift 2 squares and end up adjacent to the Fighter, the exploit has no effect.
Thus, if you’re a Big Bad Evil Guy and you stand two squares behind a line of minions and a Fighter with this Exploit moves up to that line and uses it, nothing happens to the BBEG.
Instead the minions surround the Fighter and all of them get whacked by the Fighter’s Strength Attack against them.
Next round the Fighter closes in on the BBEG (if the BBEG hasn’t already attacked the fighter on its turn).
I think the flavor text sucks. It should read, “you bellow out a snarling challenge to your enemies that causes them to swarm towards you in response.”
There, that wasn’t so hard.
That's not the point. If I'm a good leader, my first response is to totally ignore him and put twenty arrows into this idiot. I don't close. My men don't close or break ranks, because they're WELL TRAINED. If he makes it through the arrow barrage, lock shields, form spear and pike wall, march forward.
Clearly, you've never actually studied the Romans and what they'd do to a guy who just walked out and challenged them like that.
I cannot stand the arrogance of the assumption that some jerkweed walking out there and issuing a challenge automatically provokes a response.
...the barkeep?
-Yes. I cannot tell you how many times I've used that image as the basis for a bartender in my own games.
That's not the point. If I'm a good leader, my first response is to totally ignore him and put twenty arrows into this idiot. I don't close. My men don't close or break ranks, because they're WELL TRAINED. If he makes it through the arrow barrage, lock shields, form spear and pike wall, march forward.
So, what about all the goblins, kobolds, imps, ogres and orcs? Are they that well trained? What about all the other Minion-class creatures in the game?
Clearly, you've never actually studied the Romans and what they'd do to a guy who just walked out and challenged them like that.
Did the Romans ever operate in a magical or quasi-magical setting, such that they faced super heroic Fighters that have in their careers slain creatures the Romans have only ever heard about as myths or legends?
On a more personal note, have you ever stood within 15 feet of someone you knew with 100% certainty has seen other people killed (in war or worse) or that had to do the killing and whose reputation preceeded them wherever they went? I have. When they holler, everybody jumps.
I cannot stand the arrogance of the assumption that some jerkweed walking out there and issuing a challenge automatically provokes a response.
I think you’re just taking the game waaaaaay tooooo seriously.
Relax, I get what you’re saying.
Now forget the anger part and approach things from a different perspective.
For example, if you ask me I’d say in addition to Paragon and Epic tier minions, mindless Undead shouldn’t be affected by that fighter ability at all. Nor should most constructs. If you follow that path of reasoning far enough, you could end up with a pretty good argument that convinces most people to implement houserules that limits the ability or calls for an attack vs. Will before the ability checks to see who’s in range.
Then, WotC could get smart and adopt them via Errata.
Great way to affect right change and make a name for yourself on the forums at the same time, don’t you think?
I agree, and so does my friend, that everyone looks the same in basis, the class may add a little, but not much. It feels like it is made for little kids, thus killing the idea that there was an older customer base that has been faithful for years. They only want to make a system that is geared to what is almost equal to an online RPG like Guild Wars. I like Guild Wars, but when I play DnD I don't want that feeling. I've played DnD for over 15 years and I feel put off by this 4e. I feel DnD with this addition was choked to death, not till it turned blue, but till it turned black, was made a simple minded zombie and choked some more- then stabbed with a light saber and shot with a lazer gun. Where did those come from? Exactly, they don't have the feel of DnD anymore.
Everything is back to hack'n'slash, and the idea of "balance" some are talking about is a load of poppy. If the game was unbalanced in 3.x then the DM wasn't doing his job.
An example of a change, besides the ones already stated, that I and my friend hated were more changes to Drow. They cast a darkness "cloud" that if I remember right is smaller than what it was in 3.x and only lasts until the end of your next round. I skimmed through some areas and I will read more, but only for the idea of - if you are going to talk about something then don't do it blindly. I want as much proof to back up the problems with 4e and WoTC as possible. I regret that they took the system down this path and have killed what I loved about FR. I loved DR and it was killed, now this. I will not put one cent towards this trash. They have destroyed many things that many players of DnD have held dear, and the thought that makes a sour taste in my mouth is the idea that it will be here to stay and continue to spread like a cancer as they make more books that go against what DnDrs fell in love with.
If my friend had bought his copies of the three books he said he certainly would have returned them to the store, as I would have after seeing them. Again, 3.x didn't need an overhaul, just the DMs ability to deal with his players and their playing style.
Some of them show up here and there, or get brief mentions, but not all of them.
For example, Tordek and Lidda are mentioned as examples of characters on their respective race pages.
As for the Iconics, I liked some of them. Vadania, for instance, and... Ok, I liked one of them. The rest of them sucked. I especially hated Krusk (couldn't stand his haircut), Ember (she looked like a man), Alhandra (disliked her haircut, too), Hennet (what's up with all the leather and buckles), and Mialee (ewww).
Hennet was wearing BDSM-style clothing (I'm so happy that style of art seems to be mostly gone...).
As far as I could tell, everyone hated Mialee. In truth, though, I found her to be no more strange looking than a lot of the other 3E elves (sorry, Lockwood).
-Yes. I cannot tell you how many times I've used that image as the basis for a bartender in my own games.
I'd much prefer meeting the Shopkeep.;) ;) ;)
As far as I could tell, everyone hated Mialee. In truth, though, I found her to be no more strange looking than a lot of the other 3E elves (sorry, Lockwood).
-I never understood that eithe...
I'd much prefer meeting the Shopkeep.;) ;) ;)
-I'd be too awed.
:As far as I could tell, everyone hated Mialee. In truth, though, I found her to be no more strange looking than a lot of the other 3E elves (sorry, Lockwood).
Never like Mialee myself or the gnome or the half-orc
Lidda was fine. Torderk...whatever, etc etc
-I'd be too awed.
What opinion? Comparing the latest version of a game to a terminal disease that kills over 20,000 people worldwide per day?
I can appreciate your point.
But to be fair, the word "cancer" can be used in the non-medical sense to mean "any evil condition or thing that spreads destructively; blight". In that sense, it wasn't an inappropriate term to use, although I certainly disagree with that way of describing the 4E game system.
Aside from the fact that cancer isn't always terminal (it's not always malignant), I can appreciate your point.
Cancer is always malignant. It may not be terminal if treated
Cancer is always malignant. It may not be terminal if treated
Nevermind, I was thinking of tumors.
I stand by my main point, though.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Nevermind, I was thinking of tumors.
OK
I stand by my main point, though.
I was always agree with your main points too
I cannot stand the arrogance of the assumption that some jerkweed walking out there and issuing a challenge automatically provokes a response.
Well that's not what's happening, obviously, since you need that specific power to do that.
Well that's not what's happening, obviously, since you need that specific power to do that.
-I think that's the jerkweed.
-I think that's the jerkweed.
Nothing automatic about it, though, since you still need that specific power.
All characters can shout at the enemy, but only certain individuals can do that well.
As to the rest of it... well, if that's the style of play you're into, then it'll probably work out well. Having said that, those of us who aren't into that style of play are pretty much left standing in the rain as far as 4e is concerned. Such is life.
No more BDSM clothing in the art? Well that sucks...
Definately a problem
My DM told me that dwarves are now broken though. I laughed.
Nothing automatic about it, though, since you still need that specific power.
-The person using the power is the jerkweed, I believe.
But there's nothing automatic about it, since you need that power.
-Yes. Understood. Got that. I believe the person using the power- that is not automatic, since you need that power- is the one who is a jerkweed.
In otherwords, the power is an unbalanced, illogical, and exploitive ability that should be expunged from the face of the universe, as should the character using it, at least if I'm reading Msatran correctly.
The subject feels an undeniable urge to dance and begins doing so, complete with foot shuffling and tapping. The spell effect makes it impossible for the subject to do anything other than caper and prance in place. The effect imposes a -4 penalty to Armor Class and a -10 penalty on Reflex saves, and it negates any AC bonus granted by a shield the target holds. The dancing subject provokes attacks of opportunity each round on its turn.
And Otto's Irresistible Dance isnt?
And Otto's Irresistible Dance isnt?
-Is that power/whatever it's called a magical effect? From what I got of it, it's simply someone talking about someone else's mother, and that person getting angry, losing his cool and composure, and "charging the mound", so to speak.
-Is that power/whatever it's called a magical effect? From what I got of it, it's simply someone talking about someone else's mother, and that person getting angry, losing his cool and composure, and "charging the mound", so to speak.
No, it's not a magical effect. But I know where your going with this. But if the hobgoblin was so crafty and clever, wouldn't you think he'd have contigency plans in case something like this happend? If adventurers were banging down my door, i'd have my elite guys shoot every round they had at the door as it opened. I'd probably put some sort of trip-wire or (if your elaborate) a pit trap in front of the door and give the PC a -2 or even -5 penalty to his save against the trap for charing into the room full force. That would be a way to deal with the problem or do as someone else suggested and have a shield wall, prohibiting you to follow through with the fighter's exploit (exploit is what the fighters powers are called LK)
No, it's not a magical effect. But I know where your going with this. But if the hobgoblin was so crafty and clever, wouldn't you think he'd have contigency plans in case something like this happend?
-No, not exactly the road I was going down. Keeping more or less with what msatran was saying, if the target cannot resist, it's a bit silly, factoring in that the target might be very well trained, and all of those things.
-I like the idea behind that ability, though.
(exploit is what the fighters powers are called LK)
-Thank you.
No, it's not a magical effect. But I know where your going with this. But if the hobgoblin was so crafty and clever, wouldn't you think he'd have contigency plans in case something like this happend? If adventurers were banging down my door, i'd have my elite guys shoot every round they had at the door as it opened. I'd probably put some sort of trip-wire or (if your elaborate) a pit trap in front of the door and give the PC a -2 or even -5 penalty to his save against the trap for charing into the room full force. That would be a way to deal with the problem or do as someone else suggested and have a shield wall, prohibiting you to follow through with the fighter's exploit (exploit is what the fighters powers are called LK)
Do you "Need" a wall to ignore a taunt?
Or a tripwire (Even though it will be funny as hell watching a guy tripping as he talk about your mom
. THAT when it becomes Tasha's Laughter :rofl-I like the idea behind that ability, though.
Knight's from PHB II do that but the ememy must meet some criteria and it has to roll a WILL save
Or a tripwire (Even though it will be funny as hell watching a guy tripping as he talk about your mom
-No, that's when it becomes Tasha's Laughter. ;)
that what I meant.....(Fixed)
Each target must shift 2 squares and end adjacent to you, if possible. A target that can't end adjacent to you doesn't move. You can then attack any targets that are adjacent to you (close burst 1).
So, basically if the Hobgoblin had his elite guys surround the figher, Kraal doesn't meet the prereqs because his shift won't end adjacent to the fighter and therefore, he doesn't shift.
Knight's from PHB II do that but the ememy must meet some criteria and it has to roll a WILL save
True, the enemy had to have an intelligance score of 5 or higher (I think), have a CR no lower than the Knight's level -2, and must fail it's Will save. Then, that creature chooses the Knight over other targets unless the creature is engaged with an opponent, then it doesn't have to.
And Otto's Irresistible Dance isnt?
Heh, I was simply stating what I thought Msatran was saying, not expressing an opinion of my own. Can't say I much care about the topic either way, despite thinking its a bit silly. There's plenty of ways I can justify it working in my mind though, so despite the lack of Will defense coming into play, its something I could live with were I to switch to 4e at some point.
Again, this is not just some self-styled hero - it's an actual hero, and that particular hero is very good at issuing challenges. So good, in fact, that he can break the lines of hobgoblin warbands.
All characters can shout at the enemy, but only certain individuals can do that well.
What defines a hero, then?
Let's talk about this for real. A hero is not what he is on the OUTSIDE! The stuff of a hero is what's on the INSIDE. He's not about his powers, his abilities, or his gear.
A hero is about what's on the inside, Mula. Clearly, you've never REALLY played D+D in your life.
A hero is determined by their actions, who they are, etc.
I loathe the idea that some people are better than others because they're a "Hero" and destined for greatness. That essentialist crap disgusts me.
There's no such thing as an NPC. That's the right way to run D+D.
To quote the horse from Ren and Stimpy...No sir, I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might is what $th edition could have been, but sadly, it wasn't.
-Well, at least it's all contained to this thread, mostly.
Clearly, you've never REALLY played D+D in your life.
Uh huh.
Seriously though, it's horribly unfair to say that someone's never REALLY played D&D just because they play it differently from the way you do. The game is whatever you make of it, and however you enjoy it is the right way to play. Having fun is the bottom line, not how you get there, which is only relevant to an individual and the group they play with. Might help to get some perspective on that, since I hope we're all adult enough to realize that the 'correct' way to play D&D is entirely and utterly subjective.
I don't buy that a specific power automatically is better than years and years of well honed military disicipline. The problem is that someone like a Hobgoblin should be able to easily command other hobgoblins. This race is naturally militaristic. They're not going to break the first time some self styled hero charges over the hill. There's a difference between heroic fantasy and stupidly heroic fantasy.
That doesn't necessarily mean a thing. You brought up the Romans earlier. If you can get hold of a copy of Gallic War, try to find the story about Pullo and Vorenus - I think it's in Book 6. That will give you a slightly different idea of Roman discipline and willingness to ignore a challenge. There are other examples, Josephus would probably be easiest to find.
As for the Iconics, I liked some of them. Vadania, for instance, and... Ok, I liked one of them. The rest of them sucked. I especially hated Krusk (couldn't stand his haircut), Ember (she looked like a man), Alhandra (disliked her haircut, too), Hennet (what's up with all the leather and buckles), and Mialee (ewww).
I think the iconics for the Pathfinder RPG look *excellent*. :D The old D&D 3.5 iconics were mostly "meh", Vadania had a very distinctive look, though
I'm here in China and a friend of mine got the books offline about two weeks ago. We looked these over and we were both appalled. Without a healer you get a lot of your hit points back, if you rest 6 hours you have full life. Granted this is a fantasy world, but we still look for some sense of reality, if no one heals you then you're up a creek without a paddle.
I agree, and so does my friend, that everyone looks the same in basis, the class may add a little, but not much. It feels like it is made for little kids, thus killing the idea that there was an older customer base that has been faithful for years. They only want to make a system that is geared to what is almost equal to an online RPG like Guild Wars. I like Guild Wars, but when I play DnD I don't want that feeling. I've played DnD for over 15 years and I feel put off by this 4e. I feel DnD with this addition was choked to death, not till it turned blue, but till it turned black, was made a simple minded zombie and choked some more- then stabbed with a light saber and shot with a lazer gun. Where did those come from? Exactly, they don't have the feel of DnD anymore.
Everything is back to hack'n'slash, and the idea of "balance" some are talking about is a load of poppy. If the game was unbalanced in 3.x then the DM wasn't doing his job.
An example of a change, besides the ones already stated, that I and my friend hated were more changes to Drow. They cast a darkness "cloud" that if I remember right is smaller than what it was in 3.x and only lasts until the end of your next round. I skimmed through some areas and I will read more, but only for the idea of - if you are going to talk about something then don't do it blindly. I want as much proof to back up the problems with 4e and WoTC as possible. I regret that they took the system down this path and have killed what I loved about FR. I loved DR and it was killed, now this. I will not put one cent towards this trash. They have destroyed many things that many players of DnD have held dear, and the thought that makes a sour taste in my mouth is the idea that it will be here to stay and continue to spread like a cancer as they make more books that go against what DnDrs fell in love with.
If my friend had bought his copies of the three books he said he certainly would have returned them to the store, as I would have after seeing them. Again, 3.x didn't need an overhaul, just the DMs ability to deal with his players and their playing style.
Sorry you couldn't see the beauty behind the new edition much luck in whatever you play from this point on.
BARBARIAN: Don't care for her. Really, it's the sword that ticks me off. It's one of those ridiculously oversized anime swords that **** me off. The same thing irritated the hell out of me when I played WoW. Especially annoying when the person holding the sword doesn't look physically capable of even lifting the sword, much less swinging it with any amount of accuracy or power nearly non-stop for several minutes at a time. If she had a more reasonably sized weapon, though, I would like this one.
BARD: Looks alright. It's a Halfling with hairy feet, so it scores points with me right there.
CLERIC: She looks VERY cool. If Paizo ever gets into casting miniatures, I'd love to have a mini of this character. Very nice.
DRUID: Errr...yyyeeee.... no.
FIGHTER: Excellent. He's got a weathered look to him. Pretty cool. Love how the guy walks around with his own cup. :D
MONK: This guy looks pretty neat.
PALADIN: Don't really care for her. But then again, I've always been extra particular when it comes to the Paladin iconics. Unless it looks like someone who stepped out of the pages of Le Morte D'Arthur, I don't like it.
RANGER: He looks a wee bit feline, but otherwise he's pretty cool. And it's nice seeing a Dwarf Ranger iconic. I've always thought Dwarves make for pretty kick-ass Rangers.
ROGUE: Wow. She really likes her knives. Very nice, though. :D
SORCERER: Beats Hennet's BDSM fetish look ANY day of the week. I also like the less civilized vibe I'm getting off of her. Don't know why, as her outfit doesn't look at all primitive. Probably the body paint/tattoos.
WIZARD: Very nice, too. Older wizard type never gets old. About the only thing I don't like with that is that he... has... a... crossbow!!! INTERNET RAGE!!!
;) Sorry, just got an unnatural aversion to Wizards with crossbows. But yeah, they're, for the most part, very nice. I like eight and dislike three. That's certainly a far cry better then only liking one, being indifferent to five, and disliking another five.
i once had a character named Smuckit...he was a simple 2nd addition gnome illusionist...he was never the center of the story, and he deffenently never struck a killing blow..... sad to say he died when a dragon fell on his head...but he was an exciting character to play.
then again i did have a worrior named Tarnan, who was strong enough to swing a two handed sword one handed.....and i had to send him to retirement.
What im saying is the adventure is what is important, if your DM is any good, he runs an adventure that pushes the personalitys of the characters, not there Wizard spells, or lack of...and it really doesnt matter how powerful a character is...it always comes down to the die roll....and we have all rolled the dreaded 1.
I love the over the top action of the new system. I love the skill set up. I hated the skills of 3E when I first picked up the books in 2000 or whatever year that was. I love that fighters are fun to play for me now. I like how at high levels a wizard does not outshine any other class. I love the paladin and will play one finally after all these years. Obviously this new version of the game will not be for everyone. I do not care because it is great for me and my group as I have said before.
Anyone the game is about fun. Geeky fun. We are geeks. Remember that. Even the good looking ones.
Even the good looking ones.
-Like me.
As Stigger said, the fun is the thing. People should not tell other people they have been playing the game "wrong" ever. If you find yourself thinking that ever (about RPGs) then grow up. Seriously. This is an odd little bit of entertainment that a small group of people like. People love coming on these boards and claiming that only intellegent people play this game but we all know that is BS. The people that have announced their IQs on these threads are pretty silly IMO.
Listen Rauric... Its obvious to me that you have no idea what its REALLY like to play D&D. You just dont get it! Wizards are supposed to be more powerful than everyone. Fighters are supposed to be the boring class you hand to the guy who doesnt want to buy books or learn rules. Clerics MUST choose between fighting (and listening to complain how he isnt healing) or healing (and complaining how he isnt fighting).
Listen Rauric... Its obvious to me that you have no idea what its REALLY like to play D&D. You just dont get it! Wizards are supposed to be more powerful than everyone. Fighters are supposed to be the boring class you hand to the guy who doesnt want to buy books or learn rules. Clerics MUST choose between fighting (and listening to complain how he isnt healing) or healing (and complaining how he isnt fighting).
I'm pertty sue you are joking, right?
As i have treaded through these posts on this topic i noticed one thing...most of the people hating on the new edition haven't even tried to play it yet. Funny how you hate something you haven't tried! I was a skeptic too. I hated everything that was missing from the edition but gave it a try and I and my gaming group (all skeptics) loved it after playing for a few hours. We approached it the same way we did a game of 3.5 and didn't look at it as a stupid board game version of WoW. Sheesh, people give it a try before you blast it. Instead of well i "looked over my friends books for a few minutes and hated everything about it because it was missing some stuff i was used to and i dont like the powers even though i havent seen how they work in action. So i canceled my order." Not saying to not cancel the order if you dont think you would like it. In fact try it out before you order and if you dont like it dont order. Just don't spew out hate for an edition you are not even willing to try. If you go into it with an open mind you will see it is still a great game and some people may even think its a better game. I know i think the combat is a whole lot more fun than 3.5 and I am a dm who didn't care for the combat part to begin with. Even if you try it and have a bit of fun but still like 3.5 better...good for you but don't complain about a system that you haven't even played with. This is crazy. I can't believe there are so many people out their hating this edition without even trying it. Of course i shouldnt be surprised because when third came out it was much the same.
I have played at least 4 demos. I really can't stand it. I hate the whole idea of my fate not being in my own hands with a stun effect or an immobilization effect. Saving throws were better the way they were, because even if the DM is the biggest jackass in the world, you can still roll a 20 and get out of the situation. It plays like a bad video game where people hold down the A button and every so often hit the B button to activate a special effect. There's too much of a "Player Validation" philosophy built into the game, where you deal damage even if you miss, and powers look like they came off of MTG cards.
C'mon Ody, that's hardly a fair comparison and you're well aware of it. :P
Well If it looks like it and smells like it.... Why buy it?
Not that I "hate" 4E....
I'm not saying 3E>4E or vice versa, I don't give a crap. It's not like I'm 8y.o. saying "My dad can be beat your dad"
The only reason that I'm not buying 4E is Because I don't see anything wrong with 3E and I have already invested way to much money to keep adding up.
IT'S NOT THAT SERIOUS PEOPLE!!!!
I MUST BE STOPED!!!!!:D
And I have tried all of them.
If you go into it with an open mind you will see it is still a great game and some people may even think its a better game.
This is pretty much what I've been saying - it IS a great game.
So is Monopoly, and Clue, and Risk...
Why just yesterday I gad a riveting game of Candyland with my 6 year old.
What I think most people are feeling is what I am feeling - Great game aside, it's NOT D&D.
Its something between D&D and the miniatures - a set of tactical rules with a thin veneer of a roleplay game stretched over it. I'm not saying you can't rolepleay with them - Hell, you don't even need rules to roleplay - but what I am saying is that the rules are now designed primarily around the encounters. As an old-school Squad Leader fan, I can tell you it has much the same feel for me if you just strip away the RPG elements, and the game can easily be played thusly (which fits into the 'points of light' mindset perfectly).
Not a bad thing - it plays alot like Mordheim from GamesWorkshop, which was one of the first cross-genre games of its kind, blending tactical miniatures rules with light RPG elements - except the 4e rules are lightyears better. Another 'old school' ruleset (from the 70's!) was FGU's Fire, Hack, & Run, which were terrific for reproducing small-scale tactical encounters between different groups. You see, I'm very familiar with those rules - I helped with them. ;)
All of those games are fun, but I wouldn't call any of them D&D. And the scarey part is that Mordheim is the closest in feel, and that game was hugely popular upon its release... and no one was playing it two years later. Without the extensive library of RPG sources to go with it, the play quickly became monotonous and repetitive, and the replay value grew smaller and smaller. I have a bad feeling this might happen to 4e as well.
Diablo II was one of THE most popular computer games of all time... until people realized all they were doing is right-clicking like crazy.
With 4e, only time will tell though.
Well, for me it is 3>4, but P>3.
And I have tried all of them.
For me it's pretty much 3=4=P=whatever. I can enjoy all of them. Oh noes.
It's all about taste :D
As i have treaded through these posts on this topic i noticed one thing...most of the people hating on the new edition haven't even tried to play it yet. Funny how you hate something you haven't tried! I was a skeptic too. I hated everything that was missing from the edition but gave it a try and I and my gaming group (all skeptics) loved it after playing for a few hours. We approached it the same way we did a game of 3.5 and didn't look at it as a stupid board game version of WoW. Sheesh, people give it a try before you blast it. Instead of well i "looked over my friends books for a few minutes and hated everything about it because it was missing some stuff i was used to and i dont like the powers even though i havent seen how they work in action. So i canceled my order." Not saying to not cancel the order if you dont think you would like it. In fact try it out before you order and if you dont like it dont order. Just don't spew out hate for an edition you are not even willing to try. If you go into it with an open mind you will see it is still a great game and some people may even think its a better game. I know i think the combat is a whole lot more fun than 3.5 and I am a dm who didn't care for the combat part to begin with. Even if you try it and have a bit of fun but still like 3.5 better...good for you but don't complain about a system that you haven't even played with. This is crazy. I can't believe there are so many people out their hating this edition without even trying it. Of course i shouldnt be surprised because when third came out it was much the same.
-Yes! I haven't gotten the opportunity to use this one for a while now!
-I've never drank poison before. Looks somewhat green, and smells slightly vinegary. And yet, somehow, I know it's not something I should drink. Crazy how that works.
-And, I'll use the other one.
-I like steak. Who doesn't? I don't like mushrooms, though. I don't like when my steak is cooked well done, either. And, I'm allergic to pepper. So, suffice to say, I'm not going to bother trying the chef's special: Well-done pepper steak with heavy, creamy mushroom sauce. Too many elements I know I don't like.
-And, for those who don't get it, the steak would represent the Forgotten Realms (or D&D, whatever), and all of those other things would represent the things in the 4-Gotten Realms (or 4e D&D, whatever) that the person doesn't like.
Take the Wendy's triple classic. When you order a #3 you get 3 patties, lettus, onions, pickles, ketchup, mustard, tomatoes, and mayonnaise on your burger. This represents 4e (FR 4e). Now, personally I can't stand mustard, ketchup, or pickles (its the vinegar) and so I have to order my #3 without this EVERY time. Does this mean i stop going to wendy's just because the way things are automatically done doesn't suit my needs? No, I change what i like and keep playing, er.....eating. Fact is, Wendy's (or WotC) can't cater to EVERYONE's specific needs and therefore won't appease everyone. The person has a decision to make. Either play the game, and make changes specifically taylored to them (like people do now with 3e), stop buying stuff from the company and complain about how they're not doing stuff you wanted, or switch between the editions. If you don't like 4th, that's fine, i can respect your opinion but saying it's not D&D or it's trash, or it's an MMO for morons is not respecting other's opinions of trying something new and having fun with a system that works for them.
18DELTA
-Yepper, one should always love a Red Head thats always HOT AND JUICY. ;) :P :D
18DELTA
If you talking about girls, agree...mostly :D
What I think most people are feeling is what I am feeling - Great game aside, it's NOT D&D.
QFT
This is my feeling on the new edition. I've read through all three books and see no reason to play, what I do not like. As Ody said, if it looks like S**t and it smells like S**T. I don;t need to taste it to know I won;t like it. To me, 4e is S**t, pure and simple.
Now, Pathfinder, is an entirely different story.
And, I understand that this is MY opinion, and others will think 4e is fantastic, but that does not mean my opinion is any less valuable than there, nor does it mean I have any less freedom to post here my opinion of the new edition
An DO NOT get me started on 4e FR. That is just...well, it makes 5th Age Dragonlance look fun.
QFT
This is my feeling on the new edition. I've read through all three books and see no reason to play, what I do not like. As Ody said, if it looks like S**t and it smells like S**T. I don;t need to taste it to know I won;t like it. To me, 4e is S**t, pure and simple.
Now, Pathfinder, is an entirely different story.
And, I understand that this is MY opinion, and others will think 4e is fantastic, but that does not mean my opinion is any less valuable than there, nor does it mean I have any less freedom to post here my opinion of the new edition
An DO NOT get me started on 4e FR. That is just...well, it makes 5th Age Dragonlance look fun.
I whole-heartedly respect your opinions and thoughts. Your opinion is no less or greater of value than say mine. But it's the constant flamming of the new edition that is sorta troubling. The occasional
4e i can tolerate but not with every other post (espically on 4e specific threads). Also, i'm not saying it's 1 specific person but just in general. I guess I could do the same with 2nd edition but after a while, it just gets old.Though the occassional cheap shot that just couldn't be resisted I'm all for when someone bends over without realizing it. Particularly if that someone is LK... :D
There's my cheap shot, that one was pretty irresistable. I just...couldn't help myself.
Would be nicer if perhaps those expressing negative opinions could maybe possibly put it in a less antagonistic way and try to respect the opinions of others with their hopefully carefully selected phrasing...
Though the occassional cheap shot that just couldn't be resisted I'm all for when someone bends over without realizing it. Particularly if that someone is LK... :D
Well, Stigger, I didn't realize you were looking for people bending over...
There's my cheap shot, that one was pretty irresistable. I just...couldn't help myself.
-I feel suddenly even more self-conscious than usual.
I was always agree with your main points too
Your main points aren't too bad either.;)
No more BDSM clothing in the art? Well that sucks...
As to the rest of it... well, if that's the style of play you're into, then it'll probably work out well. Having said that, those of us who aren't into that style of play are pretty much left standing in the rain as far as 4e is concerned. Such is life.
BDSM style of play?
-I feel suddenly even more self-conscious than usual.
Why, it's not like people are waiting for you to make just one mistake to make fun of you for it.
On a side note, I agree on the steak issue........anything more than medium is wasting good meat.
I also keep trying to get my wife to dye her hair red but it hasn't happened yet.
Now a gaming point...........
I might be playing in a 3.5 game and after a break from dming running 4e, and I bet you two dollars and a biscuit I'll enjoy both.
Some say it's not what you play, it's how you play. You can still have fun with the new $e. I say you can throw a stick, or you can use a bow and have more fun with launching this stick, it all depends on the tools you use. With $e I see the tool that I used to launch the stick was changed to a little piece of cloth to help launch it. Ya, I could still have fun, but having the bow was so much sweeter. It depends on proper tools to have fun, and the tool to me and others is no longer fun to use.
The tool was changed for other systems in a drastic way (DR for example) and look where they are now.
Since we're using food analogies here....
Take the Wendy's triple classic. When you order a #3 you get 3 patties, lettus, onions, pickles, ketchup, mustard, tomatoes, and mayonnaise on your burger. This represents 4e (FR 4e). Now, personally I can't stand mustard, ketchup, or pickles (its the vinegar) and so I have to order my #3 without this EVERY time. Does this mean i stop going to wendy's just because the way things are automatically done doesn't suit my needs? No, I change what i like and keep playing, er.....eating. Fact is, Wendy's (or WotC) can't cater to EVERYONE's specific needs and therefore won't appease everyone. The person has a decision to make. Either play the game, and make changes specifically taylored to them (like people do now with 3e), stop buying stuff from the company and complain about how they're not doing stuff you wanted, or switch between the editions. If you don't like 4th, that's fine, i can respect your opinion but saying it's not D&D or it's trash, or it's an MMO for morons is not respecting other's opinions of trying something new and having fun with a system that works for them.
Also on this note, err... burger you could say- A cheeseburger is a cheeseburger, which consists of beef, cheese, pickles, cats-nut and mustard. Wendy's takes out the meat and slides veggie meat in, adds lettuce, and tomatoes. They still call it a cheeseburger. Would you buy it?
True, you can't make everyone happy, but you shouldn't make drastic changes to something that works either to a point that it's almost not recognisable.
MMO isn't for morrons, but I don't like to feel like I'm playing an MMO when I play DnD, I can go online for an MMO.
I also feel I have the right to complain because I am a customer of over 15 years. Other customers are not happy either with such changes. We put money into a system and it was used to make us unhappy, it feels. It's like giving money to a preacher, then you hear he's making a big addition to his house.
I can promise you though, if you drink less than a lethal dose of poison, it wont kill you.
Hating on mechanics and gameplay that you haven't tried, or tried in a few demo's down at the FLGS, run by that guy who has been running them all day and wants a sammich cause he missed his lunch, is not trying it out.
I've read dozens of times that people hate it because they look and the classes are all the same. Not True. If we must resort to using metaphors and analogies..
Mechanically all cars are the same. They all have a power source, which provides motion, which is controlled by the user. BUT All cars are not the same!
People are all the same! We all have the same organs and the same needs. We all live and we all die. Again... at the same time, all people are not the same!
Just because the classes in the PHB all use the same mechanics, does not mean they are the same. Its difficult to figure this out without seeing them in action.
No amount of complaining is going to bing your old edition back. Your edition has died of old age and is beyond resurrection. Even Pathfinder is calling thier system 3.75
This tells me that they know they must step towards 4.0. Towards progress.
I'm not bashing it though, because there is a place for it. Just like in pennsylvania there is a place for people who dont like light bulbs or buttons.
We are geeks. Remember that. Even the good looking ones.
Well then, I guess that's me!;)
By the way, everyone, I've gotten a new idea for a 4E character: a female elf warlock (fey pact)--unaligned.
Not a big deal, maybe, but I'm starting to warm up to the warlock class, where I didn't really see what all the fuss was about before.Hating on mechanics and gameplay that you haven't tried, or tried in a few demo's down at the FLGS, run by that guy who has been running them all day and wants a sammich cause he missed his lunch, is not trying it out.
To be fair, many posters on this board who don't like the 4E rules have tried them out.
No amount of complaining is going to bing your old edition back. Your edition has died of old age and is beyond resurrection. Even Pathfinder is calling thier system 3.75
This tells me that they know they must step towards 4.0. Towards progress.
I'm not bashing it though, because there is a place for it. Just like in pennsylvania there is a place for people who dont like light bulbs or buttons.
A business depends on it's customer base. If the business makes a change and this makes their numbers fall, then they know they made a big mistake. If everyone just puts their heads down and accepts the changes then gamers like this are not doing what they should- speak up. I don't like to lead a life like a sheep.
If the government takes away freedom of speech, what would you do? We have a voice being a customer.
Gamers that don't like the changes don't have to suck-it-up and buy what's new just because it's new and "considered" progress in the eyes of some. The old can come back and has happened in other businesses because of numbers. I hope the numbers don't addup for WoTC and there is a - possibility- things go back, or at least to something similar to 3e. That's just my hope though.
Well, for me it is 3>4, but P>3.
And I have tried all of them.
BECMI for the win!!!! Wait, what we talking about again?
I can't believe we are comparing Fourth Edition to actually drinking poison...
I can promise you though, if you drink less than a lethal dose of poison, it wont kill you.
Hating on mechanics and gameplay that you haven't tried, or tried in a few demo's down at the FLGS, run by that guy who has been running them all day and wants a sammich cause he missed his lunch, is not trying it out.
I've read dozens of times that people hate it because they look and the classes are all the same. Not True. If we must resort to using metaphors and analogies..
Mechanically all cars are the same. They all have a power source, which provides motion, which is controlled by the user. BUT All cars are not the same!
People are all the same! We all have the same organs and the same needs. We all live and we all die. Again... at the same time, all people are not the same!
Just because the classes in the PHB all use the same mechanics, does not mean they are the same. Its difficult to figure this out without seeing them in action.
No amount of complaining is going to bing your old edition back. Your edition has died of old age and is beyond resurrection. Even Pathfinder is calling thier system 3.75
This tells me that they know they must step towards 4.0. Towards progress.
I'm not bashing it though, because there is a place for it. Just like in pennsylvania there is a place for people who dont like light bulbs or buttons.
But that's PRECISELY the problem. People in 4e AREN'T all the same. The PC's are in one tier and everything else is in another. They use DIFFERENT design strategies. This undermines the basic principle of 3.5, which is that everything was STANDARDIZED!
Gamers that don't like the changes don't have to suck-it-up and buy what's new just because it's new and "considered" progress in the eyes of some. The old can come back and has happened in other businesses because of numbers. I hope the numbers don't addup for WoTC and there is a - possibility- things go back, or at least to something similar to 3e. That's just my hope though.
Obviously you haven't heard. All the 3.5 books (even yours) are wired to explode on July 1st so everyone is forced to play 4ed. (insert evil laughter here)
Hehe, then my friends computer will explode in an atomic blast here in BeiJing, China.
An atomic blast in Beijing? I wouldn't want to even imagine the casualties of that....
Let's see. Dungeons, check. Dragons, check. Races and classes that let you either kill stuff and solve problems all with the pretense of roleplaying so we don't feel like a bunch of nimrods? Check. Yeah, it's pretty much like all the other editions that bear the franchise name. Just different which scares some people.
-At times, it seems like you "know what's going on", so to speak, and then, there are times like this, where you just seem to put your foot in your mouth.
-I think it is fairly common knowledge that I'm not exactly that supportive of 4e D&D and the 4-Gotten Realms. Please, elaborate: How/why am I scared of change, and how do my opinions translate into being afraid of change?
Why, it's not like people are waiting for you to make just one mistake to make fun of you for it.
On a side note, I agree on the steak issue........anything more than medium is wasting good meat.
-Agreed.
I can't believe we are comparing Fourth Edition to actually drinking poison...
-Yeah, it's called an analogy. One can know they don't like the taste of poison without drinking it, just like they can know they don't like a particular game without playing it. Simple logic. Refute it.
Well then, I guess that's me!;)
-Well, yes, especially you.
-Yeah, it's called an analogy. One can know they don't like the taste of poison without drinking it, just like they can know they don't like a particular game without playing it. Simple logic. Refute it.
You very well might like the taste, it's the agonizing death that will just ruin your nightcap.
P.S. I found this appropriate. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0618
Would be nicer if perhaps those expressing negative opinions could maybe possibly put it in a less antagonistic way....
They could leave the masked profanity out, for one.
Figuring out where personal opinions stop and insane leaps of logic (that aren't supported by anything factual) starts, before deciding what's appropriate to post and what not, would help also.
::::::::::::::::
More feedback from my players:
*There's not that much to the classes. Creating characters is quick and dirty. Drastically reduced equipment lists.
While on its face the first sentence above may seem bad, a benefit we found is that it's not that hard for 4 players to team up and make a 5th character that's run by the group, so the DM doesn't have to alter encounters that assume 5 characters are in play.
We also found that character creation leaves more time for building a character’s back-story.
*The class builds lock you out of certain abilities. You can’t do everything at 1st level in 4E that you could do in 3E.
This was a good observation. The party rogue can’t tumble at 1st level because the 4E skill system doesn’t support it.
Instead the player needs to get his character to at least 2nd level before he can gain a Utility Power (aptly called Tumble) that lets him shift 3 squares without suffering opportunity attacks.
That little bit of rules suckage almost got the rogue killed in the encounter I ran earlier this week.
:::::::::::::::::::
I’ve seen some people post that 4E doesn’t feel like D&D.
I’d respond to this by saying that so far, 4E to me seems less like D&D then 3E vs. 2E did back when we started playing Third Edition.
Note that at the dawn of Third Edition a lot of Negative Nellys went to great lengths online to proclaim 3E was “not D&D at all” too. But people saw the utility and solid mechanics of the (then) new game and adopted it in such great numbers that any prior wacko claims that 3E was going to kill Dungeons and Dragons because it just “wasn’t D&D” were themselves dead on arrival.
We'll see how 4E holds up.
So we’re still going to give 4E a chance in my group. We’re alternating between our long-standing 3E Realms game and the new Realms 4E game I’m running. My players want more time running their characters and some are still considering switching classes.
My players also seem to be progressing on their own towards multiclassing at 1st level with classes that fill the same party roles.
The human Ranger/Rogue (Rorick Huntsilver II, of the Huntsilver noble family of Cormyr) is a dashing, foppishly unapologetic noble who is quite comfortable navigating the Royal Court of Cormyr, but unbeknownst to most has spent a great deal of time in the King's Wood and the Hullack Forrest learning the ways of the woods.
He is one example of my player's effort at multiclassing two of the three striker classes (whilst also incorporating an excellent back story).
...OK, funny scene from last Monday.
Rorick is sitting at the bar of a festhall, whereupon another NPC sitting by a warm hearth at the other end of the room is set upon and harassed by newly arrived ruffians that have come looking for the NPC (a priest of Chauntea).
One ruffian breaks from his companions and takes a seat at the bar next to Rorick. Instead of keeping watch for trouble, the ruffian lays hungry eyes upon the proprietress, with whom he tries to start a conversation by lewdly announcing just what he’d like to do with her in private.
Rorick, naturally offended, warns the ruffian of his impending doom just as the ruffian’s companions make ready to slay the now uncooperative NPC they found sitting at the hearth.
Combat ensues as the other PC’s (situated at their own table) leap to the NPC’s defense, while Rorick stealthily draws his dagger (granting him Combat Advantage) as the ruffian draws his weapon and turns his attention towards the fight near the festhall hearth.
With a flourish, Rorick’s player announces how Rorick will quickly stab the ruffian, then leap valiantly over the bar and protect the proprietress.
Rorick’s player rolls a 1 on his attack, so I announce (with as much of a mocking version of the player’s gallant tone as I can mimic) that Rorick has now murdered a bar stool.
Laughter ensues, and the battle continues as Rorick dislodges his dagger and barely avoids an opportunity attack (he can't Tumble yet, remember?) from the ruffian while leaping over the bar and using it as cover for the fight to come between him and the ruffian.
........with all that said, are y’all sure this doesn’t sound like D&D?
;););)
BDSM style of play?
Nah, I prefer that in situations other than gaming thanks. ;)
Why, it's not like people are waiting for you to make just one mistake to make fun of you for it.
Speak for yourself. :P
No tumble at 1st? That's kinda crap... especially for a rogue.
Well then, I guess that's me!;)
By the way, everyone, I've gotten a new idea for a 4E character: a female elf warlock (fey pact)--unaligned.
Yeah, the Warlock does look pretty swanky. I've got ideas for all three pacts, myself. Tiefling Warlock (Infernal Pact) is a given of course. More of an anti-hero. He's not particularly heroic, but does heroic things because he's just drawn into those kinds of situations. The type of guy who'd insult the people he just rescued for being stupid enough to be caught in the situation he just saved them from.
Then there's the Human Warlock (Star Pact). I'm picturing a guy with his hair falling out, what's left of it frazzled and unkempt. He made contact with the Far Realm and has been... off... since then. A little crazy and manic, with a perpetually wild-eyed, crazed look on his face.
And lastly, Gnome Warlock (Fey Pact). A trickster type. Likes to play pranks on people, but he's most definitely not good. He's capricious and has something of a cruel streak. Think of it like this: He's a cute, adorable, lovable midget who, at a moments notice, can turn scary.
Neither of them are my first 4E character, though. The first one I devised was my Human Paladin of Torm for LFR. I still gotta work out the details of his backstory (not to mention his name. Names are always the biggest pain for me), but to summarize, he's the great-grandson of one of the Martyr's Progeny. His great-grandfather was found as an infant by his dead parents, both of whom gave their lives to empower Torm. None knew him, so the church took him in, named him, and raised him along with the rest of the Martyr's Progeny. He grew up and became a Paladin of Torm, adventuring all across the face of Faerun, before finally retiring in Tantras to raise a family. He told the tales of his adventures to his children, who told the tale to their children, who told it to their children. And now his great-grandson is inspired by his example to take up his great-grandfathers mantle and follow in both his footsteps and the footsteps of Torm himself, battling the followers of Bane and opposing evil wherever he finds it.
-Yeah, it's called an analogy. One can know they don't like the taste of poison without drinking it, just like they can know they don't like a particular game without playing it. Simple logic. Refute it.
That's the argument some children use to refuse to eat something. "I won't like it." "Have you tried it?" "No. But I won't like it."
I'll let you into a little secret. I've been playing D&D, other RPGs, and other sorts of games since 1976. I've seen lots of rules sets, games, etc. that either didn't read well or didn't catch my imagination on first reading. Some of those I've never played as a result. But sometimes, just sometimes, I've been asked to play a game I didn't think I'd like and I've had a lot of fun playing it. In other cases things I've really been looking forward to have disappointed me when it came to playing them. I'm not going to name names here, partly because some of them are obscure 1970s/1980s English games and partly because it's irrelevant to the topic. The one thing this has taught me is not to decide what I'm going to like or dislike until I've actually tried it. I don't know which category 4th Edition will be in yet, whether it plays better than it looks or worse than it looks, but I seriously suggest that you give it a try and find out for yourself whether it suits you. I'd suggest that for everything - except F.A.T.A.L., which deserves to be buried in a deep pit and used as a name to frighten children with.
Let's see. Dungeons, check. Dragons, check. Races and classes that let you either kill stuff and solve problems all with the pretense of roleplaying so we don't feel like a bunch of nimrods? Check. Yeah, it's pretty much like all the other editions that bear the franchise name. Just different which scares some people.
- Vancian magic system. Not check.
Not D&D.
I whole-heartedly respect your opinions and thoughts. Your opinion is no less or greater of value than say mine. But it's the constant flamming of the new edition that is sorta troubling. The occasional
Well, people are going to voice their opinion and feelings, and many people who play D&D are not happy with 4e and do not like it, hence the rash of anti-4e posts.
Personally, I'm tired of the '4e rocks and 3rd sucks' posts. But, hey, that just my opinion
-At times, it seems like you "know what's going on", so to speak, and then, there are times like this, where you just seem to put your foot in your mouth.
-I think it is fairly common knowledge that I'm not exactly that supportive of 4e D&D and the 4-Gotten Realms. Please, elaborate: How/why am I scared of change, and how do my opinions translate into being afraid of change?
Are you scared of the change? I said "Just different, which scares some people". I think some people dislike it for realistic reasons and others don't like it because they fear new things and fear change. I never really mentioned anyone in particular. Sorry I made you think I was directing my comment at all of the people who dislike 4E. I was just referring to some people who dislike it. Understand now that my foot is out of my mouth?
Though I've no idea what Vancian magic has to do with D&D being D&D or not... its the one aspect of D&D I absolutely loathe and would love to see buried in Bluenose's pit.
Are you scared of the change?
Not me. From what I have seen (still waiting for my amazon order, the bastards) I like the new rules. I just hate the new Realms. The change was for no real reason. Why fix something that is not broke
- Vancian magic system. Not check.
Oh yeah, like nobody ever complained about the Vancian Magic system before.
Well, for me it is 3>4, but P>3.
And I have tried all of them.
Wait, I just caught something..
You believe 3e is better than 4e, but Pathfinder is better than 3ed, but Pathfinder is just going to make a game based off the 3e rules? In other words how is Pathfinder going to be better when its going to basically be 3e 3.6? ... Anyway this whole thing is none important, only thing that really matters is that WotC keeps pumping out good material so I have something to spend my money on.
You believe 3e is better than 4e, but Pathfinder is better than 3ed, but Pathfinder is just going to make a game based off the 3e rules? In other words how is Pathfinder going to be better when its going to basically be 3e 3.6? ...
Technically I think it's 3.75....
Anyway this whole thing is none important, only thing that really matters is that WotC keeps pumping out good material so I have something to spend my money on.
If you are just looking for a way to spend your money, I am currently accepting checks, cash and credit cards (via paypal). I'll be happy to give you the PO Box you can send it to if you wish.
P.S. I found this appropriate. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0618
Hilarious! :P
Posted: 2:17 a.m. by LordOrcus I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese. This is a slap in the face and a knife in the gut. You have lost me, Better Joy Cookbook. I would bid you goodbye, but I wish you nothing but the pain and rage you have delivered unto me.
Surely the author must be browsing this forum :D
If you are just looking for a way to spend your money, I am currently accepting checks, cash and credit cards (via paypal). I'll be happy to give you the PO Box you can send it to if you wish.
Yes, unfortunately the difference between you and WotC is that you're not the publisher of my gaming addiction, hence only WotC can get my money honey.
Oh yeah, like nobody ever complained about the Vancian Magic system before.
I never had any problems with it.
Wait, I just caught something..
You believe 3e is better than 4e, but Pathfinder is better than 3ed, but Pathfinder is just going to make a game based off the 3e rules? In other words how is Pathfinder going to be better when its going to basically be 3e 3.6? ... Anyway this whole thing is none important, only thing that really matters is that WotC keeps pumping out good material so I have something to spend my money on.
Because they are doing a clockwork fixing. They improve the bad rules without destroying the game, and that's what WotC should've done.
"Working for good and maintaining balance are often matters of small degrees. If you wish to shape a bush you must prune it gently, not take a scythe to it."
- Danilo Thann, speaking to Master Harper Bran Skorlsun just before he was offered a Harper pin, Year of Maidens
I use the Spell Point system too. But depends on the type of campaign I want to DM. A powerful and dangerous campaign where I want to put the characters in higher danger (I've thrown them encounters with CR five levels over them for a whole day and they were able to survive them).
Ouch! They probably needed EVERY point they could get, lol.
Let's see. Dungeons, check. Dragons, check. Races and classes that let you either kill stuff and solve problems all with the pretense of roleplaying so we don't feel like a bunch of nimrods? Check. Yeah, it's pretty much like all the other editions that bear the franchise name. Just different which scares some people.
Runequest has all of those, dosn't make it D&D. Gurps Fantasy has those as well and its not D&D either
Are you scared of the change? I said "Just different, which scares some people". I think some people dislike it for realistic reasons and others don't like it because they fear new things and fear change. I never really mentioned anyone in particular. Sorry I made you think I was directing my comment at all of the people who dislike 4E. I was just referring to some people who dislike it. Understand now that my foot is out of my mouth?
-Then, identify "some people".
-Likewise, ...to some people.
-Well, yes, especially you.
Thanks.:embarrass
Neither of them are my first 4E character, though. The first one I devised was my Human Paladin of Torm for LFR. I still gotta work out the details of his backstory (not to mention his name. Names are always the biggest pain for me), but to summarize, he's the great-grandson of one of the Martyr's Progeny...
Oh yes, that's a great hook to use! I've used it once before, myself.
Regarding warlocks, the other warlock I've had in mind is a human female warlock (infernal pact) who is a devout follower of Asmodeus. The thing is, though, she's supposed to be a villain, and I generally don't like playing evil PCs. Good thing I've thought up some characters who could challenge her, such as a male tielfling fighter would would later multiclass to a warlord (he was, in fact, the first 4E who ever started forming in my mind).
Talking about our PCs (and possible PCs) is a lot of fun.
Though I've no idea what Vancian magic has to do with D&D being D&D or not... its the one aspect of D&D I absolutely loathe and would love to see buried in Bluenose's pit.
For my part, I don't loathe Vancian magic, and in fact I actually like it (especially in the Realms setting). However, I think it's worth it to try a version of D&D that doesn't have Vancian magic as a part of the system. If it works and it's fun, I think that's just fine.
Let's see. Dungeons, check. Dragons, check. Races and classes that let you either kill stuff and solve problems all with the pretense of roleplaying so we don't feel like a bunch of nimrods? Check. Yeah, it's pretty much like all the other editions that bear the franchise name. Just different which scares some people.
So this is my statement.
-Then, identify "some people".
-Likewise, ...to some people.
Uh,no? As I said before some people like it or hate it for good reasons and some folks dislike it because they fear change. I wrote "some" to say that not all of the anti-4E people dislike it because of fear just some of them.
-Who are those who "fear change"? What examples do we have of this? Or, it is just a gut opinion, with little by way of facts to back it up?
Talking about our PCs (and possible PCs) is a lot of fun.
Absolutely! A friend is going to start running 4e in a campaign on sunday afternoons and from previous gaming sessions, I need to bring my A-game. I was thinking Dragonborn (silver, electricty breath) paladin of Bahamut. Probably going with the Protective Paladin, plate armor, heavy shield...the draconic uber-tank
! Hopefully he won't die too quickly.--Well, yes, especially you.
dear lord
Oh yes, that's a great hook to use! I've used it once before, myself.
I like the "latest in a long line" idea, too. Here's something else I like. Check out the suit of armor on the cover of this issue of Dragon. It's got portraits of all its previous bearers. That's a pretty damn good idea. Someday I'm gonna create a character whose family lineage runs back a couple hundred years, with a family suit of armor worn by all his ancestors, and have the armor covered in small portraits of all the previous bearers.
Regarding warlocks, the other warlock I've had in mind is a human female warlock (infernal pact) who is a devout follower of Asmodeus. The thing is, though, she's supposed to be a villain, and I generally don't like playing evil PCs.
Me neither. I've made two or three evil characters and never much cared for the experience. The first one was an Anti-Paladin, who visited a house of ill repute and found some money missing from his coinpurse (and his armor cleaned, although he didn't ask for that service). So in response, he burned that house down and then went on a rampage through town. Ended up getting captured (due to another player, an archer, sniping on me when I was fighting the town guard, instead of helping me like he was supposed to) and guillotined. Although I did make the ridiculously small percentage roll the DM assigned to rise again as a Death Knight. ;)
The second was a Necromancer with the ability to turn the recently dead into zombies. So another player and I went looking for some hobos to slaughter so we could turn them into zombies. Then we could use them as extra muscle in dungeons, as well as have them set off traps and such. We found a family of hobos and attacked. But unfortunately, they turned out to be a family of wererats...
Good thing I've thought up some characters who could challenge her, such as a male tielfling fighter would would later multiclass to a warlord (he was, in fact, the first 4E who ever started forming in my mind).
Talking about our PCs (and possible PCs) is a lot of fun.
Yeah, it always interests me seeing what kinds of characters other people play.
Yeah, it always interests me seeing what kinds of characters other people play.
I love that as well. Its why I'm always bumping that Book of Abeir Toril thread. I love campaign journals as well and party compisitions etc etc
dear lord
-You have a problem?
I love that as well. Its why I'm always bumping that Book of Abeir Toril thread. I love campaign journals as well and party compisitions etc etc
-On Saturday, I'll make sure I have my PC/NPC binder. Newly updated, too.
-You have a problem?
Not at all. I'm happy for you two kids
-Who are those who "fear change"? What examples do we have of this? Or, it is just a gut opinion, with little by way of facts to back it up?
Dubiousness and skepticism is one thing, but constantly making the unreasonable demand for absolute proof is just dumb.
It's like listening to a kid say "No it's not!" just because they're not interested in listening to anything anyone with more experience has to say to them.
I never had any problems with it.
So nobody else has ever had problems with it or expressed negative opinions about it in the last couple decades?
I've heard, read and participated in such discussions.
Have you?
1. Introducing a new race (Dragonborn) into old campaigns - just crazy - I'm waiting for the Realms guidebook to see how they do that little feat.
2. Dropping the Druid, monk and bard fromthe PHB - yeah I know they are supposed to be out in another product later but they are integral pieces of my campaign (at least) and should have been addressed instead of the magic items in the PHB which should have stayed in the DMG.
3. Replacing low level powers with higher ones instead of keeping the low level powers and adding new higher level - if forced to DM 4.0 I'll be rule zeroing this.
4. effectively requiring characters to stop at level 30 - while it may not affect most campaigns they have closed the top end more or less permanently with their "epic" progressions - and they really need at least a few more of those as well - something that fighters, rangers, clerics, warlords, etc will be interested in. what do we have really - trickster - for certain rogues only, archmage - for the wizards, demigod and eternal seeker - as stopgaps for everyone else. I will grant that 3.5 was somewhat broken at epic levels - especially above level 35 but then some books like the elder evils really should have been done as epic level villains (levels 25-45) not as level 16-22 hazards. the real problem has been the lack of support for epic level play other than a few mentions and the epic book.
5. doing away with anything really resembling multiclassing - yeah sure you can get a feat or two and a power or two but really multiclass? impossible! My rule zero for this as well as the epic problem - go back to the 1e/2e rule for humans about switching classes and allow characters to reach level 30 in 2 or more classes while gaining the full benefits of each class once they are equal. done that way you even have an explanation for all the elven multiclassing - they have lives long enough to try several different careers and to mix and match classes to suit their personalities in ways that humans simply don't have given their short years.
Sadly its simply not D&D even though its decent fantasy role playing rule set. that is something that WotC lost track of somewhere along the line. Because of this they have had to whack all their worlds to get them to fit the new rule set and for the forgotten realms I have great fear that I will have to go back to running a noncannon world or finally simply retire from gaming as I do not have the time needed to convert all the 4.0 versions of events into 3.5 rule set nor am I really willing to convert my campaign to 4.0 after all I have invested in 3.5
3. Replacing low level powers with higher ones instead of keeping the low level powers and adding new higher level - if forced to DM 4.0 I'll be rule zeroing this.
This is a good point.
I don’t' have enough experience yet to know how well players will be able to keep track of their powers used and whatnot during play at the higher levels of Heroic, but I could see my guys wanting to keep using "what they know" from Heroic once they break into Paragon levels.
If they do and it doesn't seem like much of a headache at the table, I will probably rule-zero the old powers back onto their character sheets.
4. ...the real problem has been the lack of support for epic level play other than a few mentions and the epic book.
I can appreciate your sentiments here. I’ve had a tough time with challenging my players at Epic Levels in 3E.
I think we’ll have to wait and see though.
I credit WotC with estimating where most games will be at by the time the PH2 and subsequent books come out. Hopefully DDI plus the DMG2/MM2 (is that what they’re calling them, if at all?) will give support to Paragon and Epic tier campaigns next year.
5. doing away with anything really resembling multiclassing - yeah sure you can get a feat or two and a power or two but really multiclass? impossible!
My players are already experimenting with multiclassing and have built some plausible back-stories around why their character’s are multiclassed.
They’ve found that multiclassing tends to work best when you mix together elements of classes that fill the same role. Multiclassing as a Ranger/Rogue for example (both are Strikers).
Sadly it’s simply not D&D even though its decent fantasy role playing rule set.
I will always be disappointed that WotC repeated in the Realms what they did to Dragonlance, to Greyhawk (after a fashion) and even to the Realms once before.
I don’t think that was the right way to do things. I figure that WotC took the momentum they had built up in-house to streamline D&D and misapplied it to the Forgotten Realms.
But I’m still here to help me and others get the most out of it, unwise designer decisions be damned.
its not a bad system but it is not D&D - its new gaming system and should have been marketed as such.
Plenty of people said the same about 3E when it came out. Just because there're changes between it and the last edition, it doesn't mean it's not D&D. It's still a class system with levels, it has hit points, AC, trap-filled dungeons, dragons, etc.
Dubiousness and skepticism is one thing, but constantly making the unreasonable demand for absolute proof is just dumb.
-If one is going to portray something like a pseudo fact, then proof is needed, and is hardly unreasonable.
As to 4e not being D&D, I think it would probably be wiser to read that as 4e not being the D&D that the (rhetorical we) know and love. I doubt its intended as an absolute statement, so much as an opinion that was poorly phrased... well, in some cases anyway.
18DELTA ;)
Much of the knee-jerk responses are similar to what we had here when the Spellplague, et-al were announced.
Might be being dense at the moment, but what's GSL? Just isn't coming to me...
4E GSL
4E GSL
GSL=Game System License. Its Hasbro's way of putting the Open Game Content back in the Bottle. Go 4E as a publisher and they can revoke your license at any time, change the license at any time, reproduce your materials at any time. That why I am glad that Paizo is staying 3E, they dont have to mess with this cr@p. After reading that on Wednesday my desire to play 4E went away. Its truley "ONE SYSTEM TO RULE THEM ALL!!!"
18DELTA ;)
Naming names, so to speak, would probably break the CoC, so its not really even a remotely reasonable request to make of someone. Having said that, I would tend to agree that there are those who seem to be grasping at straws when looking for reasons to hate 4e, and it seems reasonable that there's at least some element of fear of change to that one, though obviously that's an opinion.
As to 4e not being D&D, I think it would probably be wiser to read that as 4e not being the D&D that the (rhetorical we) know and love. I doubt its intended as an absolute statement, so much as an opinion that was poorly phrased... well, in some cases anyway.
That is what I was thinking. Even if I thought one or more people disliked 4E because they were afraid of change I would not name names. It is just not a classy thing and would seem like I was harrassing or flaming them. That seems to be agaisnt C of C and I do not wish to mess with that.
About the GSL? I don't care. I really never mess with 3rd Publisher stuff since anytime I bought the stuff it never met my expectactions. I would rather have sub-par WOTC than great 3rd Publisher stuff.I remember all the horrible companies and products that D20 spawned. People love Necro games but I hate the 1st Edition feel so that makes me say no thanks to them. Paizo is doing 3.5 until the bottom falls out of that. I think they were going to sell books through Necro so they could make 4E product but who knows if that will work. If it was Paizo style through Necro then maybe I will pick it up. If the GSL means that 3rd publisher quality stays good then that is a good thing right? Plus besides 3E what other edition or company let others
make products based off their game system?
About the GSL? I don't care. I really never mess with 3rd Publisher stuff since anytime I bought the stuff it never met my expectactions. I would rather have sub-par WOTC than great 3rd Publisher stuff.I remember all the horrible companies and products that D20 spawned. People love Necro games but I hate the 1st Edition feel so that makes me say no thanks to them. Paizo is doing 3.5 until the bottom falls out of that. I think they were going to sell books through Necro so they could make 4E product but who knows if that will work. If it was Paizo style through Necro then maybe I will pick it up. If the GSL means that 3rd publisher quality stays good then that is a good thing right?
I've found that 3rd party publishers were really hit and miss. I like most of the stuff that Green Ronin puts out, but even some of their splatbooks left me feeling, meh. Still, every so often you can strike gold. There was a nothing OGL book I picked up "Pirate Isle Sourcebook" by some unknown company that was very interesting. Entirely different feel than normal 3.5 stuff. I think the writer posts on Giant In the Playground board because I think I saw some of his early concepts for a class called "Cat Juggler." So I've found it's worth taking a look at the 3rd party stuff, just realize you are going to find a lot of junk for every gem.
That actually seems fairly reasonable in terms of the 4e ruleset being their intellectual property and them taking steps to protect that fact... I'd be kinda shocked if they didn't retain those sort of rights really.
It's not at all as bad as some people are claiming. The part of it which worries me most is the way it could be terminated without warning and without any "grace" period. It wouldn't stop me publishing under it.
All around I don't think the GSL is that drastic. I missed the part where they said they could reproduce 3rd party developers intellectual property at their choice. If you wouldn't mind, would you please point out where that is in the GSL. Thanks. It just seems to me, that since the GSL is written it is specifically for D&D 4ed compatible materials, it makes perfect sense that they would have greater control over who can use it. If someone is going to be able to put the "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition" logo on their product, Wizards better make sure that whatever they are producing isn't going to negatively impact them. Really, once again, this seems more a matter of being nice and allowing others to play along with minimal effort, rather than trying to be jerks about "their game." Remember, Wizards has the right to jealously guard their intellectual property, and use every possible legal means at their disposal to do so.
They can't reproduce your IP. The simplest way to realise this is to see how it relates to other licensed properties. If I had a license to produce a Discworld RPG based on 4E, WotC would have absolutely no way to touch any of the IP involved without losing the lawsuit. They could if they wanted to be unpleasant about it remove my right to publish with the D&D logo on, but that's it. My own original material is as protected as it used to be.
Saying that, if I wrote a supplement called "Religions of the Forgotten Realms" with versions of the Heartwarder, Strifemaster, and other priests and then Wizards came out with their own version they could require me to stop - but in this case it's because the things I'm doing aren't my IP in the first place.
1) Seal of Binding (Cleric attack 25) + Divine Regeneration (demigod power 26): works well against Solo monsters, you made a Wis vs Will attack that stunns the enemy and protects it from any other damage, you do 3d10 + Wis damage to the enemy and 2d10+Wis to you, you can do it all the encounter. This is the broken part, Divine Regeneration gives you regeneration equal to your highest ability score.
Let's say the cleric has 26 Wisdom, that would give him Regeneration 26 against 2d10+8 (19), that means you can keep doing this during all the encounter without any problem for you, and do damage near to 1000, depending on your wisdom. It's not usefull for group encounters, but against Solo encounters it's a killer.
2) Divine Miracle (Demigod 30) + Elven Accuracy
It's at the last level, but sounds pretty powerful. The idea is use encounter powers all your rounds for every kind of action (one minor, recharge, one move, recharge, one standar, recharge), elves can use their racial power with that. For example: you cast Chain Lightning, you miss, use the Elven Racial Power and you reroll Chain Lightning again. It's not infinite, but it can do a lot of damage if used well.
3)Blade Cascade: Elf Rogue (Brutal Scoundrel) + Ranger multiclass + Shadow Assassin paragon + Deadly Trickster + Cascade of Blades + Imperilling Strike.
Blade cascade allows you to continue hitting until you miss, you need to increase your AB so you can only fail with a natural 1 (and that is when you use your Elven racial power to reroll the attack) and increase damage as much as you can. For that you use an action point, combined with the rogue power Imperilling Strike which decreases the target's AC by your strength (higher stat for this combo), the paragon Shadow Assassin gives you +4 to attack when you use an action point, that's when you use Blade Cascade and you are only going to miss with a natural 1 (I've seen the math and it only misses with a 1, when that happens you use your elven power to reroll). This combo can kill Orcus in one round.
Those are almost direct translations, some of the meaning could've been lost during the process.
Didn't take much time to find something that could kill Orcus in one round.
Sweet! 4E just sounds better and better to me! :D
Orcus now seems like a pussycat. There was nothing in 3rd edition that could kill Orcus in one round by doing an infinite number of attacks. That's the problem you have when you change the Saving Throw Roll for defense to attack roll for offense. As soon as you get a power to reroll that you are going to hit all the time (elves are now the best race thanks to their racial power). With Saving Throws the ball was in the defense's court, not in the attacker's. That's one of the things that turned me off from 4th edition as soon as I saw it and now I know why.
All I know from what they told me is that it's easier to find the broken combos in 4th edition that in 3rd edition. You just need to find out ways of changing how you can user your actions (like the second and third case), or to find ways of overcoming the drawbacks of powers (like the first case) because the game is ballanced in those aspects, break them and you break the ballance (elven strikers are the ones who are going to be the kings of the hill on 4th edition).
Absolutely! A friend is going to start running 4e in a campaign on sunday afternoons and from previous gaming sessions, I need to bring my A-game. I was thinking Dragonborn (silver, electricty breath) paladin of Bahamut. Probably going with the Protective Paladin, plate armor, heavy shield...the draconic uber-tank
Heh, I thought up a dragonborn paladin of Bahamut, myself.
The dragon breath ability looks like fun--I do think there are some interesting racial feats to choose from.I like the "latest in a long line" idea, too. Here's something else I like. Check out the suit of armor on the cover of this issue of Dragon. It's got portraits of all its previous bearers. That's a pretty damn good idea. Someday I'm gonna create a character whose family lineage runs back a couple hundred years, with a family suit of armor worn by all his ancestors, and have the armor covered in small portraits of all the previous bearers.
That is a really neat idea. I say use it!
Me neither. I've made two or three evil characters and never much cared for the experience. The first one was an Anti-Paladin, who visited a house of ill repute and found some money missing from his coinpurse (and his armor cleaned, although he didn't ask for that service). So in response, he burned that house down and then went on a rampage through town. Ended up getting captured (due to another player, an archer, sniping on me when I was fighting the town guard, instead of helping me like he was supposed to) and guillotined. Although I did make the ridiculously small percentage roll the DM assigned to rise again as a Death Knight. ;)
The second was a Necromancer with the ability to turn the recently dead into zombies. So another player and I went looking for some hobos to slaughter so we could turn them into zombies. Then we could use them as extra muscle in dungeons, as well as have them set off traps and such. We found a family of hobos and attacked. But unfortunately, they turned out to be a family of wererats...
That's funny.
And the thing is, they deserved what they got. I think overall it's more fun to be a hero. Heck, it's unusual for me to even play neutral characters, although I still would rather be neutral than evil. I simply don't find it satisfying (I play the game to be a hero), and as your examples demonstrated, there's no reason why a miscreant PC shouldn't wind up paying the consequences for starting trouble.ok having read through the PHB & DMG and tried building and translating characters I am not satisfied with 4.0. its not a bad system but it is not D&D - its new gaming system and should have been marketed as such.
With all due respect, what is the standard for D&D? After all, wasn't 3E a lot different from 2E? From 1E? If someone doesn't feel 4E feels like D&D, that's fine--it's their opinion. I simply am not sure what such a statement really means.
Uh,no? As I said before some people like it or hate it for good reasons and some folks dislike it because they fear change. I wrote "some" to say that not all of the anti-4E people dislike it because of fear just some of them.
It was just your opinion, but it was weasel-worded, which was no doubt the source of contention. It may be true that "some people fear change", but that's no more true than it's inverse (many people don't fear change). It rightly prompts the question, "So what?"
I find it to be a strange argument, myself. I've played four versions of D&D (five if you throw in Skills & Powers). They've all been different. They've all had things that I loved, liked, disliked, and loathed. But they were all still D&D. I find it odd how one can make the argument that eliminating elements A, B, and C makes it "not D&D", but eliminating elements X, Y, and Z makes no difference to whether it's D&D or not. A ton of changes were made in the transition from 2E to 3E. Why is it that all that stuff that 3E chucked isn't considered a defining characteristic of D&D?
You've summed up my thoughts about the argument in question quite nicely.
That said, I think what Stigger said might be true in some cases, too--when people say "this isn't D&D!", they really mean it's not D&D the way they like it.
You've summed up my thoughts about the argument in question quite nicely.
That said, I think what Stigger said might be true in some cases, too--when people say "this isn't D&D!", they really mean it's not D&D the way they like it.
I'm older and more cynical. I actually think that in some cases they mean it's not the "One True Way" that D&D is supposed to be, which in nearly all cases is the way they play it themselves.
[...] There was nothing in 3rd edition that could kill Orcus in one round by doing an infinite number of attacks. [...]
And that's not even necessary for 3.0/3.5.
The H.I.V.E., the Hulking Hurler, the UberERcharger, the Diplomancer, the Omniscificer, the President of Smack, the Dweomercheater of Mystra, the Terminator, the Trip Monk-ey, the Twice-Betrayer of Shar, the Nanobots Masters, and finally the Wish and the Word are able to pretty much trash anything that has a CR attached on their own.
Anyway, since you're using 4.0's new rules, let's compare it to the rules as written when 3.0 came out.
There was nothing in 3rd edition that could kill Orcus in one round by doing an infinite number of attacks.
That's because you didn't need an infinite number of attacks.
All you needed was a typcial min/maxed Cleric under the effects of haste, that used (3.0) Harm and any other damaging spell in a single round.
All I know from what they told me is that it's easier to find the broken combos in 4th edition that in 3rd edition.
Your examples all require a high degree of multiclassing or Epic Tier play.
What about at levels under 10?
3.0 Polymorph, anyone?
Anyway, since you're using 4.0's new rules, let's compare it to the rules as written when 3.0 came out.
There was nothing in 3rd edition that could kill Orcus in one round by doing an infinite number of attacks.
That's because you didn't need an infinite number of attacks.
All you needed was a typcial min/maxed Cleric under the effects of Haste, that used (3.0) Harm and any other damaging spell in a single round.
All I know from what they told me is that it's easier to find the broken combos in 4th edition that in 3rd edition.
Your examples all require a high degree of multiclassing or Epic Tier play.
What about at levels under 10?
3.0 Polymorph, anyone?
That is a really neat idea. I say use it!
I probably will, someday. But when it comes to my LFR Paladin, I really like the idea of his family line basically originating during the Time of Troubles. So I can't really go with that idea, as we're talking two or three portraits on the armor, only. No matter. Next time, rabbit!
That's funny.
They certainly did. Most interesting part? It was pretty much the same person who screwed me over both times. The DM who decided that the hobos were actually wererats? He was also the archer who sniped on my Anti-Paladin when he was beset by those town guards, rather then helping me out. Rat bastard! :D
I think overall it's more fun to be a hero.
Yeah, I don't much care for playing an evil character for very long. That's why I didn't play the Anti-Paladin the week after, even though he'd become a Death Knight (although I should've done it, at least for one game, just so I could say that I played a Death Knight once ;) ). I enjoy playing neutral characters from time to time, but overall, I vastly prefer outright heroic characters.
That being said Wotc can do whatever they want with the DnD game. Heck they could put out candyland and call it DnD 5th edition! They bought the rights to Dnd and can do whatever they please with it. DnD isn't a holy grail of gaming. Its not worshipped or revered. In other words DnD is what Wotc says DnD is going to be. It's still the old school editions along with 3.5 but its also this new 4th edition that most everyone that has played without having a chip on their shoulder has enjoyed playing. If you don't like it then cool. Play 3.5 but to hate on it endlessly for no reason other than you have nothing better to do than hate on it is wasting time you could be using to play 3.5. Which was a great game and i agree there was no need to release a new edition but its here and its fun so i am going to play it. I will still play 3.5, because i have 3 campaigns that i am currently running and once those are done i may switch over to 4th for those or i may stay 3.5. Its freedom of choice. The more quality choices that are out there the better. I don't look forward to buying the books again. I probably won't buy as many. I didn't buy as many for 3rd. Of course now that they are dropping in price because of the new edition ill be picking up quite a few more. All things considered. I didn't support the launching of 4th edition, but it is a good product.
There are still people using 1e, and I've even heard of a couple of rare OD&D spottings from time to time. You can blame it on people who don't like change, or people who are just happy with what they have, or even people too cheap to buy new books... but if those people are happy playing the edition they are using, then its all good.
I'm sure WotC will get enough new fans with this new game to make up for any fans that 'stayed behind', and as long as D&D keeps growing the brand, then its advantageous for everyone, including people who don't plan to use WotC products. There is nothing inherently wrong with a set of rules that allows greater accesability to a large number of 'casual' gamers - in the end, it just means the hobby itself is getting more widespread.
Use whatever the hell you like, but just keep playing.
...ahhh the ideas churning in my test.
-That...doesn't sound right.
Everyone is going to use whatever system they find most appealing, for whatever reason, so there's really not much use in arguing over this anymore.
kill joy
Everyone is going to use whatever system they find most appealing, for whatever reason, so there's really not much use in arguing over this anymore.
There are still people using 1e, and I've even heard of a couple of rare OD&D spottings from time to time. You can blame it on people who don't like change, or people who are just happy with what they have, or even people too cheap to buy new books... but if those people are happy playing the edition they are using, then its all good.
I'm sure WotC will get enough new fans with this new game to make up for any fans that 'stayed behind', and as long as D&D keeps growing the brand, then its advantageous for everyone, including people who don't plan to use WotC products. There is nothing inherently wrong with a set of rules that allows greater accesability to a large number of 'casual' gamers - in the end, it just means the hobby itself is getting more widespread.
Use whatever the hell you like, but just keep playing.
hear hear! I assume that WotC went through the same stuff with the conversion to 3e. People losing THAC0, level caps, race restrictions, infravision, and what-not would feel the same way with the new stuff presented in 3e (ie, skills, feats, prestige classes, races that level up evenly). I figured the same would happen with 4e, but i didn't think some people would get mean, vicious, and petty to those who support the new edition. Like MT said, use whatever you like and let the arguments end.Paladins have Lay Hands, but this just uses one of your healing surges for the day and not divine energy. You can have an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting, but can't use the off-hand weapon to attack twice unless you use a power you get in some classes later on in class levels or by the Twin Strike feat, because you only attack once a round. Two Weapon Fighting just adds a plus 1 to hit I think, I forget and don't care.
This sytem killed magic. Maybe it's good for casters casting spells on fellow players, but it was useless against opponents. You may get more hit points than in 3e and have a chance to gain some from healing surges, but you can't hurt anything unless you use melee/ranged weapons! I had a 15 Con and this is how the bonus was broke up- correct me if I'm wrong: +2 for having 15 Con, +1 to ranged from my class and a +1 for half my level, roll with a d20 and you have poo vs. reflex.
The Warlock has a power or something that lets me curse an opponent, but there is no save for this. Once a round they take 1d6 damage when hurt. It is used as an action almost like a free action (I forget the name of the action) and it affects one opponent that I can see... It didn't say a range, just one I could see... I don't have the book, so I can't give you more details, but really, I don't think it's worth the time looking when those that have the books can check themselves. I thought I was playing a computer game with a bad set of rules and the group thought the same.
Skills are basic. You have a +5 to skills you choose to be your main use, this list is with your class, but then you can only add you abillity score + 1/2 your level and roll a d20, so no one can define themselves- especially since a lot of the skills are grouped together now. I wouldn't really consider this balance, just non-character definition. Saves are the same, but you add 10 instead of 5. Everyone is the same, it's just your class powers that make you a little different, and they rarely hit. I think Alediran said they hit about 25% of the time, and it's true. I'm sure it's worse at higher levels when you see an example character at level 23 having each of his saves in the low thirties +d20. Wonderful balance...
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
I just played my first session of $e and was bored... No, I was beyond bored. I played an Elven Warlock and my powers were useless. We were playing the new $e adventure that came out and there are a group of Kobolds we ran into.
You know, substituting a dollar sign for a letter sure makes you look intelligent.
The reflex saves of the Kobolds were 14 at low level without rolling, but with my bonus to my spells to hit I would have to roll a 12 or higher just to hit when they roll a 1.
"4E sucks because I didn't bother with learning the rules".
Defenses are the final scores you have to hit with your attacks. There is no opposed roll.
Me, a Warlock, had to revert to using a shortbow in the fight, then I rolled a 1 and my bow string broke.
"4E sucks because my DM used a BS fumble rule".
Just as in 3.5, a natural 1 on an attack roll is just an automatic miss. Not more, not less.
Being a caster in $e is useless, and people talk about balance? Where is there balance when a caster has to use melee or ranged weapons to do damage? I couldn't hit one time with my powers.
So, you never played a wizard in 3.5 that had to resort to a crossbow/bow/sling after he fired his mighty 2 spells per day?
Paladins have Lay Hands, but this just uses one of your healing surges for the day and not divine energy.
The paladin spends a healing surge, and the target is healed as if it had spent a healing surge. This allows for additional in-combat healing when everyone's already used his Second Wind, or for out-of-combat healing on targets who are out of healing surges.
Therefore it highly depends on how you interprete the mechanics. One could just as well say that "the paladin channels his god's power into the target by sacrificing a bit of his own endurance".
You can have an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting, but can't use the off-hand weapon to attack twice unless you use a power you get in some classes later on in class levels or by the Twin Strike feat, because you only attack once a round. Two Weapon Fighting just adds a plus 1 to hit I think, I forget and don't care.
The meme that "dual wielding == twice the number of attacks" is a relict from 3.5. Also, what's wrong with requiring more powerful attacks to require a higher level to gain them?
This sytem killed magic.
On the contrary. 4E is DnD magic's saving grace. It makes magic usable in a game. Would you want to play a multiplayer shooter when all other players have wall-hacks and aimbots, and you're the only one playing fair? I don't think so. 4E put magic down to make the game enjoyable for all players, independent from which class they want to play.
If you want allmighty pwnz0r wizards, perhaps you should play Ars Magica or Mage instead.
Maybe it's good for casters casting spells on fellow players, but it was useless against opponents. You may get more hit points than in 3e and have a chance to gain some from healing surges, but you can't hurt anything unless you use melee/ranged weapons!
Wrong.
I had a 15 Con and this is how the bonus was broke up- correct me if I'm wrong: +2 for having 15 Con, +1 to ranged from my class and a +1 for half my level, roll with a d20 and you have poo vs. reflex.
See above. You don't have opposed rolls with attack vs defense. In your example, you'd only have to roll a 10 to hit the goblin's (or whatever's) Ref defense of 14 with a +4 attack vs Ref.
The Warlock has a power or something that lets me curse an opponent, but there is no save for this. Once a round they take 1d6 damage when hurt.
And what's wrong with that?
It is used as an action almost like a free action (I forget the name of the action) and it affects one opponent that I can see... It didn't say a range, just one I could see... I don't have the book, so I can't give you more details, but really, I don't think it's worth the time looking when those that have the books can check themselves. I thought I was playing a computer game with a bad set of rules and the group thought the same.
To me it rather seems to be a case of a bad DM who didn't exactly know the rules either.
Skills are basic. You have a +5 to skills you choose to be your main use, this list is with your class, but then you can only add you abillity score + 1/2 your level and roll a d20, so no one can define themselves- especially since a lot of the skills are grouped together now. I wouldn't really consider this balance, just non-character definition.
No. It's a solution to the problem that certain skills forced a certain character class. Disable device being the most prominent example.
In 3.5 you either had to multiclass, thus sacrificing your character concept or your class's top tier abilities for the party's sake, or one player had to play a rogue no matter what else he wanted to play.
In 4E basically anyone who wants can spend a feat on Skill Training and learn Thievery. No fuss, no sacrificing your concept, no sucky multiclassing required.
Saves are the same, but you add 10 instead of 5.
*sigh* Please, if you rant, at least bother to use the correct terms. What you dub "saves" are "defenses". In 4E saves are a simple high/low roll mechanic to determine if you can shake off any DoT effects or lasting conditions.
Everyone is the same, it's just your class powers that make you a little different, and they rarely hit. I think Alediran said they hit about 25% of the time, and it's true. I'm sure it's worse at higher levels when you see an example character at level 23 having each of his saves in the low thirties +d20. Wonderful balance...
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
You didn't bother to learn the rules, and therefore 4E sucks. To use your own words: "
".The reflex saves of the Kobolds were 14 at low level without rolling, but with my bonus to my spells to hit I would have to roll a 12 or higher just to hit when they roll a 1.
I assume you were using the Warlock pregen? If so, you should've been hitting on a 10 every time. And if hitting their Ref Defense was a problem, then you could've used Eyebite, which attacked Will Defense. Most of those Kobolds would've been hit on an 8 or so.
Me, a Warlock, had to revert to using a shortbow in the fight, then I rolled a 1 and my bow string broke.
Warlocks aren't proficient with shortbows. And I haven't seen any rule anywhere about bowstrings breaking on a roll of 1.
but it was useless against opponents.
I get the sneaking suspicion that you were playing things wrong. Just a hunch...
The Warlock has a power or something that lets me curse an opponent, but there is no save for this. Once a round they take 1d6 damage when hurt. It is used as an action almost like a free action (I forget the name of the action) and it affects one opponent that I can see... It didn't say a range, just one I could see...
You put the curse on the nearest opponent, and it only takes extra damage from your attacks, and only once per round.
I had a 15 Con and this is how the bonus was broke up- correct me if I'm wrong: +2 for having 15 Con, +1 to ranged from my class and a +1 for half my level, roll with a d20 and you have poo vs. reflex.
Ah, I see. It's your main stat. You should have at least a 16, there. Still, needing a 12+ to hit means that you're hitting 45% of the time. That's not all that bad. If you rolled bad then you rolled bad. And there're Warlock powers which target other defenses, like Fort or Will. Although if you had a 16 Con or Cha, then you would've been hitting on an 11+.
it's just your class powers that make you a little different, and they rarely hit. I think Alediran said they hit about 25% of the time, and it's true.
From the sound of it, you and Alediran both put about an equal amount of attention to the game, IE none at all.
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
But 3.5 IS broke.
A lot if not everything you said had nothing to do with the system at all and rather bad luck on your part. Is it bad to ask that you roll a 60% or better on your rolls to hit an enemys reflex defense (not to mention its entirely your option whether to use a attack that attacks your opponents best defense if this was the case.) ... how about you post the character in question, let us see what your did and didn't do when you made the character. If its a pregen then again its not so much the system as it was the person who designed your character wasn't trying to be fairly optimized... its pretty much a staple in 4e that all characters when using their best forms of attack against monsters of equal level they have a 50% or better chance of hitting said monster and only a fair amount of optimization being needed.
Your complaining about too many things in one paragraph to but thats another problem for a later time. What exactly is your problem with Lay on Hands? You say that it uses a healing surge? Why is this a problem or even a reason for us to care? You can only perform Lay on Hands a number of times per day equal to your wisdom modifier. Let's compare that to the 3.5 paladin who could only use it 1 per day at first level and only 5 times per day at 20th. The amount of healing depends entirely on the individuals only healing surge value which means its always useful. No worry of rolling crappy and only healing a small amount to either the person or yourself. Paladins get 10 healing surges + extra ones per point of constitution modifier. It's very likely that a paladin can have 12 surges in a day and if he only has a +2 mod in wisdom than 2 of those might be used for lay on hands, leaving him with 10. This again still signifies that there are plenty left for the paladin to heal himself both inside and outside of combat.
Your other complaint was about two weapon fighting. It was no surprise and they didn't spring it on you last minute that Rangers would excel at TWF. Any class however can wield two weapons. The thing is though its not for making two simultaneous attacks. Now its done because you might need to make different types of attacks. Example Long Swords have a +3 to hit, Axes have a +2 to hit ... but the Axes deal more damage on a hit. You run into two enemies.. one of them is fairly easy to hit with your Axe and thus you deal the most damage to him with it. While the other opponent is wearing heavier armor and is harder to hit, so you use your sword to attack him when you need to. Also the Fighter class and the Paladin both defenders have powers that lets them attack more than once. What you have to do is come up with a build that makes using two weapons of different types viable. Some powers work better for certain weapons but if I want to have some of both types of powers I'm going to wield two weapons. A Axe in one hand a Sword in the other. I'll use Rain of Blows to attack two people with a sword in one round, and Passing Attack in the next to hit 2 more people and use either the Axe or the sword to do it, and when things look bleak I'll hit someone with Crushing Blow with the Axe since it does more damage. Just because the game asks you to think a little more in different ways doesn't mean its failed you.
Magic wise what are you talking about? It helps if we knew what power you were referring to. I assume you were 2nd lv since you said you got +1 from your level. In 4e every a first lv pc has a +0 attack bonus. The Attack Bonus is equal to 1/2 your level rounded down. If you had a constitution based attack power than why did you only have a 15 con? Thats a very uneven number for a primary stat? you would generally want 16 or better in your primary offensive attack, this has been true in every version of D&D to date not just 4e. I never started a Fighter with only a 15 strength when I knew he was going to be making melee attacks. Anyway, Con modifier +2, and +1 from lv is indeed 3 and another +1 from Prime Shot if no one else was engaging said Kobold. assuming said kobold is 2nd lv as well his Reflex Defense is 13 (Dragonshield version) which means you needed a 10 or better to hit, which breaks down to 50% chance of hitting. I'm sorry even with your poor con thats a very good to hit. a 50/50 chance is better than a fighter with a 15 str using his specialized weapon would have. (+1 + 2 + 2 or 3 = 5 or 6) when trying to attack the same Kobolds AC of 17. which would break down to a 40% or 45% chance of hitting.
The Warlock's Curse is actually one of the best abilities in the game. It's basically the fighters mark ability at range. You place the curse on the nearest enemy to you that you can see, and its a minor action, in turn that person takes a number of d6's of damage based on your level. This is free damage with no attack roll necessary but to top it off should a person who is under the effect of your curse die because of whatever reasons you gain a benefit based on your pact. This can be any thing from immediate teleportation, to temporary hit points or even bonuses to d20 rolls. The class involves fairly simple mechanics and doesn't require genius level intellect to get the most benefit out of.
As far as skills go you seem to have a very construed thought about them. The player in question defines himself with all possibly options not just his skills. When it comes to skills a person defines himself by how much he chooses to specialize in those skills. Not everyone gets Knowledge Arcana and even those who take a feat to get it aren't granted a intelligence score equal to the wizards and thus the wizard is still more likely to excel at it. Same goes for any class defining skill. Rarely will the Cleric have a dex as high as the Rogues and thus will not excel at Acrobatics of Thievery/Stealth.
In the future should you decide to play 4e, remove your ruby colored glasses and learn to enjoy a new system instead of asking them to rehash 3e.
And that's not even necessary for 3.0/3.5.
The H.I.V.E., the Hulking Hurler, the UberERcharger, the Diplomancer, the Omniscificer, the President of Smack, the Dweomercheater of Mystra, the Terminator, the Trip Monk-ey, the Twice-Betrayer of Shar, the Nanobots Masters, and finally the Wish and the Word are able to pretty much trash anything that has a CR attached on their own.
And they require lots and lots of effort to find out the exact combination. These are done in mere hours using the 4th edition core book limited options.
Lay on hands will save our Monday groups tails after seeing it used correctly in the demo. My buddy is playing a dwarf pally too so we should be in good shape. Warlords rock also as I witnessed in my Monday night game.
And they require lots and lots of effort to find out the exact combination. These are done in mere hours using the 4th edition core book limited options.
See, the new game is fast to learn and really feels inuitive to newer players :D ! I keed, I keed.
I did post your friends tatics on the CO boards (since I am not good with that stuff) and they said it is not broken but defintily possible. Orcus though should have a ton of minions and brutes around him though which may cause their tatics to go astray a bit. If they caught him on the crapper though...
And they require lots and lots of effort to find out the exact combination. These are done in mere hours using the 4th edition core book limited options.
Is that so? In that case I may direct your attention to [thread=1020620]this[/thread] thread, which uses Core only material to break the game so horribly even Chuck Norris averted his eyes (at least for a split second).
Also, the King of Smack works with Core + XPH, giving you already 6 attacks each dealing 12d6+ by using a pure psychic warrior build. Going psion (egoist) and illithid slayer just gives bonus points.
The H.I.V.E. can produce a caster level at around 380 by using Core + BoVD, utilizing druid 10 and vermin lord 10 to control swarms summoned with Summon Nature's Ally.
The nanobot master works with a level 11 core only cleric. A single casting of Animate Objects gives you 11 "nanos", which translate to a +22 bonus to skill checks or a +22 bonus to AC/attacks in certain circumstances for over 1 minute.
In many cases you don't need a whole shelf full of splats (although it does help), using Core and sometimes adding in a single splatbook usually is enough to break all bones balance ever had and send it right into the ER.
And there's always druid 20 or cleric 20 or wizard 20. :P
As long as the story isn't being broken by the characters, a few ups and downs are okay. (or such is my opinion)
As for 4E, it seems to lack variety, both in the game play, and in how they're changing FR. Naturally I don't approve of the assumption by WOTC that we're all retards either.
I've never really understood why people are so desperate to have classes completely balanced. You're roleplaying your character and using its skills as well as possible. If the warlock hits harder its just the way it is. If a dragon is naturally able to tear you to pieces by being what it is...
The point is, the game assumes that each character gets a certain amount of time "in the spotlights". But that is not true. The time characters spend in the spotlight is not distributed equally, but heavily shifted in favor of the spellcasters (due to their high flexibility of their spells).
It's just like this motivator:
Show
Kirk == druid
Spock == wizard
Bones == cleric
Ricky == fighter
Kirk == druid
Spock == wizard
Bones == cleric
Ricky == fighter
The warlock I saw in KOTS that was played in the demo I watched rocked the house.
You still have to roll to hit, though.
I only say this because the poor Warlock player in our Monday game kept rolling 1s or just flat rolled misses.
Poor guy.
;)
Now, if all you do is dungeon crawling then a wizard may seem to be stronger but its not like cannons don't exist alongside soldiers in normal battlefields and serve their own purposes... its also not that hard to choose magical classes if you're desperate for that power.
I agree though that the default fighter class needed a bit of work, and people did come up with decent versions of it, also you could always multi-class or ask someone more knowledgeable to help you build a stronger character.
It is unfortunately natural that some would be greater than others :P
If you're so egotistical that you can't bear to share the spotlight with the other players, then you're in the wrong hobby. I'm sure there're players out there who like to play Shortround, Watson, or Friar Tuck. That doesn't mean, though, that players should be forced into that role as a matter of course.
Now, if all you do is dungeon crawling then a wizard may seem to be stronger but its not like cannons don't exist alongside soldiers in normal battlefields and serve their own purposes...
Big difference between "serving their purpose", and doing their job, the soldiers job, and THEN some!
its also not that hard to choose magical classes if you're desperate for that power.
So everyone should choose the same exact class in order to contribute equally to the game? And weren't you complaining earlier about a "lack of variety"?
! Was this a game design flaw though? No, it was him rolling between 1 and 8 nearly every round. After the battle, instead of remaking a whole new character i just resurrected him for one more encounter. This last time was a little more fair. We went up against 2 goblin warriors, 1 goblin Blackblade, and a fire beetle. Whether it was us rolling better or 1 less enemy, we did pretty good in defeating them. Suffice to say we had alot of fun and are coming to like how the system works.Well, we ran a few skirmishes for our characters today (nothing campaign-ish, just to see how combat works). I must say I was over-all impressed. Our party was made up of 4 level 1 characters - dragonborn paladin (me), dwarf fighter, human cleric, and eladrin mage. Our first encounter was a simple level 1 zombie which we pretty much owned in 1 round. Then I ran a level 1 encounter using 2 kobold skirmishers, 1 kobold slinger, and 2 scorpions. The battle took far longer than I had inticipated mainly because alot of us we're missing our attacks (many times we rolled less than 9). In the end, we had used up all of our action points, daily powers, encounter powers, and my character died, lol. I blame this on myself as being stupid and not knowing when to use my second wind when I should have. Though the numbers were in their favor, it didn't help that our fighter hit twice during the whole encounter
Yeah, we had an elf rogue that everytime he'd use one of his riposte abilities, he couldn't get o:P ver a 4!
You know, substituting a dollar sign for a letter sure makes you look intelligent.
Yes, and it makes you look just as smart for trying to nitpick something so small.
"4E sucks because I didn't bother with learning the rules".
Oh, so sorry I'm not omnipotent that we know all the rules on the first go.
Defenses are the final scores you have to hit with your attacks. There is no opposed roll.
With the wording it could be misconstrued because they only give an example for AC in the PHB. Also I don't like the idea of that in every situation I have a static save. If a kobold taunts me compared to a bigger enemy, my save is still the same?
"4E sucks because my DM used a BS fumble rule".Just as in 3.5, a natural 1 on an attack roll is just an automatic miss. Not more, not less.
Again, sorry we like to add a little resemblance of realism to our game, instead of using your black and white hit/miss/full damage on a crit world.
So, you never played a wizard in 3.5 that had to resort to a crossbow/bow/sling after he fired his mighty 2 spells per day?
I very rarely used a weapon for a wizard because I would time the use of spells, instead of having an unlimited use of spells. With all casters having unlimited spells it feels like an online game. The Warlock does have unlimited spells, but I had to use weapons instead of spells that missed too much, compared to my bow that hit. I see now that the saves were wrong, but again, we don't like the idea of static saves.
The paladin spends a healing surge, and the target is healed as if it had spent a healing surge. This allows for additional in-combat healing when everyone's already used his Second Wind, or for out-of-combat healing on targets who are out of healing surges.
Our group agreed that the surges were cheese and that if the Paladin were using Lay Hands that it should be a magic, but since magic is almost unlimited perhaps it was better having a limit like the healing surges. Then there is the idea of a Milestone, which if you don't use your extended rest after two encounters which equals an action point; great, I get a cookie if I don't cheese things.
The meme that "dual wielding == twice the number of attacks" is a relict from 3.5. Also, what's wrong with requiring more powerful attacks to require a higher level to gain them?
The idea of having another weapon in your hand it to use it, not just look at it. You say it's a relict, but in a real fight the person would be using both, it shouldn't have been taken from the game. Now it feels like ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting in 3.0, which was bad.
On the contrary. 4E is DnD magic's saving grace. It makes magic usable in a game. Would you want to play a multiplayer shooter when all other players have wall-hacks and aimbots, and you're the only one playing fair? I don't think so. 4E put magic down to make the game enjoyable for all players, independent from which class they want to play.
This would be the DM's problem if he allows it in a game to be cheesed, and the player can be smart by getting things that can cancel magics or to utterly fail. Now $e is a "shooter" with unlimited magic, just give me unlimited arrows for my bow too while you're at it.
If you want allmighty pwnz0r wizards, perhaps you should play Ars Magica or Mage instead.
Wrong.
You mistake what I was saying, I wanted a caster that can use his magic to hit. Replying to this would be a loop to things said above because of the mistake we had on saves, and the static saves being poorly thought out.
To me it rather seems to be a case of a bad DM who didn't exactly know the rules either.
Not a bad DM, just not a good system and simple mistakes were made because we forgot to wear our holy symbols to the table that makes us omnipotent.
No. It's a solution to the problem that certain skills forced a certain character class. Disable device being the most prominent example.
In 3.5 you either had to multiclass, thus sacrificing your character concept or your class's top tier abilities for the party's sake, or one player had to play a rogue no matter what else he wanted to play.
In 4E basically anyone who wants can spend a feat on Skill Training and learn Thievery. No fuss, no sacrificing your concept, no sucky multiclassing required.
In 3.5 we used a small house rule that is not against the rules that made our experience better. We would take the main stat bonus from the class and use that to be able to learn more skills that were not part of the class at 1st level. I'm not saying a first level fighter was great with the 3.5 rules, but I see them better than $e because you could define your character better.
*sigh* Please, if you rant, at least bother to use the correct terms. What you dub "saves" are "defenses". In 4E saves are a simple high/low roll mechanic to determine if you can shake off any DoT effects or lasting conditions.
You didn't bother to learn the rules, and therefore 4E sucks. To use your own words: "
I said I didn't have the book in front of me to give an exact names, yet you are still acting a child in this respect. And I've given my two cents about "defenses" vs real saves like in 3.5 where you didn't need a difference. $e is poorly put together and feels like a computer game. It's too general in many places, and there is little character definition, except by role-playing. Role-playing is wonderful, but I shouldn't be able to role play things that would otherwise not be shown in my stats; this was talked about earlier. If I'm a cabin boy, I wouldn't necessarily have all the skills of a sailor, yet it's not shown in the skill list now, so I can just role-play this. I try to make points about a flawed system and you make an attack on me, how wonderful you are.
And they require lots and lots of effort to find out the exact combination. These are done in mere hours using the 4th edition core book limited options.
no they didn't, and it didn't take mere hours nor was your group the first to note any of the supposedly broken or should I say theoretically broken builds in 4e. I remember hearing about the Hulking Hurler cheese almost week after the release of the complete warrior, the only problem was is that there weren't any races with the large size requirement out yet that worked will with the build... and the Cheater of Mystra came out along the next week after the then new Players Guide to Faerun came out.
I try to make points about a flawed system and you make an attack on me, how wonderful you are.
Problem is your points are worthless, because what you're complaining about are your house rules and mistakes and not the system itself.
The Warlock does have unlimited spells, but I had to use weapons instead of spells that missed too much, compared to my bow that hit. I see now that the saves were wrong, but again, we don't like the idea of static saves.
You don't like static saves? Sure. But you can't turn around and complain that the system makes it impossible to hit when you add a d20 roll to each and every single one when it doesn't say to do anything of the sort. Not to mention that it's ridiculous saying Fort, Ref, and Will shouldn't be static, but having no problem with AC being static. Then you complain about your bowstring breaking when the rules don't even have such a rule? If you're going to complain, then at least make a legitimate complaint.
Dear shiyongseng
A lot if not everything you said had nothing to do with the system at all and rather bad luck on your part. Is it bad to ask that you roll a 60% or better on your rolls to hit an enemys reflex defense (not to mention its entirely your option whether to use a attack that attacks your opponents best defense if this was the case.) ... how about you post the character in question, let us see what your did and didn't do when you made the character. If its a pregen then again its not so much the system as it was the person who designed your character wasn't trying to be fairly optimized... its pretty much a staple in 4e that all characters when using their best forms of attack against monsters of equal level they have a 50% or better chance of hitting said monster and only a fair amount of optimization being needed.
I thank you for being civil in your response. I didn't use a pregen, and I don't optimize, I was playing the roles I had with the race I had. A 15 was my highest stat in two categories. I did make a mistake if it's in the rules that you round down to 0 for 1/2 level compared to the 3.5 rules where nothing when rounded down was less than one.
Your complaining about too many things in one paragraph to but thats another problem for a later time. What exactly is your problem with Lay on Hands? You say that it uses a healing surge? Why is this a problem or even a reason for us to care? You can only perform Lay on Hands a number of times per day equal to your wisdom modifier. Let's compare that to the 3.5 paladin who could only use it 1 per day at first level and only 5 times per day at 20th. The amount of healing depends entirely on the individuals only healing surge value which means its always useful. No worry of rolling crappy and only healing a small amount to either the person or yourself. Paladins get 10 healing surges + extra ones per point of constitution modifier. It's very likely that a paladin can have 12 surges in a day and if he only has a +2 mod in wisdom than 2 of those might be used for lay on hands, leaving him with 10. This again still signifies that there are plenty left for the paladin to heal himself both inside and outside of combat.
Your other complaint was about two weapon fighting. It was no surprise and they didn't spring it on you last minute that Rangers would excel at TWF. Any class however can wield two weapons. The thing is though its not for making two simultaneous attacks. Now its done because you might need to make different types of attacks. Example Long Swords have a +3 to hit, Axes have a +2 to hit ... but the Axes deal more damage on a hit. You run into two enemies.. one of them is fairly easy to hit with your Axe and thus you deal the most damage to him with it. While the other opponent is wearing heavier armor and is harder to hit, so you use your sword to attack him when you need to. Also the Fighter class and the Paladin both defenders have powers that lets them attack more than once. What you have to do is come up with a build that makes using two weapons of different types viable. Some powers work better for certain weapons but if I want to have some of both types of powers I'm going to wield two weapons. A Axe in one hand a Sword in the other. I'll use Rain of Blows to attack two people with a sword in one round, and Passing Attack in the next to hit 2 more people and use either the Axe or the sword to do it, and when things look bleak I'll hit someone with Crushing Blow with the Axe since it does more damage. Just because the game asks you to think a little more in different ways doesn't mean its failed you.
See above in my other response to surges, static saves and two weapon fighting.
The Warlock's Curse is actually one of the best abilities in the game. It's basically the fighters mark ability at range. You place the curse on the nearest enemy to you that you can see, and its a minor action, in turn that person takes a number of d6's of damage based on your level. This is free damage with no attack roll necessary but to top it off should a person who is under the effect of your curse die because of whatever reasons you gain a benefit based on your pact. This can be any thing from immediate teleportation, to temporary hit points or even bonuses to d20 rolls. The class involves fairly simple mechanics and doesn't require genius level intellect to get the most benefit out of.
I have to admit, I don't like this power because there is no save and the wording on it's range is to broad. An enemy nearest you that you can see... Then I deal the curse damage after I damage my opponent again, but it doesn't matter how. In this line of thought, why was Magic Missile made to have a roll to hit now for a Wizard? Magic Missile may do more damage now, but it will be useless at later levels for damage, yet the Warlock power has no save and it increases in power later in levels.
As far as skills go you seem to have a very construed thought about them. The player in question defines himself with all possibly options not just his skills. When it comes to skills a person defines himself by how much he chooses to specialize in those skills. Not everyone gets Knowledge Arcana and even those who take a feat to get it aren't granted a intelligence score equal to the wizards and thus the wizard is still more likely to excel at it. Same goes for any class defining skill. Rarely will the Cleric have a dex as high as the Rogues and thus will not excel at Acrobatics of Thievery/Stealth.
I feel 3.5 skills gave definition to a character, while $e grouped too many skills together to make a too general roll. Also, see my post above on our house rule we had which helped a little on the limitation.
In the future should you decide to play 4e, remove your ruby colored glasses and learn to enjoy a new system instead of asking them to rehash 3e.
I don't feel I had ruby colored glasses on, which I've never heard this idiom, there is one for rose colored glasses, but it means you see things in a more pleasant light. I do feel that this system was written poorly and I wanted to inform others of my group's encounters, which is the name of the thread.
Thank you.
Problem is your points are worthless, because what you're complaining about are your house rules and mistakes and not the system itself.
You don't like static saves? Sure. But you can't turn around and complain that the system makes it impossible to hit when you add a d20 roll to each and every single one when it doesn't say to do anything of the sort. Not to mention that it's ridiculous saying Fort, Ref, and Will shouldn't be static, but having no problem with AC being static. Then you complain about your bowstring breaking when the rules don't even have such a rule? If you're going to complain, then at least make a legitimate complaint.
Again, we don't like the black and white world of hit/miss/max damage on a hit. I feel feats added nicely to AC or even situational bonuses. An opposed save was good, but now no longer used. I didn't like the idea of having to use my spells when they didn't hit, but again, I stated we didn't know the saves were static, so they would have hit more. I feel it is very legit to make this complaint.
In this line of thought, why was Magic Missile made to have a roll to hit now for a Wizard?
Because you can fire it all day, instead of a handful of times.
Magic Missile may do more damage now, but it will be useless at later levels for damage, yet the Warlock power has no save and it increases in power later in levels.
- The Warlock is a Striker, so him, the Ranger, and the Rogue are supposd to be doing additional damage to individual targets. Think of it as the Warlock's equivalent to Sneak Attack.
- Magic Missile does go up in damage. At 21st level it does 4d4.
I don't feel I had ruby colored glasses on, which I've never heard this idiom, there is one for rose colored glasses, but it means you see things in a more pleasant light. I do feel that this system was written poorly and I wanted to inform others of my group's encounters, which is the name of the thread.
C'mon guys, give shiyongseng a break.
He is right to share his experiences here. No need to jump down his throat.
Because you can fire it all day, instead of a handful of times.
- The Warlock is a Striker, so him, the Ranger, and the Rogue are supposd to be doing additional damage to individual targets. Think of it as the Warlock's equivalent to Sneak Attack.
- Magic Missile does go up in damage. At 21st level it does 4d4.
The curse has no limit except that it can't be used on an enemy more than once, but it lasts till they hit 0 or the end of the encounter. All that damage, when not flat footed for a sneak attack, and there is no roll against it and not a clear definition to it's true range.
Magic Missile takes a long time to go up in power I see, though it does hit a little harder... Eh, but it's not much damage when compared to the curse later in level which is added to his other attacks and treated as a "minor move" (almost like a free action, almost, it has more definition than a free action); a wizard would need to cast his spell. In this way I still feel there should be a save for the curse or no save for magic missile, but can't do as much damage at first level.
C'mon guys, give shiyongseng a break.
He is right to share his experiences here. No need to jump down his throat.
Thanks for listening, man.
The curse has no limit except that it can't be used on an enemy more than once, but it last till they hit 0 or the end of the encounter. All that damage, when not flat footed for a sneak attack, and there is no roll against it and not a clear definition to it's true range.
It only does that damage when you hit, however. And despite not having the limitations of Sneak Attack, it doesn't inflict as much damage as Sneak Attack, either.
Magic Missile takes a long time to go up in power I see, though it does hit a little harder... Eh, but it's not much damage when compared to the curse later in level which is added to his other attacks; a wizard would need to cast his spell. In this way I still feel there should be a save for the curse or no save for magic missile, but can't do as much damage at first level.
There is a save for the Curse. It's your Defenses (AC, Fort, Ref, Will). If you're not hit by an attack made by the Warlock, then you take no damage from it. And like I said, Warlock's a Striker. The Wizard's not supposed to do as much damage to an individual target the way a Warlock can. Just like the Warlock can't affect the sheer number of targets that the Wizard can. The Warlock's 29th-level daily spells still only target one opponent, while the Wizard's 29th-level daily spells can potentially strike up to 121 opponents. Both classes do different things.
I do apologize, I do tend to come off lately as a online jerk and I'm really not like that but its more so because I see something good getting trashed for no reason, or reasons that are well for the most part misguided and I end up trying to correct those misguided presumptions but usually to no avail because the receiver doesn't want to hear it. So I end up getting very frustrated and it tends to show up in my future post. So I apologize to any posters that I might have offended.
No, you were fine, Ra-Tiel was a bit out there though. No offense from you at all, man.
It only does that damage when you hit, however. And despite not having the limitations of Sneak Attack, it doesn't inflict as much damage as Sneak Attack, either.
There is a save for the Curse. It's your Defenses (AC, Fort, Ref, Will). If you're not hit by an attack made by the Warlock, then you take no damage from it. And like I said, Warlock's a Striker. The Wizard's not supposed to do as much damage to an individual target the way a Warlock can. Just like the Warlock can't affect the sheer number of targets that the Wizard can. The Warlock's 29th-level daily spells still only target one opponent, while the Wizard's 29th-level daily spells can potentially strike up to 121 opponents. Both classes do different things.
I wouldn't say there is a save on the curse, there are chances and barriers for me not to hit, but there is the same for a sneak attack. The sneak attack is harder to do because they need to be flat-footed, while the curse has no condition of the like.
I didn't get a chance to see the higher level Warlock spells, but now I see I like him less if he only hits one enemy while most others can hit more, even if just two. $e really knocked the block out from under the character class's feet. The Warlock in 3.5 from what I saw couldn't hit a whole lot of people, but at least they could do some area damage, now it's like a spell casting thief?
I wouldn't say there is a save on the curse, there are chances and barriers for me not to hit, but there is the same for a sneak attack. The sneak attack is harder to do because they need to be flat-footed, while the curse has no condition of the like.
There aren't to many barriers on Sneak Attack, as it's fairly easy to get Combat Advantage.
I didn't get a chance to see the higher level Warlock spells, but now I see I like him less if he only hits one enemy while most others can hit more, even if just two. $e really knocked the block out from under the character class's feet. The Warlock in 3.5 from what I saw couldn't hit a whole lot of people, but at least they could do some area damage, now it's like a spell casting thief?
The 4E Warlock is very nice. Does it work differently than the 3E Warlock? Probably. I never read that class all that thoroughly. But it does its job well in 4E, and is a nice, characterful class.
There aren't to many barriers on Sneak Attack, as it's fairly easy to get Combat Advantage.
Depends on the fight, and the Warlock doesn't have this restriction.
Depends on the fight, and the Warlock doesn't have this restriction.
So long as there's another PC up and fighting, you're pretty much guaranteed of always being able to get Combat Advantage against an opponent. And you can get it even without another PC. And as I said, the Warlock doesn't do the damage that Sneak Attack does, either.
Oh, so sorry I'm not omnipotent that we know all the rules on the first go.
So, you don't bother with reading the rules of a new game you just acquired, but instead go and rant on the forums because it didn't work out as you wanted because you didn't know the rules?
Circular logic much, eh?
The combat chapter is exactly 31 pages. That's not too much to read in a single day to get the basics of the game - and to avoid mistakes like you did.
With the wording it could be misconstrued because they only give an example for AC in the PHB. Also I don't like the idea of that in every situation I have a static save. If a kobold taunts me compared to a bigger enemy, my save is still the same?
Only if you didn't bother reading the combat chapter. It can't get much more clearer than the box on pg 269 PH. Also, the example on pg 275 states all defenses.
Again, sorry we like to add a little resemblance of realism to our game, instead of using your black and white hit/miss/full damage on a crit world.
Wizards, clerics, dragons, flying carpets. Sorry, what realism were you talking about?
I very rarely used a weapon for a wizard because I would time the use of spells, instead of having an unlimited use of spells.
So you sit and do nothing in roughly 50% of all encounters at lower levels? Interesting.
With all casters having unlimited spells it feels like an online game.
"When in doubt, compare it to an online game without giving support of your claim".
The Warlock does have unlimited spells, but I had to use weapons instead of spells that missed too much, compared to my bow that hit. I see now that the saves were wrong, but again, we don't like the idea of static saves.
The warlock had unlimited spells in 3.5 either, and had to make attack rolls with some of them too. So what's your problem?
Also, the mechanic of the static defenses instead of saving throws is nothing new. You should check up the Unearthed Arcana rules alternative "Players roll all the dice". It's right there in 3.5.
Mathematically speaking it defaults to the same outcome. It doesn't matter if you have to roll an "attack" against an opponent's defense or if the opponent has to roll a save against your spell.
Our group agreed that the surges were cheese
Then you probably didn't understand the concept behind healing surges, misread the definition of hit points, or just enjoy forcing one player into the "healbot" role in the party.
and that if the Paladin were using Lay Hands that it should be a magic, but since magic is almost unlimited perhaps it was better having a limit like the healing surges.
See above. Hit points are primarily morale, luck, combat awareness, endurance, and skill. Therefore healing surges do make sense, as they represent your character taking a deep breath and getting his act together again.
The only times you are physically hit are likely the attack that gets you below your bloodied threshold (giving you a slightly deeper cut on your chest or something like that), and the one that finally sends you to the ground dying.
Everything else is near-misses and blows glancing off your armor.
Then there is the idea of a Milestone, which if you don't use your extended rest after two encounters which equals an action point; great, I get a cookie if I don't cheese things.
OMG! WotC put in a mechanic that discouraged players from going nova on each encounter and then rest. The end is nigh!
The idea of having another weapon in your hand it to use it, not just look at it. You say it's a relict, but in a real fight the person would be using both, it shouldn't have been taken from the game. Now it feels like ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting in 3.0, which was bad.
I'm sure you can point out a large number of other game systems where you can double your number of attacks by simply holding a weapon in your offhand?
This would be the DM's problem if he allows it in a game to be cheesed, and the player can be smart by getting things that can cancel magics or to utterly fail. Now $e is a "shooter" with unlimited magic, just give me unlimited arrows for my bow too while you're at it.
Your houserules are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Forcecage, Finger of Death, Black Tentacles, Sleep, Shapechange, Gate, are broken as written.
If you don't allow a caster to use them as written, then you indirectly admit that there's something terribly wrong with the game.
Being on the receiving end of SoDs or NSasDs is not fun. Not every fighter carries a rod of absorbtion or boots of teleportation to get out of a Forcecage.
You mistake what I was saying, I wanted a caster that can use his magic to hit. Replying to this would be a loop to things said above because of the mistake we had on saves, and the static saves being poorly thought out.
Perhaps you should give it another shot (pun intended) now that you are aware of the correct mechanics. Also, a smart caster does select his powers so that he can attack all defenses in case a certain opponent proves to have a high defense against the primary attack.
Not a bad DM, just not a good system and simple mistakes were made because we forgot to wear our holy symbols to the table that makes us omnipotent.
I think your gaming group should have familiarized itself a bit better with the rules, run some test combats to get a feeling for the mechanics, and look on the web for some combat "cheat sheets" that summarize the important steps before diving into a campaign with 4E heads first.
In 3.5 we used a small house rule that is not against the rules that made our experience better. We would take the main stat bonus from the class and use that to be able to learn more skills that were not part of the class at 1st level. I'm not saying a first level fighter was great with the 3.5 rules, but I see them better than $e because you could define your character better.
Again, your houserules have no bearing to this discussion. Whatever you did to make the 3.5 skill system not suck for 2+Int skill points characters doesn't matter. Your modifications are not the rules as written or intended.
Of course, adding house (or table) rules is your given right as the DM. But please leave that out when discussing the RAW.
I said I didn't have the book in front of me to give an exact names, yet you are still acting a child in this respect. And I've given my two cents about "defenses" vs real saves like in 3.5 where you didn't need a difference. $e is poorly put together and feels like a computer game. It's too general in many places, and there is little character definition, except by role-playing.
The difference is clearly explained on the pages I mentioned above. Again, reading only 30 pages to get an understanding of the rules is not deemed too much.
Role-playing is wonderful, but I shouldn't be able to role play things that would otherwise not be shown in my stats; this was talked about earlier. If I'm a cabin boy, I wouldn't necessarily have all the skills of a sailor, yet it's not shown in the skill list now, so I can just role-play this.
As I said in another thread, I don't understand why it's always the selfproclaimed "role"players that cry about not having a number on their sheet stating that they can weave baskets better than other people.
You can roleplay completely without mechanics, so you can roleplay with 4E's mechanics.
The 3.5 rules for craft and profession were hopelessly fubar, and giving DMs and players only moments of frustration and headaches.
I try to make points about a flawed system and you make an attack on me, how wonderful you are.
No. You're not making "points about a flawed system". You're whining because the game didn't play out like you wanted because you didn't understand the rules and used some uncommon houserules.
And yes, I know I'm wonderful. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
You still have to roll to hit, though.
I only say this because the poor Warlock player in our Monday game kept rolling 1s or just flat rolled misses.
Poor guy.
;)
Our Pally last Monday missed every attack roll but one maybe. He marked one guy I think and was a meat shield the rest of the time. He was bummed at first but realized it wasn't his fault he could not roll above a 5.
Our Pally last Monday missed every attack roll but one maybe. He marked one guy I think and was a meat shield the rest of the time. He was bummed at first but realized it wasn't his fault he could not roll above a 5.
Of course it is his fault. He hasn't sacrificed enough to the great god D20. Thankfully I am able to intercede for him. Simply send me his bank details and I promise to persuade the Great D20 in the Sky to look favourably upon him. He will be unable to roll less than an 18 in the future once this is done. If this act is not performed than bad luck will follow him everywhere. I have an address that you can use if the information must be sent by post.
Sicnerely,
Undersecretary for Finance Bluenose
Scam House
I've found Lawful Evil, when that still existed anyway, could be played as quite heroic... at least as far as surface appearances go. Can lead to all sorts of juicy RPing opportunity when done correctly... like making a paladin look like a close-minded bigot and really undermining their reputation with the locals. :D
I agree with that, but I prefer to play characters who actually are heroic, not those who merely seem heroic.
PS: The new "Evil" pretty much is "Lawful Evil" as far as I can tell.
It is unfortunately natural that some would be greater than others :P
What's "natural" isn't always good or beneficial though, especially not for a game.
I agree though that the default fighter class needed a bit of work, and people did come up with decent versions of it, also you could always multi-class or ask someone more knowledgeable to help you build a stronger character.
I agree...although regarding multiclassing, I don't like the idea that PCs should have to multiclass to have a decent number of options, which is one reason why I like the 4E multiclassing system (you aren't "fracturing" your character).
Again, we don't like the black and white world of hit/miss/max damage on a hit. I feel feats added nicely to AC or even situational bonuses. An opposed save was good, but now no longer used. I didn't like the idea of having to use my spells when they didn't hit, but again, I stated we didn't know the saves were static, so they would have hit more. I feel it is very legit to make this complaint.
Well, it did seem like you were complaining about the fact that your string broke, but you then said the broken string was a house rule. It's not part of the official 4E rules.
Seriously though, after playing it and running I've found it to be a superior system. If you roleplayed cure light wounds as a prayer, do so with healing surges as needed. If you're the warlord, speak inspiring words when you initiate a healing surge. The roleplaying works the same between the two systems, just the names change.
I hope now that you've seen some of the mistakes you've made, you'll try it again. If not, someone in my group may want to buy your books. I even converted a nay saying $ed haters!:P
*SPOILER* *SPOILER*
6/7 of us were rolling like crap and our tatics were lame since some were focusing on their defender kobolds and our strikers were only focused on their "wild mage" which was really nasty. We were pretty bummed but what made it worse was the DM was getting kinda giddy. So I told him to tone it down a bit.
Since I was barely doing anything with my wiz they ignored me and pounded on everyone else. They were all out of 2nd winds when we all decided to just use our damn dailys we were saving. Game over for the baddies after that.
I decided to have us push on to the Dragon burial ground to find our mentor ands wanted to test out the game mechanics after a whole party had blown its dailys. I wanted to see if the days of resting after blowing your payload were over.
It was a good idea. The DM did not expect us to go there. We encountered my mentor who had found something at the site. I started grilling him with my good insight and he got nervous turned out to be a changling and had his two drakes take me down. They did 30 points of damage to my sorry butt (I have 29).
The fight began and we finally were rolling well. My green die turned out to be filled with 18s (I was revived by the Warlord and my minor action 2nd wind) so we rocked a little face in that encounter. The changling could have been working with the kobolds so this is bad. He also was apparently pretending to be the elf Delfina. Plus we found my real mentors corpse nearby.
I really need to work on which wizard's spells are most effective. DM is giving me one more chance to redo my at-will spells. I know now what will work for me so I will be better prepared next week.
Anyways, I showed my wife the PH for 4th and she was a bit upset. Not about the mechanics but because they had no..."girly classes", lol. Apparently only the wizard presents a class in which girls can play? Considering that my wife usually only plays Clerics (which she really donesnt like reguardless of edition), Druids, and Sorcerers she said she's stuck with the wizard. Though she hasn't built or played a character yet, I still have hopes that she'll enjoy the newer stuff until the PH2 comes out with all of her girly classes.
Rauric, that sounds alot like our gaming nights and also like D&D. Are you sure 4E is D&D? :P
Anyways, I showed my wife the PH for 4th and she was a bit upset. Not about the mechanics but because they had no..."girly classes", lol. Apparently only the wizard presents a class in which girls can play? Considering that my wife usually only plays Clerics (which she really donesnt like reguardless of edition), Druids, and Sorcerers she said she's stuck with the wizard. Though she hasn't built or played a character yet, I still have hopes that she'll enjoy the newer stuff until the PH2 comes out with all of her girly classes.
Uh Charisma Rogue? Heh. Seriously. Tell her rog and pally made it cool and useful to have lots of Cha. Rogs are like swashbucklers or pirates. They "dance" around and use their suaveness to kill the hell out of everything!
Oh it was D&D, just with some new rules. I like having Insight as class skill.
Makes sense that an observant, learned fellow might be able to tell if someone is deceiving him.
Paladin
Rogue
Uh Charisma Rogue? Heh. Seriously. Tell her rog and pally made it cool and useful to have lots of Cha. Rogs are like swashbucklers or pirates. They "dance" around and use their suaveness to kill the hell out of everything!
I agree but she's pretty stuck in her ways. I do get her to try different classes but I don't think she has any fun with them though.
Heh, well don't know quite what your wife's definition of 'girly' is , but I think most classes can easily be girly as well as manly. Here're two minis which illustrate the point.
Nice minis. From Reaper Miniatures? Ya, i'll show them to her and maybe she might change her mind. She also said that the D&D minis rarely have any "decent" women figurines and that most, if not all, are scantily clad lol. I did tell her that D&D was made by men and majority of men do play the game.
I was roleplaying the kobolds who were very excited to be whupping butt without spending an hour working on an elaborate strategy.
4e monsters are really fun to roleplay!
I was not being "giddy"!
I was roleplaying the kobolds who were very excited to be whupping butt without spending an hour working on an elaborate strategy.
4e monsters are really fun to roleplay!
You were being quasi-giddy. It is ok, next time say sorry every 10 minutes or so and don't look as happy ;) . At least I got rid of my cursed orange die at Daps house. It shall never confound my rolls again!!!
The problem was that the group wasn't focusing fire on any single target. It was also a lvl 2 encounter against a lvl 1 party. Also the dragon-shields can make you waste a lot of attacks by moving away.... and they have resist fire 5 so your big AOE power wasn't doing much. Also, you didnt sleep them when they were all standing next to each other. that would have ended evertying really fast.
Show
Rogue
Anyways, I showed my wife the PH for 4th and she was a bit upset. Not about the mechanics but because they had no..."girly classes", lol. Apparently only the wizard presents a class in which girls can play? Considering that my wife usually only plays Clerics (which she really donesnt like reguardless of edition), Druids, and Sorcerers she said she's stuck with the wizard. Though she hasn't built or played a character yet, I still have hopes that she'll enjoy the newer stuff until the PH2 comes out with all of her girly classes.
I hate to say it, but disagree with your wife! Girls can be any class. The books are full of pictures of female adventurers of all classes (not just wizards, or even primarily wizards). I see all the classes as gender-neutral.
I hate to say it, but disagree with your wife! Girls can be any class. The books are full of pictures of female adventurers of all classes (not just wizards, or even primarily wizards). I see all the classes as gender-neutral.
I game with an all guys group (4 players plus me).
Of the five character classes represented at our gaming table, three are female characters and two are male.
They include a half-drow Paladin of Elistraee, a dwarvn Cleric of Moradin and an Eladrin Wizard.
Girls can in fact be any class....even when boys run them. ;)
I hate to say it, but disagree with your wife! Girls can be any class. The books are full of pictures of female adventurers of all classes (not just wizards, or even primarily wizards). I see all the classes as gender-neutral.
I agree. Though we do tend to stick to classes that we're most comfortable playing with. Me, i'm usually the paladin-cleric-knight type character who's on occasion played a rogue (once) and a alcoholic/schizophrentic nut fighter/barbarian who was just.....awesome. My wife tends to play Sorcerers and Druids because I think she feels more "in-tune" with those type of "primordial casters" in such as the sorcerer has in-born magical talent and the druid derives her spells and powers through nature and it's patrons. To her, the Druid (being her fav. class) is a nurturing type class.....for whatever reason. Thus to her, those are the "girly classes" to which I still laugh at, lol.
I just played my first session of $e and was bored... No, I was beyond bored. I played an Elven Warlock and my powers were useless. We were playing the new $e adventure that came out and there are a group of Kobolds we ran into. The reflex saves of the Kobolds were 14 at low level without rolling, but with my bonus to my spells to hit I would have to roll a 12 or higher just to hit when they roll a 1. Me, a Warlock, had to revert to using a shortbow in the fight, then I rolled a 1 and my bow string broke. Being a caster in $e is useless, and people talk about balance? Where is there balance when a caster has to use melee or ranged weapons to do damage? I couldn't hit one time with my powers.
Paladins have Lay Hands, but this just uses one of your healing surges for the day and not divine energy. You can have an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting, but can't use the off-hand weapon to attack twice unless you use a power you get in some classes later on in class levels or by the Twin Strike feat, because you only attack once a round. Two Weapon Fighting just adds a plus 1 to hit I think, I forget and don't care.
This sytem killed magic. Maybe it's good for casters casting spells on fellow players, but it was useless against opponents. You may get more hit points than in 3e and have a chance to gain some from healing surges, but you can't hurt anything unless you use melee/ranged weapons! I had a 15 Con and this is how the bonus was broke up- correct me if I'm wrong: +2 for having 15 Con, +1 to ranged from my class and a +1 for half my level, roll with a d20 and you have poo vs. reflex.
The Warlock has a power or something that lets me curse an opponent, but there is no save for this. Once a round they take 1d6 damage when hurt. It is used as an action almost like a free action (I forget the name of the action) and it affects one opponent that I can see... It didn't say a range, just one I could see... I don't have the book, so I can't give you more details, but really, I don't think it's worth the time looking when those that have the books can check themselves. I thought I was playing a computer game with a bad set of rules and the group thought the same.
Skills are basic. You have a +5 to skills you choose to be your main use, this list is with your class, but then you can only add you abillity score + 1/2 your level and roll a d20, so no one can define themselves- especially since a lot of the skills are grouped together now. I wouldn't really consider this balance, just non-character definition. Saves are the same, but you add 10 instead of 5. Everyone is the same, it's just your class powers that make you a little different, and they rarely hit. I think Alediran said they hit about 25% of the time, and it's true. I'm sure it's worse at higher levels when you see an example character at level 23 having each of his saves in the low thirties +d20. Wonderful balance...
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
wow, dont rant if you don't even use the right rules. This is amazing. A game this easy to learn, set up to be "dumbed" down which is a major complaint by anti 4thers and obviously people can't understand the rules. My advice find a dm who knows what the crap they are doing. Even with the quick start rules in KotS it was extremely easy to understand for everyone in my group. In fact your group is the first one i've heard of having a problem understanding the rules. At least read the rules before you play. You would think your dm would have read them at the very least. If he read them and didn't understand how combat works or saving throws for that matter...two of the easiest things in concept in the new edition then you need a new dm. Even to run 3.5 you need a new dm. Someone that didn't put the time into reading the rules or can't understand them should not be dming. This is my only question...are you sure your 3.5 games are running correctly? You might want to start looking over the rules yourself from now on. Surprised no on in your group actually wanted to read the rules. I don't mean to come off as a jerk, but i guess i am. I got to this conversation late it seems and you have already been blasted by a lot of people. I just don't see how you can mess up the rules as badly as your group did. I would say go to a local gaming shop and play an rpg there if they have a game night to see how it is run there. Then judge 4th edition or even 3.5 then. It just seems like you hated 4th before you played and your group didn't give it a fair shot or read through before even trying it. Now i can say i tried it! it sucked! No you didn't try 4th you tried ...well i don't know...your dms made up rpg based on 4th edition.
Maybe Shiyongseng will give 4ed another shot with a better understanding of the rules. Seeing how he's always seemed to be at best wary of 4ed, most of the time critical, I doubt it. However let's give him the chance to try it again and give a better review. Either way, all the points have been made, many times over, and I see no reason for anyone to continue to dog-pile on Shiyongseng.
[...] Okay, so they messed up. It happens.
There's a slight difference between "senseless ranting" and "voicing criticism and asking for opinions".
If shiyongseng had posted something like "Ok guys, me and my friends just played through KotS and the game seems quite unbalanced. I barely could affect any creature with any spell from my warlock, because of the insane save bonuses they get to their roll, which I can hardly beat with my attack. Is the game really meant to be that difficult? That'd suck, casters would be completely useless then." many people (including myself) would have reacted differently.
It pretty quickly boils down to "you get what you asked for", so to speak.
[...] Also, I would like to see how most of you (note I said most) would handle running a game for the first time if the rules were written in Mandarin. I know I for one am more likely to miss something or misunderstand something written in a language that isn't English. [...]
People hating 4E complain about how the game, its mechanics, its rules, have been dumbed down to appease the "WoW kiddy crowd", and yet these "dumbed down" rules are seemingly still too complicated?
I can hardly believe that.
All characters are 1st level.
I observed the following:
The Eladrin Warlock player is simply cursed by the dice gods. Almost no successful to hit rolls (again).
Really, the guy couldn’t hit the broad side of a castle with a crossbow at ten feet.
But he can sure fade in and out of combat pretty good with his Shadow Walk Class Feature and Eladrin Fey Step Racial Power. He can also move around whenever someone he cursed dies in combat, via his Misty Step ability from Fey Pact.
So the Warlock player discovered just how mobile he can be on the battlefield. He quickly learned how to grant combat advantage (by flanking) to the other players.
Speaking of the other players, they are figuring out how to keep track of who is marked by who during combat, so they don’t cancel each other’s marks.
They are also starting to overlap their powers and effects. The Paladin figured out how to stay close enough to the Rogue/Ranger to grant bonuses to hit and some healing. They also worked hard for flanks.
The Eladrin Wizard was pretty proud of himself for Acid Arrowing one of the NPC ranged attackers (the Kobold Wyrmpriest, a Level 3 Artillery monster) at the start of combat. The Kobold kept failing his saves and so basically melted to death before he could blast the players with Dragon Breath.
:::::::::::::::::::::
On my side, I had the aforementioned Wyrmpriest, one Kobold Skirmisher (Level 1 Skirmisher) and three Kobold Dragonshields (Level 2 Soldiers) to attack the players with.
The Dragonshields got swarmed and attacked continuously over the five and a half rounds that combat lasted. They did manage to drop the Human Rogue/Ranger on round one, but that caused the Half-Drow Paladin and the Dwarven Cleric to rush up to their fallen comrade and basically clog the middle of the map. Those two characters healed up the Rogue/Ranger and then it was really on.
The Wyrmpriest did pretty good damage with his Energy Orbs and Incite Faith Power (that last one kept the Dragonshields going at least another round). It was kind of neat to see the combat evolve into an “as-them-us-them” single file line on the map.
Every time the players tried to move and flank, the Dragonshields would use their Dragonshield Tactics ability to shift in response and keep their flanks going.
The most fun I had was with the Kobold Skirmisher. He probably did the most damage of any single creature. I was able to have him hide in the tree-filled foliage and make ranged attacks from cover while he moved through the foliage to attack the players from all sides. Rolling max damage two rounds in a row helped. ;)
Basically the Skirmisher kept the Eladrin Wizard and Eladrin Warlock on their toes by always hitting them and sort of pushing them around the map to avoid the Skirmisher’s attacks.
BIT OF A SPOILER:
Since I’m using the FR Conversion for the H1 adventure, I decided to put the holy symbol of Shar inside the Wyrmpriest’s bone mask (carved into the inside portion where it would rest against the Wyrmpriest’s forehead). This turned the mask into a unique and interesting item and helped push the players further into the adventure story.
The 4th Edition Experience continues. We’re using H1: Keep on the Shadowfell (and the H1 conversion for the Forgotten Realms) and have made it as far as the second Kobold Ambush encounter (page 24 of the adventure).
All characters are 1st level.
I observed the following:
The Eladrin Warlock player is simply cursed by the dice gods. Almost no successful to hit rolls (again).
Really, the guy couldn’t hit the broad side of a castle with a crossbow at ten feet.
But he can sure fade in and out of combat pretty good with his Shadow Walk Class Feature and Eladrin Fey Step Racial Power. He can also move around whenever someone he cursed dies in combat, via his Misty Step ability from Fey Pact.
So the Warlock player discovered just how mobile he can be on the battlefield. He quickly learned how to grant combat advantage (by flanking) to the other players.
Speaking of the other players, they are figuring out how to keep track of who is marked by who during combat, so they don’t cancel each other’s marks.
They are also starting to overlap their powers and effects. The Paladin figured out how to stay close enough to the Rogue/Ranger to grant bonuses to hit and some healing. They also worked hard for flanks.
The Eladrin Wizard was pretty proud of himself for Acid Arrowing one of the NPC ranged attackers (the Kobold Wyrmpriest, a Level 3 Artillery monster) at the start of combat. The Kobold kept failing his saves and so basically melted to death before he could blast the players with Dragon Breath.
:::::::::::::::::::::
On my side, I had the aforementioned Wyrmpriest, one Kobold Skirmisher (Level 1 Skirmisher) and three Kobold Dragonshields (Level 2 Soldiers) to attack the players with.
The Dragonshields got swarmed and attacked continuously over the five and a half rounds that combat lasted. They did manage to drop the Human Rogue/Ranger on round one, but that caused the Half-Drow Paladin and the Dwarven Cleric to rush up to their fallen comrade and basically clog the middle of the map. Those two characters healed up the Rogue/Ranger and then it was really on.
The Wyrmpriest did pretty good damage with his Energy Orbs and Incite Faith Power (that last one kept the Dragonshields going at least another round). It was kind of neat to see the combat evolve into an “as-them-us-them” single file line on the map.
Every time the players tried to move and flank, the Dragonshields would use their Dragonshield Tactics ability to shift in response and keep their flanks going.
The most fun I had was with the Kobold Skirmisher. He probably did the most damage of any single creature. I was able to have him hide in the tree-filled foliage and make ranged attacks from cover while he moved through the foliage to attack the players from all sides. Rolling max damage two rounds in a row helped. ;)
Basically the Skirmisher kept the Eladrin Wizard and Eladrin Warlock on their toes by always hitting them and sort of pushing them around the map to avoid the Skirmisher’s attacks.
BIT OF A SPOILER:
Since I’m using the FR Conversion for the H1 adventure, I decided to put the holy symbol of Shar inside the Wyrmpriest’s bone mask (carved into the inside portion where it would rest against the Wyrmpriest’s forehead). This turned the mask into a unique and interesting item and helped push the players further into the adventure story.
do you like the adventure?
Anyway we need to stay and clean up the area because if we do not the Shadowfell rift is going to really screw things up for the town. Gotta stay and protect the little people. :D
do you like the adventure?
Yup! It's just complicated enough to keep me on my toes and learning about how 4E works.
There's also plenty of meat in the adventure with which to portray a convincing bit of the game world for the characters to be in.