|
|
Post by K Man on Jun 18, 2008 10:08:51 GMT -5
* - Disclaimer: Due to my unerring inability to sit down and watch 'The Aristocrats' as requested by Shakes, this is not a review but rather an opinion. I can't do any more reviews until I fulfill the request from 50% of the active female members of the board.  I’ve made no attempt to hide the fact that I’m a WotC whore. I buy nearly everything they produce from colorful battlemaps, to metal miniatures, to pre-painted plastic miniatures, to supplements, to cardboard tiles, to book after mother-f’in book. Most of these get discontinued or errata’ed or just plain overridden. They discontinued Chainmail Minis. They out-dated my 3.0 core rulebooks. All good moves but some stuff I wasn’t ready to let go of yet. Sure, my epic level handbook is 3.0, but it still has good material to draw on, even if a little conversion is necessary for use. I was waiting for an updated version to come out for 3.5 but like the high-dollar hooker you just keep paying for, WotC came out with a brand spanking new version of my game that I just had to get. It promised to make high-level adventuring a part of the core game. The books arrived Friday. I read them sporadically through the weekend until Monday. My initial impression is one of dislike and disinterest in playing. I feel that the game overall feels a little too video-gamey (which is saying something for a guy with at least 35,000 hours of video game time [of which 50% is logged into some form of Super Smash Brothers]). There are too many similarities to my digital world for my comfort. D&D was always kept separate from video games in my life, but this edition makes them blur. A few key similarities that I really dislike:- There are milestones now, might as well call them save points as they act as a waypoint between encounters and places to refuel.
- You get powers to use at will, encounter, daily or just as utility powers which take the place of spells—waaay to close to a re-filling MP meter from many RPG’s.
- You get freakin’ HOSED on selling magic items, like that damned bearded guy in the shop who always says the same fudgin’ thing after you sell your 47 potions of healing for 1 GP each and you just want to put your foot through the TV.
- HP is fixed by class and has increased dramatically from earlier editions. Many of the classes begin with 12-15 HP at first level.
- EVERYTHING is influenced by ½ your level. Your AC just keeps going up!
- I have found nothing on playing races out of the ordinary. Welcome to a selection list of playable characters.
- You get to miraculously heal damage in-battle, regardless of class. They just don’t tell you that your healing comes at a time desperately needed and is delivered by a blue-haired hottie who just can’t stand to see you lose.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. It just doesn’t feel like D&D to me. It reads like a damn scrolling menu in a video game; here’s your list of 50 some odd powers to scroll through before you decide on a class. Go ahead, read them, I’ve got time. Be sure to sure to choose one of your five playable races, one of which has ‘flavor’! Now, get ready while I load the game and watch your stats and abilities soar to the triple digits! Ugh. Also, I don’t think the core rulebooks lend themselves to an easy understanding of the game. One of the first rules in technical writing is that as soon as you use a word or phrase or reference an item, you define it. This is not the case, I felt, with these new books. Hell, page 220 or so is where they defined what 4[w]+ CON Modifier meant, and what Blast 3 would affect. In the 3.5 edition, you read ALL about spell effects before they gave you spells. Some other things I don’t like;It’s color-coded. The Daily, At-Will and Encounter powers are color-coded in red, green and black. We’ll that’s just great. I’ve got red-green colorblind friends who are already resisting the change to 4th, how am I supposed to convince them to play now? The DMG is freakin’ useless. All magic items are in the PHB…as are classes, powers, feats skills etc. The DMG is mostly a psychological manual on how to deal with X personality player and what kind of DM are you, how to run a game, design a campaign etc. I get the need for it for the newb players, but shouldn’t some stuff be reserved for DM control? Grapple…isn’t. You ‘grab’ someone, hold them still with no real penalty save for no movement. It just requires an attack roll and doesn’t deny them anything (expect maybe grant combat advantage) then on their turn they get to escape and move. What the hell is the point of that? The bonuses for situational modifiers have now changed. Cover is +2 or +5, charging is +1 and you only get 2 extra squares of movement…what the crap was wrong with the +2/+4 schema and moving double for charge? I didn't even see miss chances for concealment yet, but total/supreme cover is only a +5. Critical hits are now just max damage…doesn’t seem that ‘critical’ when I can do it normally with a bit of luck. I think you still roll additional damage (from feats, magic items i.e. flaming etc) when you critical anyway. What the crap is with the levels on the magic items? So a Holy Avenger is a level 25+ item…does that matter? Can my 5th level Paladin find one and use it? I couldn’t find the rules stating why items have levels… :::::::::::::::::::::::: So, all this negative talk…but is there any good? Yes, all things in balance. There are some things I do like about the new edition of D&D, but they are far outnumbered. Don’t expect this section to be long. I like that movement is now based on squares. No more 30ft = 6 squares crap, you move a number of squares. (Although this seems like a bonus at first, what if my scale changes? What if I need to do math on distance traveled in a day in miles or kilometers? It is 40 miles to the next town or 4,567,345 squares?) I don’t know, I still think it’s a bonus and is so listed. I like the simplification of spell areas. No more ray, line, radius, X targets within X feet of each other, long, short, medium etc; you now have Blast, Wall, Radius and personal. Blast means X squares out from you in a direction (i.e. all squares N of me). Radius means all squares in all directions out from me. Wall means a number of squares equal to X that are connected, so Wall 6 means 6 connected squares (straight line or not). Personal is obvious. I like the simplification of skills. I always thought it was goofy that to sneak on someone required 4 rolls (Move Silently + Hide vs Listen and Spot). I like the new layout of skills, they do seem to make more sense though I have not fully read them. I like the addition of feats. You get more feats now, but with the addition of powers (Cleave is now a power by the way), the more feats may be moot. I like the +1 to two abilities at every 4 levels, an +1 to all abilities at every 11th. … … That’s about it. Honestly, there is little dragging me to the new edition. Sure, I own the books (which I’m sure will be out-dated here shortly) but I’m in no big hurry to run a game with them. I’ll give it a try and maybe my mood will lighten, but right now the new edition has really got to fight hard to get me to make the switch. 3.5…representin’ for life. Anyone else read the books or have an opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 18, 2008 12:43:46 GMT -5
What I found problematic with the design of Fourth Edition was the shift in the distribution of power. They moved from letting you have wildly different power paradigms that played out in completely different manners and gave huge swings in character effieccy (3.X) to having one signle power paradigm where everything plays out in a basically simular manner and gives a relatively flat level of effiency.
To me, that's a really bad thing. I mean, I love German style board games where roads are well balanced and the mechanics are simple and straightfoward. But those games are narrowly defined. They most certainly don't make the claim that you can customize your own character to refelct what you want to play. Those games don't take more then two hours to tell the entire story. And they most certainly don't use dice as the determinent of success.
Part of the charm of 3.X is that you get real choices in how your character plays. In 4e EVERYONE has the exact same stuff: they get will, encounter and daily powers in the exact same number and they all (basically) require an attack roll and do damage+stuff.
I mean, I can take a terribly unbalanced system and work with it (modification, self-restriction) to make it playable. I have a much harder time conceiving of how to take a lifeless system and make it fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 18, 2008 15:23:21 GMT -5
* - Disclaimer: Due to my unerring inability to sit down and watch 'The Aristocrats' as requested by Shakes, this is not a review but rather an opinion. I can't do any more reviews until I fulfill the request from 50% of the active female members of the board. I’ve made no attempt to hide the fact that I’m a WotC whore. I buy nearly everything they produce from colorful battlemaps, to metal miniatures, to pre-painted plastic miniatures, to supplements, to cardboard tiles, to book after mother-f’in book. Most of these get discontinued or errata’ed or just plain overridden. They discontinued Chainmail Minis. They out-dated my 3.0 core rulebooks. All good moves but some stuff I wasn’t ready to let go of yet. Sure, my epic level handbook is 3.0, but it still has good material to draw on, even if a little conversion is necessary for use. I was waiting for an updated version to come out for 3.5 but like the high-dollar hooker you just keep paying for, WotC came out with a brand spanking new version of my game that I just had to get. It promised to make high-level adventuring a part of the core game. The books arrived Friday. I read them sporadically through the weekend until Monday. My initial impression is one of dislike and disinterest in playing. I feel that the game overall feels a little too video-gamey (which is saying something for a guy with at least 35,000 hours of video game time [of which 50% is logged into some form of Super Smash Brothers]). There are too many similarities to my digital world for my comfort. D&D was always kept separate from video games in my life, but this edition makes them blur. Just a Warning, 4e is one of those games that reads bad, but playies pretty well. It might not be so good for PbP, though, as it can take a few turns to resolve combat At a milestone (Every 2 encounters) you gain an action point, to encorage people to have multiple encounters in a day. I assume you mean the 5 minute break between encounters where people recharge their per-encounters and spend healing surges. The same way that people healed between encounters with a wand of CLW and people recharged their per encounter abilities in 3.5 [/li][li]You get powers to use at will, encounter, daily or just as utility powers which take the place of spells—waaay to close to a re-filling MP meter from many RPG’s. [/quote] Waa? This, I don't understand. There is no way to recharge abilities outside of resting/sleeping [/li][li]You get freakin’ HOSED on selling magic items, like that damned bearded guy in the shop who always says the same fudgin’ thing after you sell your 47 potions of healing for 1 GP each and you just want to put your foot through the TV. [/quote] That there to encorage player to keep the magic items, not sell them and buy munchkin ones [/li][li]HP is fixed by class and has increased dramatically from earlier editions. Many of the classes begin with 12-15 HP at first level. [/quote] I like being able to survive a 10 ft drop at 1st level. Less WFRP, more heroic fantasy. [/li][li]EVERYTHING is influenced by ½ your level. Your AC just keeps going up! [/quote] And your attacks. It's trying to solve the problem in 3rd that after a certain point, monster attacks bonus growth rate outstrips the rate at which you could gain AC, making investing in it an all or nothing affair. You either had the best AC money could buy, with all the AC boosting items, or you got hit a lot. [/li][li]I have found nothing on playing races out of the ordinary. Welcome to a selection list of playable characters. [/quote] You mean the list of playable monsters at the back of the monster manual, or the horrible LA system that made playing a monster into a glass cannon technique? [/li][li]You get to miraculously heal damage in-battle, regardless of class. They just don’t tell you that your healing comes at a time desperately needed and is delivered by a blue-haired hottie who just can’t stand to see you lose. [/quote] There are 4 ways to heal mid-battle 1. Cure x Wounds from the Cleric 2. Healing potion 3. Second Wind- This is a Fantasy Trope. It's good to see a way for fighters to have a surge of vitailty and get back in the fight. 4. The Warlords Inspiring Word, which I assume in the one you are complaning about. Despite the fact that HP is not Physical damage, it's more exhaustion/bruising and the general inspiring the broken army to come back and win is a fantasy trope. It's just that on a smaller scale [/li][/ul] I could go on, but I think you get the point. It just doesn’t feel like D&D to me. It reads like a damn scrolling menu in a video game; here’s your list of 50 some odd powers to scroll through before you decide on a class. Go ahead, read them, I’ve got time. Be sure to sure to choose one of your five playable races, one of which has ‘flavor’! Now, get ready while I load the game and watch your stats and abilities soar to the triple digits! Ugh. [/quote] Have you played it yet? I have, and it still feels like D&D to be. The Wizard blows stuff up, the figher protects the wizard, the rouge sneaks around and stabs people in the back, and the cleric heal, buffs, and lays some smack dowm No, in general players skipped over all the boring stuff to get to spells, read them over, get confused, and then go read the spell stuff. The good thing is, once you can read 1 power, you can read all of them I don't know. What colors would you use? Like Actions the Rules don't cover (page 42), posion and disease( pg 49), How to build encounters, how to run skill challenges (page 72), how to hand XP and treasure (120 and 124), ARTIFACTS? (page 164) ,How to customize/create monsters (chapter 10)? I turns their move action into a 5ft step. That might help I never really liked the grapple rules in 3e, b/c they slow a tabletop game to a standstill as everyone involved makes 5 rolls each, and didn't do more than that, unless one was a specialized grappler. They are trying to shrink the numbers bloat. +5 is huge deal in 4e. Brand new game, brand new number system. Also, miss chance went the way of the Dodo. Remember what I said earlier about about the AC race? Miss chance is the reason that you don't invest it armor. You can stack buffs till the cows come home, or just cast displacement, and either way, the giant now has 50% to miss. Displacement was cheaper. Well, since they removed the confirmation roll, a critical isn't that rare. And you deal extra damage from magic weapons. +1d6 per plus on a crit.  It's in the DMG. A items level is a derterminate of when it should be handed out to the party. A Holy Avenger is an approate items for a paladin around 25th level. The same concept is in the 3.5 MIC 1 square =5ft. That hasn't changed. Also, overland travel speeds are covered on page 261 of the players handbook. Feats are cool little tricks your chacter knows, not character defining things that they were in 3.5. New game, new balance. Don't think of it as new verson of D&D, think of it as whole new game. Just reading the books gives a poor impression of the game. Early readthroughs of 3rd edtion had people conviced that Power Attack was the worst feat ever, and that every powergamer would play a rouge 1(For the skill points)/monk 19 ('cus Monk is the best base class ever!) Try it before you decide you don't like it. Since Desertwolf Dissipated, I have room in my 4e game. What I found problematic with the design of Fourth Edition was the shift in the distribution of power. They moved from letting you have wildly different power paradigms that played out in completely different manners and gave huge swings in character effieccy (3.X) to having one signle power paradigm where everything plays out in a basically simular manner and gives a relatively flat level of effiency. To me, that's a really bad thing. I mean, I love German style board games where roads are well balanced and the mechanics are simple and straightfoward. But those games are narrowly defined. They most certainly don't make the claim that you can customize your own character to refelct what you want to play. Those games don't take more then two hours to tell the entire story. And they most certainly don't use dice as the determinent of success. Part of the charm of 3.X is that you get real choices in how your character plays. In 4e EVERYONE has the exact same stuff: they get will, encounter and daily powers in the exact same number and they all (basically) require an attack roll and do damage+stuff. I mean, I can take a terribly unbalanced system and work with it (modification, self-restriction) to make it playable. I have a much harder time conceiving of how to take a lifeless system and make it fun. Read and Be enlightened. |
|
anoba
Veteran of the War
Posts: 271
|
Post by anoba on Jun 18, 2008 16:45:46 GMT -5
Personally, I like the vast majority of the changes. So much simpler, so much more flexible.
One of the improvements which hasn't been mentioned before is that there is a lot more movement in combat. Encounters will be much more cinematic.
However, I share two concerns with KMan. 1) The game just doesn't feel like D&D, and 2) The classes seem too similar to each other. The link provided by Deekin leads to an interesting discussion on the issue. But let's face it, after creating a million characters, trying to come up with something different is one of the few joys during character creation.
Anyways, I will reserve final judgment until after I actually play. I did have a practice combat last week and it was fun. (I also had a practice skill challenge, and it was lame). We'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 18, 2008 17:44:26 GMT -5
I understand the paradigm. It is because I understand it that I think its bad, not in spite of it. In other words, I can already play Descent. It costs $55 and comes with ~80 miniatures, a set of dungeon terrain, cool dice and rules that are actually streamlined instead of rules that are sort of streamlined as opposed to ~900 pages of reading. Renaming the characters in Descent gives me arguably more functional diversity in character creation then D&D 4e does, which would be its theoretical strong point. This wouldn't be much of an issue, but Descent came out 3 years ago and already has 3 expansion (fourth in December), all of which have an astronomically better ratio of cost to contents then D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by K Man on Jun 18, 2008 17:52:41 GMT -5
Wow...I love having my half-assed opinions dissected line by line!  Just kidding Deekin, I get a kick out of thoughtful replies to posts. To respond; I have heard that is plays better when it reads, but when all I've got is the books first, I have to dislike it by default right? That's part of the poorly designed document point I made. Even if I were to jump right into the game and play, I'd have to read it sometime so it would benefit WotC to design the book well. Just an observation and may not affect everyone. I didn't skip over things in the PHB. I read from page to page. It is a poorly designed document and would make a better hyperlinked document that I could flip through in context instead of in order...maybe that's what the D&D insider will do for me. I get the idea of milestones, we just never discussed them in 3.X. Sure, we would all heal between battles, prepare for what may lie ahead, but those with powers (wizards, clerics, paladins etc) would be very cautious with how they spent everything because you never knew when you were going to be able to rest. Now there is a whole segment of powers I could give a rat's ass about because they will recharge as soon as I'm done (at-will or encounter). Sure, they may not be as powerful as daily, but who cares, churn 'em and burn 'em. This also signifies the recharging MP meter point I made...if I can use this power at-will, that is like a refillable MP meter. Imagine a warmage with infinite magic missles + his warmage edge. You know other classes are coming and someone will find a way to pump out infinite something because now they are at-will. Why would I want to keep the +2 trident of swimming I just randomly rolled for? Don't take away the thrill of my random treasure in lieu of strategically placed and wholly beneficial treasure that is just the right size for me! Let me manage my adventuring checkbook and I'll get what I want. Now I have to take 5X as much to afford what I wanted. I don't like the idea of a frail wizard, with a painful and wracked backstory, surviving not one, but two and possibly three falls from a horse. What the hell is his frail ass doing up there in the first place? Less super hero, more story please. I get the everything adjusted by level thing, it's just not what I'm used to. It feels like a video game because that's what happens in my video games. I have Baldur's Gate II for the PS2 and one of my guys has an AC of like 111 or something. That feels like a video game, not D&D. Yes, there becomes a point when armor becomes useless, but don't replace it with a video game feel. +5 is a huge deal? When I'm a level 30 fighter with a +60 to hit, you think I care about an additional 8% chance to hit or miss? No. I will care about a 50% chance to miss though. Or even a 20% miss chance. I just think its crap that they reduced it to simple numbers whose effects reduce in direct relation to level versus a system that is devastating at any level, magic items aside. I can't say that anyone that is colorblind would appreciate a color-coding scheme. I just found it rude that WotC wouldn't just stick to formatting or orderly lists instead of color change. I did not see the list of playable monsters. I did not read the definition of magic item levels in the DMG. Let me say again that I sporadically read the books. I made it through most of the PHB, but that was it. My fault and please understand this is the opinion I've developed so far.
I'm not really interested into getting into a lengthy debate about whether or not I should pop my 4e cherry. The point is I was excited about it four days ago but now disappointed in delivery. No I haven't given it a chance, no I haven't tried before ranting but there is nothing moving me to even give it the chance...aside from those saying 'Give it a chance!'. I didn't want a brand new game. If I wanted something wholly different, I would go pick up Palladium or GURPS, something I've never played before and give that the benefit of the doubt. Give it a complete read through before I put it down disgusted. I wanted the next logical step in my game, i.e. from 3.5 to 4, not a 'whole new game'--just a new feel. Why even call it 4e if it's entirely new? Shouldn't it be Revised D&D, or New Advanced D&D... I read the EnWorld link you posted and I get it, I really do. However, I've seen a boiled down sense of the game that focuses entirely on tactics, sliding people around and controlling the battlefield in unique ways. I've got entire armies of characters that I can switch out and rearrange, but that have the same basic feel, just different in-play options. I can already play by planning out what I'm going to do on the battlefield instead of worrying about who I am and why I am doing it. I already have characters that recharge after every fight and begin each fight renewed and refreshed. I already have at-will and encounter powers. It's called D&D Minis... And I've already spent enough time and money on that thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by similar on Jun 18, 2008 20:14:24 GMT -5
Wow. Not sure where to start. I think the Ks lack of faith has me reeling.
I primarily played 2nd ed d&d then 3.5 and have 2 play groups in the real world that have embraced 4e immediately and have had 1 session with both already.
I currently only own the phb but have had input into what the other 2 books bring.
It is quite different ot 3.0/3.5 but so were they to 2nd.
The big change from 2 to 3 was probably greater then the big change to 4. to me at least.
The things I like are some of the fundamentals of the ssytem.
Getting rid of saving throws against attacks in favour of attack rolls makes so much sense.
Having 2 stats for each save instead of just one gives a greater flexibility in character design.
Giving more variety to the stats to different classes use is better.
Although people are complainig about every class getting the same amount of powers I think that is a good thing.
Before spell casting classes had vast amounts of options whilst most other classes were quite limited. You had one fixed progression and you had to multiclass to get diversity.
Now all classes have the same amount of flexibilty. You can make different types of even none spell casters from level 1 because even fighteres have less generic powers.
Having more options in a fight then walk up to enemy use basic attack reperatedly is liberating to the previuosuly more static classes.
Now fighters/paldins/rangers/rogues/warlords have 3-6 choices of attack every turn available it allows more options in combat. My Dragonborn Paladin in the first encounter used 5 slightly different attacks based on which I thought was best per round.including breathing fire. In previous versions of d&d he would have just been using the same attack over and over.
I think the fact the skills are more grouped together is a good thing. The fact you are not relient on specific classes to have an effective group is better.
You no longer need a cleric for healing. Everyone can self heal and clerics/paladins/warlords can all provide varying amouts of supplimentary healing.
With the regrouping of skills rogues, warlocks and eladrin can get all the thievery skills. This adds more flexibilty to party composition.
The overal experience is a far more tactical combat experince. I am surpsied that Kman as a minis fan does not like that.
Although all these options and powers seem great we are currently only playing 1st level. Everyone has about 25-30 Hp and we fight kobolds with like 30-40 hp. I can see that it allows for more skills based combat where 1 hit does not kill you like it used to but to me it seems too powerful for 1st level.
I personally have always relished, in any system, low level adventuring where you are weak and limited and havetofight to survive. Once one is powerful it is less exciting.
This is probably more due to my general RL non-ambition.
Have given it a go ad actually playig it they seem to hav streamlied the right bits and expanded the right bits. My DM friend says the encounter generating system is loads better then before. Although I miss the really low adventuring chances (because even at 1st level we all seem quite powerful) a l ot of the improvements are logical and obviously based on real observation of how it used to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 18, 2008 22:05:53 GMT -5
Now fighters/paldins/rangers/rogues/warlords have 3-6 choices of attack every turn available it allows more options in combat. My Dragonborn Paladin in the first encounter used 5 slightly different attacks based on which I thought was best per round.including breathing fire. In previous versions of d&d he would have just been using the same attack over and over. I see this as exactly the problem. It doesn't matter at all what you are playing. No matter who you are you 5 slightly different options. Worse yet, those options are only slightly different then if you had been a class which is thematically completely different. Your Dragonborn Paladin could have been a Halfling Rogue and it would have been the same thing mechanically. Now, one might say the intention of this was to raise tactical gameplay. It probably is. This doesn't change the fact that you can use more then one mechanic and still support equal depth of tactical play to a single mechanic game (see: Taj Mahal vs. Amun-Re). It doesn't change the fact that D&D still uses a die roll is the single determinant of success and failure, frustrating the goal of tactical play. I suppose I'm not arguing for better or worse here, just making a statement. D&D 4th edition is, by design, a single mechanic skirmish wargame. That's cool, but I prefer my RPGs as Heavy Ameritrash. The thing I wonder about is this. There have been plenty of good single mechanic skirmish wargames for years. Mordhiem. Confrontation 2. Confrontation 3. D&D Miniatures. If this is what you wanted, as opposed to the ultraheavy Ameritrash that is D&D 3.X, why weren't you playing them? The only conceivable reason I can see is because they aren't roleplaying games. But, this doesn't stick for me. The most common response to the critique of 4e "It doesn't have rules for roleplaying" has been "you don't need rules for roleplaying". So, again, I wonder, since you don't need rules for roleplaying, why were you play a style of game you don't enjoy when many games in the style you do enjoy already exist? This why I don't see D&D 4e as a replacement for 3.X. There is no reason to "try it". Its design goal is completely different. There is really no reason to call one "better" then the other. The confusion seems to stem from calling it D&D. Many people go into it expecting the Heavy Ameritrash they love and are disappointed when its something completely different. As far as for being a roleplaying venue, I think the single mechanic skirmish wargame is inadequate, but I suppose I'll have to call that an opinion. NOTE!Although I quoted similiar's comment, this is not a critique of his opinions or experiences. I am just voicing a general critique and questioning of many of the reviews of 4e I have read. |
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 19, 2008 3:22:02 GMT -5
Now fighters/paldins/rangers/rogues/warlords have 3-6 choices of attack every turn available it allows more options in combat. My Dragonborn Paladin in the first encounter used 5 slightly different attacks based on which I thought was best per round.including breathing fire. In previous versions of d&d he would have just been using the same attack over and over. I see this as exactly the problem. It doesn't matter at all what you are playing. No matter who you are you 5 slightly different options. Worse yet, those options are only slightly different then if you had been a class which is thematically completely different. Your Dragonborn Paladin could have been a Halfling Rogue and it would have been the same thing mechanically. Not Really, from my experience. A Halfling rouge might shove the foe around the battlefield, force foes to re-roll attack rolls vs him, and blind foes with a storm of daggers, while a dragonborn paladin will breathe fire, smite foes with holy light, and make foes take damage when they attack. They read similar, but play very differently. As for similarity via mechanics, yeah so? Was 3.5, with the core rule books, was any better? Maybe because I have never hear of them, except for D&D minis, and that doesn't allow much character customization. 4e has just as many rules for role playing as 3e. None. 3e had mechanic that would let you cripple yourself for "roleplay" purposes. It was purposly desinged to have traps for character generation, to encorage Nor is there a reason to call one worse than the other. 3e didn't really have a desinge goal other than "update D&D", and it shows in legacy issues. The power curve was radically diffrent for all the classes, 1st level wizards could be killed by a housecat, and at later levels, the figher was all but useless unless he took a chain of specific feats that lets him break the game instead. As for the single mechanic game, technically the whole d20 system is singe mechanic game. Roll D20, add modifiers, and see if you beat a target number. As for all the classes using the same mechanic, pause for moment. How much more effort would it take to playtest and balance 8 mechanically unique classes than 8 mechanically similar classes. |
|
|
|
Post by K Man on Jun 19, 2008 8:45:32 GMT -5
Wow. Not sure where to start. I think the Ks lack of faith has me reeling. ... The overal experience is a far more tactical combat experince. I am surpsied that Kman as a minis fan does not like that. ... lol...didn't mean to break up your day similar. You know, me too. In truth, I do like the idea of quick, tactical combat--that's exactly why I play/ed D&D minis. I could gather up some cards, make a warband and throw down for the afternoon. I enjoy the slight uniqueness of the pieces but how they all mesh together in relatively the same way (special attacks, melee attacks, ranged attacks etc). Each piece looked different but behaved in very much the same fashion. They each had their special power on the battlefield, usually usable once per battle. I guess I just wasn't expecting it to become the full-fledged game of choice for D&D. I expected more variety. I expected wizards to be weak at low levels and outpace fighters in power eventually. I expected clerics to serve the purpose of support and power. I expected rogues to stay either behind the front line or behind their enemy, not pull any of this wacky teleport here, stab all these fools, slide and disappear crap I see in the minis game. I just expected more mechanics based on the stories I have always read rather than the flatly sanded system I have been given. It is just an expanded version of minis, something I gave up playing competively because of people that would worry about maximum, one-time strings of attacks that were devastating...something I see this system lending itself to very much. Everyone is equal now, everyone gets the same stuff, everyone should be equal in power. For me it kind of takes the fun out of people like; Raistlin from the Dragonlance Chronicles, Conan, Sturm Brightblade, Huma etc. I dunno, I'm sure BluSpecs will force our local group to play eventually, but I just have very low expectations that it will survive the night. |
|
|
|
Post by Japic on Jun 19, 2008 9:39:10 GMT -5
I've not yet read the rules, nor have I tried playing, so I'll remin silent on all this largely because I'm uninformed on the topic. Thsi comment hoewever needs no rulebook or game for response, so respond I shall. How much more effort would it take to playtest and balance 8 mechanically unique classes than 8 mechanically similar classes. It's interesting that you agree that it's better to do it wrong in a hurry, than right just once. The good news for WoTC is that they can always publish 4.5 and correct half of the things that players complain about and get more money out of us you in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 19, 2008 9:40:34 GMT -5
Not Really, from my experience. As for similarity via mechanics, yeah so? Was 3.5, with the core rule books, was any better? I was only talking about mechanically. If the only differences between two completely disparate characters is tactical implementation, it seems insufficient. Also, I don't get this "with the core books" arguement. 3.X has eight years of work, hundreds of publishers and thousands of resources. I'm not going to just forget they exist "to be fair". This is really bugs me. Not because I expect you or anyone else to dedicate their time researching games. That's kind of foolish. The problem is you obviously wanted to play a game in an entirely different genre (tactical skirmish) then D&D 3.X (heavy ameritrash) and tactical skirmish have existed for years, but when a product calls itself D&D makes an average (maybe above average, only time will tell) tactical skirmish, suddenly 3.X D&D is a bad game because its a mediocore tactical skirmish game, even though it doesn't even pretend to be anything other then heavy Ameritrash? Its disconcerting to say the least. See, this supports my point. If there are no rules for roleplaying and what you always wanted was a tactical skirmish game, you could have just roleplayed with your Confrontation 2/3 miniatures. What exactly is the added value of D&D 4e being a roleplaying game? 3.X has a robust resource management mechanic that differs dramatically offering a variety of depth depending upon the character class chosen that 4e doesn't. No clue. But for me, its hardly a concern. I'd rather 8 unplaytested, unbalanced unique classes then 8 identical, balanced ones. I can handle some legwork balancing stuff, but there isn't any point in rewriting an inadequate system. I can just use an adequate one. |
|
|
|
Post by TheUdjat on Jun 19, 2008 9:52:25 GMT -5
I'm kinda of surprised KMan and others have such an issue with a standardized, internally cohesive, unified system. It makes playing and understanding the game easier and faster, and I don't feel it sacrifices any versatility or gameplay to do it. The classes are functionally unique (perhaps too much so), and perfectly ripe to inject flavor and character into them. All they really did was balance the class, make class/race abilities have a consistent format and function, and improve the basic mechanic. The rest, as usual, is in the hands of the DM. I'll go into depth at some point about what I like and don't like about the system (probably in list format), but I guess it's just shocking to me that people are both surprised and upset that WotC is continuing to streamline D&D, in much the fashion they'd been intending to from the onset. A lot of it just looks like kneejerk 'I don't like change!' reactions, but perhaps that's a biased opinion. I don't know. The organization-obsessed part of my brain absolutely loves 4e, because it makes perfect sense mechanically. The artsy story-writing part of my brain is happy that it still leaves roleplaying wide open, and further happy that the standardized system makes the addition of new powers an incredibly straight-forward process. None of the guesswork from 3.x. If I want to customize, it's a freaking snap. I also have to reserve a certain amount of commentary until I've played it, and I'm finished reading the three core books. I haven't yet, so I may find more things I dislike or more things I like. Who knows? But the basics I've read I largely like. If I want dense, complicated mechanics and radically uneven power levels, I'll go play Ars Magica.  |
|
|
|
Post by spiral on Jun 19, 2008 9:59:05 GMT -5
What Lin said. I want to have a burger and coke with him some time. Maybe I'll come shopping to New York this Christmas.
Yeah, so, what Lin said.
|
|
|
|
Post by BluSpecs on Jun 19, 2008 10:02:12 GMT -5
Having not played 4e yet i cannot comment to much but I like most of the changes but I cannot deny the video game feel that it seems to have.
I also think I have to agree with assertation that it really is a totally different game and what people get hung up on is that fact that it is called Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm kind of a newness whore so I'll try the game before I knock it.
|
|
|
|
Post by VemuKhaham on Jun 19, 2008 11:36:39 GMT -5
The more systems there are, the more I think I don't need a system. Apparently no one system is ever good. So, just imagination and a dice roll every now and then should be just as good as any other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 19, 2008 13:48:32 GMT -5
If I want dense, complicated mechanics and radically uneven power levels, I'll go play Ars Magica. Or better, Rifts  Having not played 4e yet i cannot comment to much but I like most of the changes but I cannot deny the video game feel that it seems to have. I also think I have to agree with assertation that it really is a totally different game and what people get hung up on is that fact that it is called Dungeons and Dragons. I'm kind of a newness whore so I'll try the game before I knock it. As my freind Kevin said "It's like they took all fun parts from World of Warcraft, and added them to D&D." The more systems there are, the more I think I don't need a system. Apparently no one system is ever good. So, just imagination and a dice roll every now and then should be just as good as any other. That reminds me. I need to run a game of Wushu here sometime. |
|
|
|
Post by spiral on Jun 20, 2008 15:06:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by spiral on Jun 20, 2008 15:11:59 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6zECPZLmb0woot! woot! I like it, it's a funny movie. There's quite a lot on youtube actually, it must be down to the recent release of 4e. So what's this software I see people running on laptops during the 4th ed section? Does it come with the rulebooks? What's it for?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 20, 2008 15:22:05 GMT -5
|
|
It's in the DMG. A items level is a derterminate of when it should be handed out to the party. A Holy Avenger is an approate items for a paladin around 25th level. The same concept is in the 3.5 MIC
Just kidding Deekin, I get a kick out of thoughtful replies to posts. 
