Recent Posts
Nothing like the word suck in a thread to get the fires going...
Apologies for starting a new 4e thread, but let's use it constructively and b~$@~ about WotC's crappy "playtesting" column in the hopes that, as they are allegedly listening to their fans, will quit posting that pile of suck and start giving us some real information. Their "playtesting" column is six kinds of horrible. There's absolutely no 4e information in the latest column and it reads like a s@%&ty recap of someone's home campaign. Plus, it makes it sound as if their "playtesting" isn't actually about, ya know, playtesting, given that they are running a bunch of non-core crap that's not going to be in the core books. Here's a hint guys: maybe you should be playtesting, oh, I don't know, the core races and classes and not esoteric subraces and hybrid classes.
For those reading along from WotC, even I, a person highly interested in 4e, don't give a damn about your current playtesting format. Post something interesting, or better yet, at least quit posting stuff that makes you sound like incompetent playtesters. There's nothing I enjoy quite as much as defending you in the face of your terrible customer relations (see also: cancellation of Dragon/Dungeon and the countdown to your web server crash).
Really now, would it kill you to come off as smart, capable, and creative given that a significant chunk of your consumer base is pissed off at you?
I completely agree. When I read these articles, I was hoping to see some insight into the game. Instead it's devoid of any real 4e info, and only gives info on these people's characters. I think they would be better off posting a brand new campaign instead of someone's campaign that is being (poorly) converted. I could care less that the warforge you guys came up with for 4e because there isn’t one yet is broken. Tell us about the elven fighter you created, then what new abilities he gets at second level. Etc.
Stop writing it like fanboys (which we can read ANYWHERE) and give us some real info!!!
Nothing like the word suck in a thread to get the fires going...
Apologies for starting a new 4e thread, but let's use it constructively and b*!@! about WotC's crappy "playtesting" column in the hopes that, as they are allegedly listening to their fans, will quit posting that pile of suck and start giving us some real information. Their "playtesting" column is six kinds of horrible. There's absolutely no 4e information in the latest column and it reads like a s*!@ty recap of someone's home campaign. Plus, it makes it sound as if their "playtesting" isn't actually about, ya know, playtesting, given that they are running a bunch of non-core crap that's not going to be in the core books. Here's a hint guys: maybe you should be playtesting, oh, I don't know, the core races and classes and not esoteric subraces and hybrid classes.
For those reading along from WotC, even I, a person highly interested in 4e, don't give a damn about your current playtesting format. Post something interesting, or better yet, at least quit posting stuff that makes you sound like incompetent playtesters. There's nothing I enjoy quite as much as defending you in the face of your terrible customer relations (see also: cancellation of Dragon/Dungeon and the countdown to your web server crash).
Really now, would it kill you to come off as smart, capable, and creative given that a significant chunk of your consumer base is pissed off at you?
Just playing devils advocate here (after all since 4e and sucks were in the header, i thought it'd be my kind of thread) but do we really know that the bizarre character concepts they're toying with won't make core?
If we'll be seeing between 3 and 15 classes in the PHB some of the stuff they're testing now might go in. I know they said Psionics won't be core but who knows?
As for the article, I agree wholeheartedly. I want the 3 minutes of my life I wasted reading it back.
I completely agree. When I read these articles, I was hoping to see some insight into the game. Instead it's devoid of any real 4e info, and only gives info on these people's characters. I think they would be better off posting a brand new campaign instead of someone's campaign that is being (poorly) converted. I could care less that the warforge you guys came up with for 4e because there isn’t one yet is broken. Tell us about the elven fighter you created, then what new abilities he gets at second level. Etc.
It does seem wierd that they suggest new campaigns and designs for 4th edition but use a badly converted one themselves.
We need some real examples or none. Right now they are losing what little faith is left in them. Maybe the new podcast will answer more.
Devil's Advocate Alert!!!!
They are probably still hashing out, what is too much to give away, what is not. I agree the playtest reports are, to say the least, a bit disjointed.
But, I have hope they will round things out more as we see a more diverse spectrum of playtesting. However, as a caveat, I would never expect anything close to an actual campaign journal.
It does seem wierd that they suggest new campaigns and designs for 4th edition but use a badly converted one themselves.
We need some real examples or none. Right now they are losing what little faith is left in them. Maybe the new podcast will answer more.
Although they suggest people start fresh at 1st, not everyone is going to do that. There are people who are going to want to convert their campaigns. What we're being shown is that while a 1 to 1 conversion might not be possible, you should be able to remake your character as something similar to what you've been playing.
Sure, I'd love to see something meatier, but it's not like the playtest column takes up much time, either on their end writing, or my end reading. And personally, I'd rather have something than silence.
Just playing devils advocate here (after all since 4e and sucks were in the header, i thought it'd be my kind of thread) but do we really know that the bizarre character concepts they're toying with won't make core?
If we'll be seeing between 3 and 15 classes in the PHB some of the stuff they're testing now might go in. I know they said Psionics won't be core but who knows?
I would tend to say with the big revelation, a May 2008 release date, and the fact they are talking about outside play-testing soon, the "big" decisions as to what will be included are done. They are down to testing the smaller mechanics. Or at least that’s what I hope at this point.
Just playing devils advocate here...
Don't you mean "playtesting devil's advocate..."
Sorry, couldn't resist.
As for the sentiments expressed so far, I have to say that (in keeping with the forthcoming Apocalypse) I once again find myself agreeing with Sebastian. Those so-called playtesting columns suck several different kinds of ass.
Hey WotC, throw us a bone or two here!! Give us some of the basics of the new system, instead of how cool it is when Player X's rogue runs up a 20 foot wall, then flips over the head of the gargantuan dragon to sneak attack it, twist the knife, and take away half the beast's hit points (after which, of course, said dragon annihilate's the party with 30 separate attacks).
Really now, would it kill you to come off as smart, capable, and creative given that a significant chunk of your consumer base is pissed off at you?
You mean like, when the first guy that actually sounds kind of eloquent when speaking about 4th edition starts talking in a YouTube video, you start throwing plastic brains at him and interrupt his flow in an attempt to show how "fun" the development team is?
I would tend to say with the big revelation, a May 2008 release date, and the fact they are talking about outside play-testing soon, the "big" decisions as to what will be included are done. They are down to testing the smaller mechanics. Or at least that’s what I hope at this point.
I'm inclined to agree with this line of thinking.
To take a page from Nintendo's recent success with the Wii, it might be worth noting that they probably don't care what any of us think about the column. If we're all sitting here spending this much of our free time talking about this hobby, we're already customers, and they know that.
They're doing what marketing is telling them to do, which is branch out to potential new customers by being as generic and simple and "hip" as possible, assuming the hardcore crowd will be there no matter what they do. Let's be honest: we're all going to check it out, because if we weren't, we'd have left a long time ago.
What bothers me about the columns so far is that they're snow jobs. They keep insisting that 4e will allow your character to do all sorts of stuff he couldn't do in earlier editions, but everything they're describing can already be done with the current rules.
Consider, for example, the situation with the rogue vaulting over his enemies' heads and outrunning them. Can you say "tumble check" and "Run feat" anyone? There was even a way to do those things in 1e. All this crap is nothing new - it's just a smoke screen trying to trick us into liking their new products.
Again I say, "Get bent, WotC."
Reckless
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case Subscriber)
I have to say, WotCs new website hasn't really impressed me that much. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me the old website had more regular updates and some more interesting articles. In particluar, I've been missing the weekly updates on the next set of minis. They previewed a couple at the beginning of August, but they haven't done anything since then.
I did like that new bit of Realmslore though. The Purple Halls were very interesting.
What I liked was the bit about Monsters not needing vast amounts of magic items to be effective. This weekend we continued Maure Castle and after wiping out the seekers' guards, my players had 27 amulets of natural armor for sale...just imagine them going into a shop and selling a bouquet of amulets, ridiculous.
But on the other hand that would not be very WoW and Diablo like...so little chance about that.
Well at least the latest playtest report seems to be better than the previous two.
I guess that's the one advantage of doing a s$+#ty job. You set a low bar for improvement.
Still, who knows how much of that crap is actually 4e and how much is "we're designers and we're so kewl that we just make up new classes and stuff for Eberron."
Is there a warlord class? *shrug*
I thought the last playtest report was better. It was at least marginally focused on the core rules.
DitheringFool
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Cards Subscriber)
What frustrates me about the latest installment is the use of terminolgy that is either brand new or I am not familiar with. The warlock lays down a Mires of Minauros effect which creates an acidic bog. While I can imagine what that looks like I have no frame of reference for what they are talking about. Is it an acidic cloud of some sort? Is it something they created just for this game. Is the mention of the effect even pertinent and does it give me an idea of how spellcasting will work in the new edition.
For that matter, how was the warlock built? We seem to know it won't be a core class so where is all of this coming from? How about the warmage convert? They mention multiclassing but give no ideas how it might work in the new edition.
And while they don't give numbers the characters take out mobs of vampire minions and mummies in just a few rounds with a few select spells. It's not that taking out large groups of creatures with well chosen spells is alien to D&D I was just a bit surprised so many mummies and vampires went down when the characters are sitting at 6th to 8th level.
My final beef is that warforged paladin. We keep getting an idea it is massively unbalanced. Yet, the designers don't seem to have a clear statement on why that is outside of the DR comment in this last report. Did they purposefully build a broken character to discover flaws in the system?
I am generally optimistic overall mixed with some trepedation. But the playtest reports really aren't helping much. Maybe when we get meatier previews things will make sense but right now I just find the whole thing some what disappointing.
And while they don't give numbers the characters take out mobs of vampire minions and mummies in just a few rounds with a few select spells. It's not that taking out large groups of creatures with well chosen spells is alien to D&D I was just a bit surprised so many mummies and vampires went down when the characters are sitting at 6th to 8th level.
Sorry, I guess it does say about a dozen vampire minions but there is no clear idea how many mummies there are. The room could be small or large, I don't know.
I know the game is designed so the DM will be fielding more enemies but this combat seems remarkably one sided. Of course, the playtest report is so vague I am unsure exactly what has happened here or what the power levels of the creatures were. It might have been quite an exciting battle for all I know.
Perhaps I am just too impatient for my own good.
The things I don't like are the mention of 1/day abilities that certain PCs are using and other odd things happening in response to different actions that just don't seem to flow good except in a CCG.
I will play for a long while with the 4.0 SRD before I purchase anything(like until I know that a 4.5 isn't right around the corner) and if Fakey no likey, Fakey no buyey.
The things I don't like are the mention of 1/day abilities that certain PCs are using and other odd things happening in response to different actions that just don't seem to flow good except in a CCG.
I will play for a long while with the 4.0 SRD before I purchase anything(like until I know that a 4.5 isn't right around the corner) and if Fakey no likey, Fakey no buyey.
I think I am right there with you. I am going to do a lot of research and see if it is something I want to do. It might end up I just create a "3.75" by stealing the parts of 4e that I like from the SRD. But I will give the system a fair look but, like you, if I don't like it I won't buy.
DitheringFool
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Cards Subscriber)
More crunch! Less fluff! Oh, and stop messing with the multiverse!
Wow, you gotta love that quote!
Sounds like the seed of an epic campaign...
...and then the wizards of the Hasbro coast would not stop messing with the multiverse so I called together my brother, a cleric of Zagig, Teno Moock the gnome rogue with a pension for reckless abandon, and Asil Svenest my lady love and worker of arcane mysteries. We set out from the local tavern and...
The things I don't like are the mention of 1/day abilities that certain PCs are using and other odd things happening in response to different actions that just don't seem to flow good except in a CCG.
I will play for a long while with the 4.0 SRD before I purchase anything(like until I know that a 4.5 isn't right around the corner) and if Fakey no likey, Fakey no buyey.
I have a BM once a day. I call it my special ability.
I have a BM once a day. I call it my special ability.The things I don't like are the mention of 1/day abilities that certain PCs are using and other odd things happening in response to different actions that just don't seem to flow good except in a CCG.
I will play for a long while with the 4.0 SRD before I purchase anything(like until I know that a 4.5 isn't right around the corner) and if Fakey no likey, Fakey no buyey.
You know, depending on the monsters involved, that could be a per encounter ability as well.
I will play for a long while with the 4.0 SRD before I purchase anything(like until I know that a 4.5 isn't right around the corner) and if Fakey no likey, Fakey no buyey.
I'm kind of wondering if we are jumping the gun and assuming something here. Is there any way they could come up with some way to have an OGL that publishers aren't allowed to show out of "context." In other words, is there a loophole here where they could have an OGL but not let "commoners" see it?
I was wondering if instead of an OGL, if they have a very cheap licensing fee, but one high enough that it doesn't make sense for people to shell out the money for it instead of getting the rulebooks.
Why do I ask? I don't know, just the way everything has been feeling nickel and dime lately, I can see them trying to close their loop holes with something like this.
What I would expect from the playtesting reports are articles that were written by people who were not involved in the creation of this system, hopefully who have never played a role playing game, or summaries of their reports. I would expect simple questions like "What was your favorite part?", "What did you have trouble understanding?", or "Did you like the blank ability?" be answered.
Playtesting reports should be useful for figuring out what is wrong with the current game. I'm not really sure what these reports are supposed to accomplish.
The more I look at it, the more I suspect that the playtesters have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the rules for 4e will actually be. It seems more like, "Ooh! I want a fire blast!" "OK, jot that down somewhere. Wizards now get fire blasts 1/day." "Can I jump over everyone's heads and run on walls?" "Yeah! Just like in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon! Jot that one down, too. Rogues can now fly. But not really."
Is anyone else getting this impression, too? That they're desperately trying to come up with "cool new" rules in time to release the Players Handbook next year? And that the "playtesting" sessions are really more like free-form rules creation sessions?
SageSTL
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
The more I look at it, the more I suspect that the playtesters have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the rules for 4e will actually be. It seems more like, "Ooh! I want a fire blast!" "OK, jot that down somewhere. Wizards now get fire blasts 1/day." "Can I jump over everyone's heads and run on walls?" "Yeah! Just like in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon! Jot that one down, too. Rogues can now fly. But not really."
Is anyone else getting this impression, too? That they're desperately trying to come up with "cool new" rules in time to release the Players Handbook next year? And that the "playtesting" sessions are really more like free-form rules creation sessions?
I'm getting a bit of that, as well. Considering that they expect to have the rules complete (if not the books printed) by February- isn't it a bit late in the game to be where they seem to be? They're just now in the process of opening things up to RPGA playtesters. With rules finalization, editing, etc., I'm not optimistic that there will be polished final product in May (let alone February at D&D Experience).