|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
I also use magic-psionics transparency for the stated reason and I agree that previous rules for psi were a little...ummm...whack. Heh... if you poke around my 2e house rules, you'd see I had the spiritual equivalent of the transparency rule even then. Even then, I considered "opaqueness" the root of huge balance problems with psionics.
I'm sort of annoyed by this re-use of the eladrin name too. It's really just a high or grey elf, an elf good at magic. Is the whole family of eladrin being nixed so it's name could be re-used? That remains to be seen, but I'm guessing yes, considering how little consideration is given to other canonical concepts of 3e and before. But in the big scheme of thing, it's a rather small annoyance compared to some other instances of "same name, different thing". Topping this list for me are:
It's completely and entirely true that (aside from the possibility that many prospective players might be less willing to play 3.5 in the presence of a new edition) I can continue to run and play 3.5. In fact, I probably will. The great disappointment in me with 4e is the squandered potential. 3.5 is far from a perfect game; I think the game mechanics could use tuning up. The problem is that it's not just the mechanics that are getting tuned up. The game is undergoing severe conceptual alterations. Concepts that have existed and been added to since 1e and before were supported in 3e (succubus, the great wheel, gnome PCs). With some minor exceptions, the philosophy has been more about extending the game and adding flexibility and capability to the ruleset. The 4e philosophy seems to be "stip out the names and use them to represent something different". Elves now worship Gruumsh, paladins can be any alignment, succubi now hang their garter with devils. And so on. What central concepts in the game *represent* are shifting. This is a disappointment to me, because I am invested in the conceptual framework of the game as it existed in 1e-3e. I could use the mechanical improvements in the game, but the concepts that 4e represent are too much of a shift for me to relate to. Some of the changes I see in 4e are actually pretty cool (I like elves that don't suck, reflex replacing/merging with touch AC, etc.) It's a disappointment that it won't conceptually be the D&D that I want to play. I will say, though I do see some mechanical improvements, there are some annoying ones in the offing. For example, I see Smites and the elven auras to be another easily forgotten conditional modifier, akin to the buffs and feats like Dodge that plagued 3e.
Um, okay. I think you really need to consider things that were changed after playtesting that were the right thing to do. If the game were the same as the early playtest documents: 1) All humans would have a flat 20% experience bonus2) Barbarians and sorcerers would only be available to classes as starting characters. Further, remember what a mess the epic level handbook was? I know some of the playtesters. Most of the aspects of that book that are roundly criticized were known during playtest, given feedback, and ignored. I think playtesting is valuable and you are foolish to dismiss its value.
When offering suggestions to Paizo as to what they should do, may I ask one thing of the posters: Pretend it was your money. That might not change your opinions, but it certainly should inform them. As far as I can tell, oh grubby footed one, offering financial advice was your entry point and continued interest in this thread. I'm sure Paizo has a better grip on their financial situation than I do, so for me to talk down to them on the issue would be unwarranted. Erik asked where I we stood with respect to 4e. And that's the opinion I have offered.
Well, not directly addressing your question, I'll lead in with the statement that my major reason for distrusting 4e is similar to things you have stated. I have built up my campaigns around a growing but stable baseline. I like my game and don't feel like "re-imagining" it because the baseline has been "re-imagined". Further, I have had several long-standing successful campaigns and don't buy into the marketing hype about how fundamentally flawed the current game is and how much better the next will be. There are some things about 4e that look promising, but lacking some incredible and as yet unforseen improvement in the game, I intend to stick with 3.5 for so long as I still derive enjoyment from it and I can find people to play it with me. If a well respected and talented bunch like Paizo was with me for that journey, that would be fantastic. I perfectly understand if the economics of the situation don't make that work, but if it happens, it's honestly better than I expected. I was expecting continuing 3.x support to be limited to PDFs by a few die-hards. So no, I foresee no 4e campaigns for me on day 1... or 101, or 1001, really.
No urban planning before 1950? That's a bit of an exaggeration. It is true that many medieval cities sprang up somewhat haphazardly, but certainly the authorities in large European cities took an interest in how their cities were laid out, at least beginning by the 1600s. Lillith mentions ancient examples of urban planning, but if you look at East Asian cities, especially capitals, many of them were quite carefully laid out, throughout history--with grid patterns on a north-south axis, careful placement of markets and other public facilities, sanitary fresh-water aqueducts and sewers or drainage canals, etc. Be that as it may, oft times city planning is for naught generations after they are conceived. Cities often outgrow their initial plans and carefully orchestrated layouts give way to expedience or changes in culture or technology. Just visit Washington DC sometime and enjoy swearing as you zip through the roads and under bridges that were obviously meant to accommodate horses and wagons. Edit: I see someone has beat me to the Washington DC example. Ah, well.
I like Final Fantasy. But a straight computer gaming article seems off topic to me. I would have MUCH rather seen a Silicon Sorcery style treatment. Silicon Sorcery is one of my favorite columns (and frequent SS contributor Clifford Horowitz one of my favorite Dragon authors.) Even those for game I have no interest in. I am amazed that it received a poor response in the survey. I find it one of the freshest articles in the magazine. The fact that it draws from outside the traditional D&D sources gives the mechanics a fresh spin.
Oooh. I just ran a smaller but higher level party through the beginning. The encounter was nearly a TPK. The tactics suggest each Sword of Kyuss tosses an invocation of the worm (14d6 negative energy damage) as soon as the party enters. That took out two members of the party and all cohorts right there. Unless you PCs party runs around death warded, adding a 4th seems like a killer. I seriously wonder if this encounter needs toned down.
Just began my campaign. I used the "free ECL" variant from Green Ronin's Advanced GM's Manual and I run all published adventures in the Second World setting, which allows for modern characters. As my group was small and I have heard tales of tough going in the early adventures, I figured the bonus ECL would balance nicely. Daldin Kaer - m Chaos Gnome Sorcerer 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
