I tried to call customer service but Paizo wouldn't let me.
I dialed (425) 289-0060 and pressed 0. Then there was a shrill beep and I was asked if I needed anything else and told goodbye in the same breath, then disconnected.
Search Posts
then 5 minutes later use Teleport in another non-combat situation. And 5 minutes later. Having checked my book it seems you're overlooking an important point: Short rest. In order to use the power again the character has to take a short rest--taking a short rest does not include carefully navigating down a dungeon corridor or walking over hill and dale in the woods--it means stopping. So it's not strictly every five minutes like you keep saying over and over. That is, unless you're fixated on a theoretical eladrin PC who doesn't use his legs and just sits still in one spot fey stepping every five minutes. Which is obviously ridiculous. Especially since anyone can walk that distance in seconds. So I guess I'm not seeing your objection considering that situation will never occur, or that your objection is simply overwrought. Edit: Forgot:
So long as they can see a destination and it's less that 25' away (or 30' straight up) they can get there while the rest of their party can only look on. Over, and over, and over. It's a known fact--PCs have a distinct lack of any ability to climb or use rope or get places. That's why there's been so much gnashing and wailing about pits in this thread. Once any non-eladrin PC gets into a pit, there's no getting out of it forever and ever.
I have none. Things without crunch mean I have to supply it. If I have to supply it, I might as well generate my own material. I buy things to avoid having to do it myself. Buying something with the express purpose of doing something myself is contraindicated.
In an Alternate Earth, Paizo doesn't do anything with 4 and since 3 core books are no longer being printed they realize they can't do that either. So they come out with their own system instead. What's that system like, I wonder aloud?
Every forum is guilty of attacks on people with opposing views on 4e. This forum's no different than WotC's than ENWorld's in that respect. If the Paizo forums were different, meaning being free of uncivil behavior, then Lisa Stevens wouldn't have had to issue a warning.
I vote that we make a dragon for every real and invented metal, as well as every possible color. And let's throw in the gemstone dragons again, with everything crystalline falling under their banner. Then we can release five books for each 'type', for a total of fifteen books for all the monster-hoarding players. Gemstone dragons! Yes! I'd totally forgotten about them! Ha! Wild.
I couldn't tell the difference between brass, copper, and bronze, not at all. At the same time, dragons have not ever figured prominently in any of the campaigns I've ever played or run throughout the entirety of my D&D playing since, what, 1980. Nor do they seem to figure prominently in modules--but that's just my off-the-cuff impression. WotC could boil the selection of dragons down to just red and gold for all I care...
there are folks like me who despise 4E with a passion That's fine--what erodes credulity is when that passion isn't based on fact--like the things you've posted in this very thread that seem entirely made up.
DMs can't use their favorite monster for their campaigns. What in the world are you talking about? Wizards lose a lot of utility spells, forced to use illusion/evocation type magic all the time. All the time? So ... you know what spells and powers wizards have to choose from? Can you share with the rest of the class or are you making this point up? You can't Tumble at all unless you use up a precious feat slot to do it. Aren't feats supposed to be more plentiful in 4, so won't spending a feat be not as "precious" as 3e? If your elf character was 400 years old, he just died suddenly. Because it's literally impossible to say he doesn't? There's a lot you can't do in 4E at all, or not with at least some sort of hindering restriction. And this differs from 3e how?
What do you want to change, what do you fear will change?
I always said 4E is nothing but a "glorified" D&D Minis game and this proves it. It proves nothing of the sort. Compare it to the bodak entry in the SRD or the 3e Monster Manual. Both MMs spend approximately the same amount of space, a quarter page, on stats. The difference is that there's lore and backstory in the 4e Monster Manual whereas the 3e MM and SRD just have stats. (Plus you also get two flavors of bodak in the 4e MM). So, I guess I don't understand what you're referring to when you say 4e is a glorified minis game--yet 3e isn't--when 4e gives you more lore.
I couldn't get anybody to play a Wizard or a Sorceror. The players backed away from it like poison, and none of them have particularly struck me as powergamers over the last months. It makes me wonder if that hasn't been an underlying issue in how 3.5 has been run in the past, which is now being "fixed" in 4th Edition.. in such a way as to be overcompensation. I don't see making people excited to play a wizard from level 1 as being overcompensating... ;) We'll have to see when the rules come out if it's too much too soon, but considering what's been revealed so far in D&DXP I doubt it.
The shift away from "classic" core races and classes is part of that. I want D&D to have dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, 1/2 elves, 1/2 orcs and humans. Anything else should be added on a setting-by-setting basis. Half-orcs were introduced as a core player character race just in 3rd Edition, right? That doesn't make it classic, does it? Instead, WotC has removed Greyhawk as the core setting It's effectively not the core setting now. I have almost no information from the core books about Greyhawk at all, let alone enough material to use it as an actual setting. Not even a map. 4th edition characters, on the other hand, enter the game as heroes with abilities that far outstrip those of common men. So do 3e PCs, IMO. 4th edition characters operate under the assumption that they are "the best at what they do" I don't see how this is different than 3e. In fact, I could swear I remember reading that very phrase back in my 2e days. I used to enjoy going to the Wizards' site for errata, free materials and use of their forums. Yup. So did everyone, alas.
1 - Yes. 2 - I'll continue to subscribe to Pathfinder. 3 - I'll cancel my subscription to Pathfinder.
Haven't you been paying attention? And being snippy like that is supposed to help ... how?
1) The magic system. The central problem is the Vancian system. There are lots of things that I personally find objectionable, but here's one that's more objective, I think... It's outside the expectation of someone new entering the hobby today--and new customers are vital to keep the hobby going at all. New people must be attracted. Someone new to the hobby expects that they'll be able to play their character for the duration of the game, not run out of wizard things to do at 9:03 a.m. playing their 1st-level wizard. As well no one entering the hobby today has ever heard of the Vance books. There are no (or not enough) examples in fantasy movies, TV, or video games (that I can think of anyway) which would suggest the Vancian system is a fun way to play. The fantasy that new people are exposed to expect that wizards would have some powerful spells they can do sometimes--but some weaker ones they can do all the time. A bonus second reason: The Vancian system keeps D&D from simulating fantasy stories you see in media today, again things that new people would be exposed to. If you want to simulate a world where wizards can cast spells without preparation (say for example a world where after you learn a spell you can cast it at will, so long as you have enough mana or what have you), you can't do it without changing the rules. And changing the rules, especially to that degree, is too much to ask for many people. The Vancian system fundamentally causes more problems than it solves. A bonus third reason: In almost every fantasy movie and book that has a wizard, that wizard has a staff. The magic system of D&D discourages the use of staffs because they're horrifically expensive and cannot be recharged. They're more like giant multi-use wands than the wizard's life-long companion we see in fantasy media. 4e seems to be putting staffs back into wizards' hands by making it more like a focus (which is closer, I think, to what people expect). 2) Subsystems. Subsystems like grapple work just fine once you get the hang of it. Remembering the procedure is only half of it. The other half is that it brings the game to a halt because it's a complex (needlessly complex) procedure that takes an inordinate amount of time to adjudicate. And as a corollary, it's so complex and game-stopping that grapple becomes eschewed, so the practice you refer to may never take place or be shorthanded and done wrong. 3) Roles. I don't understand the need for a pre-defined party role. Here's one: In one game I play, everyone made up their characters independently. As a result, everyone (except me) made a multiclassed-to-heck hybrid arcane caster/rogue-like amalgamation. The problem is that everyone in the party was trying to fill the same role and, as a result, we don't have a tank or a healer. Worse, despite being an all-caster party (except for my character) there isn't anyone who's appropriately spell-powered for their character because everyone's multiclassed. My character is an archer/rogue and she's frequently called upon to be the tank. That's wrong. The kicker is that everyone at the table has been playing D&D since 1e. We should all know better but, still, we didn't. Having roles can help even experienced players be mindful of avoiding such a seemingly simple pitfall and it can dramatically help new people entering the hobby understand what the party is supposed to do. Certainly you can have classes that fulfill various roles but I see its point as being a way to help to make sure that all roles are filled by someone at least.
Aren't the benefits trumpeted in the ebook the very things that have been vilified elsewhere in this forum by a variety of people? combines magic and martial skill without the use of spells
more ample healing
bring down the barriers -- like casters running out of spells and characters running low on hit points -- that traditionally make parties stop to rest before they really want to
See, my point is that it seems that whenever I hear a criticism of 4e it seems that in the next breath there's a discussion of a problem in 3e--that 4e purports to fix. Reaction? Anger. If 4e fixes what's broken why the hostility? I don't get it.
"Death can always be circumvented but treasure is forever!" Word. It's significantly more desirable to sacrifice your life instead of your treasure. If given the choice between dropping dead and losing a high-level magic item, the choice is clear: Drop dead! The consequences of death are negligible and easily forgotten but the consequences of losing a 50,000 gp item is far more harmful to your character for far longer a period of time. That's not very heroic. Therefore, I support most anything that either makes death less frequent or reduces the overriding dependence on high-ticket magic items for basic survival.
I don't really like this. Way to many negative hit points are allowed. It seems almost impossible to die now. You might be missing the point, which is that the increased negative hit points reflect rules you haven't seen yet, which they're saying is an environment where you need those extra points.
Why not just make the following changes: Because it doesn't solve the aforementioned problems. 2. A character at 0 HP has to make a FORT check each round with a DC of, say, 20 each round; if they take damage from any source during that round, the damage increases the DC. This doesn't solve the problem of scaling and it's another thing to track (DCs in this case).
Out of curiosity, are you the same Moonlion who used to participate in the Fast Forward message boards? Indeed! And: Holy cats that's a blast from the distant past.
knowing what criticism is out there makes you better prepared to face it going forward. I wasn't addressing the totality of all possible criticism that exists. I was specific to vitriol. There's a difference between criticism and vitriol, namely: One's worth taking seriously and is helpful and the other isn't--at all.
At the risk of being set on fire and ridden through the streets,He's got a gift for evocative imagery, I'll give him that. Frankly I'm surprised any WotC employee would post here given the extraordinary negativism and vitriol that's regularly expressed from, it seems, every quarter of this forum. Actually, I'm surprised these boards are even read by them let alone posted to, unless as an exercise to see at what depths people will go in their irrational and fanatical hatred of 4e and WotC in general and in personal attacks of the people who're making it in specific. Often it seems as though there's nothing WotC could possibly do to make the vocal majority of people here happy--and so in my mind there's really no point in their trying. Therefore, I'm surprised by and applaud Rodney's effort.
If by Paizoland you mean the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting I do not. I meant you 'n' James 'n' the (seeming) preponderance of folk on these here boards.
there will be a fundamental change to many magic items (and perhaps spell-effects in general) that change base ability scores. Specifically, that ability scores won't ping pong during combat. I'm all for it. It's a chore to stop the game to recalculate so many things because so many things are interdependent--and none are more tied to everything than ability scores.
Yes, I will agree that the class is not OPTIMIZED to be a defender. But I am a role player, not a video gamer. I care about the story and the fun, not what I can hack and slash. By that reasoning then it's irrelevant what the label is, yes?
Paizo can't use a lot of that world stuff anyway, so it makes no difference to me what they do with it. I've been asking myself this very question when it came to yours and Mr. Jacobs' line of thinking. I couldn't track your guys' train of thought because of this very factor. more and more gamers will be looking for something new I'm not criticizing I'm just honestly confused by that--won't both WotC and Paizo be new? That is, isn't Paizo's setting going to have a new take on the Great Wheel, like you said, and won't WotC have something new too, in fact the very newness that Paizoland is largely railing against? Or, if it's a harken back to older D&D that you're after, won't your new actually be something old? Like I said, I'm kinda confused by the new statement. Would it be better to say different?
I did want to point out that subconsciously at least I'm enough of a grognard that I do not consider "warrior-wizards" to be a classic trope. I am hard pressed to come up with a legitimate example from the literature and cultural source material I draw upon when thinking about D&D. Interesting. You're accurate in describing this perspective as grognardian. A warrior-wizard is a classic--expected--trope and one that 3e penalizes you for trying to play. That framework is out of place in a modern fantasy RPG. I think the potential player of today is drawing upon a different set of classics than someon over 35 who's playing the game now. I think it's something the current re-designers have taken into account as evidenced by their promised reduction nearly to the point of irrelevancy of the Vancian system. A new player's classics are Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy, anime, and a novel here and there (or manga). As such, the idea of wizard running out of spells by 9:03 a.m. or a wizard not having a staff is an anathema (and Gandalf in the movies had both). In the media they already consume, it's not uncommon for a fighter to cast a spell or a spellcaster to defend themselves with a sword. Instead they (hopefully) want to play in a game where they get to take what they're familiar with and expand on that and realize their ultimate character in a game they control, which is D&D's best--and only--strength.
First:
That's an unfair criticism since he's said time and again that his area is mechanics, not story, and as such he's not the person to ask about that issue. 1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
You know magic items are broken in D&D when you'd literally sacrifice your life to avoid having your armor smashed. You can be back from the dead within seconds, but replacing your high-level gear is practically impossible because the cost is fantastically prohibitive. 13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Counting more for diagonal movement causes more problems than it solves. In my campaigns I did away with counting additional for diagonals a long time ago and have not suffered even the slightest from it. In fact, it's only helped move the game along.
Definitely a serious problem--especially with new people entering the game. My anecdotal story of how bad the problem is this tale from a friend of mine. He was introducing D&D to a 12 y/o who decided to play a wizard. They started down the dungeon and he, of course, ran out of spells quickly. He was simply agog that as a "wizard" he had run out of spells. It was so far beyond his expectation that it ruined the session for him right then and there and I don't know if he's played D&D since. So, that's not only -1 player, that's -1 DM, and one more person who in a circle of friends will discourage the group from starting to play D&D. It's really beyond common sense that a wizard would run out of spells. In no archetype that's generally familiar to the public who would likely start to play D&D is that the expectation. Personally, what I think they expect is for the wizard to be able to cast a bunch of spells then be able to rest for just a few minutes and start anew right away. Do they expect a wizard to be able to cast enough lightning bolts to cut a mountain in half? No. But do they expect a wizard to be able to play the entire game session--casting spells and everything--even when they first start playing their character in the first game session? Yes.
THERE you go! You're off your game, Moonlion! Off by a PILE!PYY-UULE!!True story! One needs something to occupy one's time while one is waiting 30 minutes for a 20-second turn to come up. ;)SHAZAM! Ha! QFT!
SHAZAM! Shazam? We're talkin' D&D, not DC Heroes! ;)
Forgot to include: Therefore, although this may be heresy, I'm actually in favor of being only able to do one thing during one's turn in the round. Pick a melee thing or a spell thing and you're done. True story! One needs something to occupy one's time while one is waiting 30 minutes for a 20-second turn to come up. ;)
Options during combat. The more things there are for a character to do during the combat round the longer it takes each character to adjudicate, so the longer the combat round takes, so the longer the entire session takes. There's a player in one of my groups who's well known (and self-acknowledged) as the player who takes the longest to go through any combat round--at any level. He's very much the min/maxer so he's exploited the rules to their very limit with the amount of options he has available to him. Typically he has his character, a follower, summoned things, spells, more spells, special combat maneuvers, and this, that, and the other to the point that at mid- to high-level play it can take him an average of 20 minutes to play is one turn combat--not whole round, just his turn. That's an extreme case but it illustrates the point: The more options you have the longer it takes to decide what to do in the first place and the longer to adjudicate those actions. EDIT:
Meh. Those things matter not to me. Those things are flavor, which are the least important in a core book and the most likely to change. I'll be playing in Varisia anyway so what's it matter at all? ;)
My true detest of this game is that it is no longer a toolkit for a general fantasy game. First things first, you haven't seen the game so you can't say that with any authority. OD&D-3E have no firm setting. Setting elements are hinted at but none are fixed. 4E assumes a setting where infernals interact often enough with humans that tieflings and warlocks are commonplace. That is a very specific world. Untrue. D&D has a world where wizards memorize/prepare spells ahead of time and maintain expensive spellbooks, while clerics pray and get spells from their deity for free, there's an alignment system that associates every living thing with a specific place in a specific cosmic wheel of cosmology--to name just a few of many examples of setting-specific mechanics like what you mention. WotC has invalidated old adventures with their new integral setting. As such, the torch no longer feels like it will be passed. Balderdash. That there are warlocks in the world doesn't somehow invalidate happy experiences that happened decades ago, nor does it prevent someone from enjoying an adventure for the first time next year.
Another reason to continue print: So people can actually play the game. I don't have the ability to use DDI (or play the online MMO for that matter) because they've chosen not to make a Macintosh compatible version of it. So print is all I have.
What you said. :) Consider your whole post QFT.
If we use 5' squaes inside, and 10' squares outside, do elvs move twice as fast outside? Why would you do that?
Note that using squares instead of feet is easier for conversion to other languages because everyone else is metric. Also, I think a lot of people play on some sort of grid, either a MegaMat or some tiles or MasterMaze or posters or whatnot so it's easier to express everything as squares rather than convert text from feet into squares or vice versa.
I sat at GenCon and was told I don't know how to build challenges for my players, that I can't run monsters effectively, and that I spend hours and hours prepping for my game, and I'm really not a good DM. None of this is true. I think more accurately that you were told that the rules currently in place for making challenges and running monsters aren't as good as they could be. CRs, for example, are obviously broken. They serve, at best, as a rough guideline but they're not working as intended, which is to be more literal. All of us as DMs have to compensate for that and, really, we shouldn't need to do that right from the very start. have to rest after 3 or 4 encounters. None of this is true. But it is for many. There's no getting around the fact that caster classes in particular have a limited number of encounters in them until they have to rest to re-prepare spells. By switching to per-encounter spells and whatnot they're allowing 1st-level casters and new players to the game to actually play the game beyond three or four encounters. I was also told the game my group and I have been enjoying the most and getting most fun and ease-of use of since 1979 If you're still playing 1e, then why do you care about any of this? That I could not possibly be having fun, because I have to perform basic math and roll saving throws. More likely, you were told that you'd have to slowdown or stop the game less often because of needlessly complicated rules. I was told how one staffer proundly exclaimed most changes came about because he wandered around GenCon RPGA halls and made notes on things that he thought were not fun. Good, way to go, that's how D&D is played in basements and game rooms in home campaigns all over, you're a genius. Noting what's not fun for everyone is precisely what the designers should be doing. who blatantly insults me I don't see it. I think you're reacting emotionally and with hyperbole.
I'm all in. And I'm all in with Pathfinder material as well. My next campaign depends on having good coverage. I'm not expecting conversion to be a big deal either since I can just wholly substitute monsters and/or monster groups as appropriate for the group. If Pathfinder says two goblins, I can swap out to two kobolds or one gnoll or whatever works best with the new rules. The important part is setting and story, and the rules are just the conduit to enjoy that. As such, I'm looking forward to a more efficient quickly-play system that allows us all to get more done.
Based entirely on what's been published on ENWorld, my favorites are (in no order): End of (or reduced) Vancian system
No more save-or-die effects
No more touch or flat-footed ACs
No more CRs
Unified progression of BAB and saves
The idea of codified at will, per encounter, and per day abilities
Fewer feat trees
Prestige classes gone in favor of progression/paths/&c.
Magic item creation no longer requires XP
Whatever the overhaul of Grapple is
Consolidation of skills
What I'd like to see: Spell level and caster level parity
Revamp/simplifcation of shapechanging
In one of the Gamer Radio Zero podcasts Chris Perkins mentions offhand that updates to d20 Modern/Future/&c. would be addressed sometime next year. Methinks their hands are full with D&D right now and are much too busy to think about the other flavors atm.
Then again, anybody with an ounce of effort could do better than WotC's 4e... Heh! Yes, when's it coming out? Will it be hardback or perfect bound?
I'm quite energized by 4E. I'm anxious to start a new Paizo campaign with a new rules set and everything. (Whether or not Paizo goes 4E, I'm still using Pathfinder material.) In fact, I'm so excited I'm completely jumping the gun and made a website for my months-away 4E Golarion campaign. On there will appear all the stuff I'm going to make up 'tween now and the rules. And there's all sorts of non-rules-dependent stuff one can make up. Storylines, adventure locations, NPCs (just not statted), organizations, and lots more. And maps. And stuff. Right now I'm making up rumors and tales regarding the Sandpoint Devil.
I went looking to buy Pathfinder and ended up having to search, carefully, for a way to buy it. Why doesn't Pathfinder have its own category in the top level of Paizo's own section of its own store? When I finally found it, I was in the process of buying an individual copy--but your site hung on "Send to this address" in the shopping cart. Good thing--because I was IMing with a friend who told me there were subscriptions. Subscriptions? I went back to try to find it and, well, had to dig for it. There didn't seem to be a place to actually buy a subscription--because there's no button. There's only a text link, unlike all the other buttons for all the other Pathfinder products. When I selected subscription, under that line item, the total was -blank-. There was a grand total at the bottom, but I couldn't tell from your site how much the Pathfinder subscription was actually costing. Also, buying a subscription to Pathfinder was $17.99, but buying them individually was $27.99. Since subscriptions offer only a 30% difference in price, why is buying them individually so dramatically more expensive? And: Why is the subscription monthly for infinity? No six month or yearly subscriptions available? |