countbuggula's page

9 posts. Alias of Count Buggula.


Krauser_Levyl wrote:

Does it seems believable that a warrior, once in a while, can do that?

Certainly yes.

Does it seems believable that he can it do every time he is attacked, simply whenever he wants it?
Probably not.

It's not that a fighter should be able to do that whenever he wants to, but he should be able to try to do it whenever he wants to. That was the big difference between fighter feats and spells - spells you use up but have a bigger chance of succeeding each time. A combat feat can be attempted whenever you want, but you are always going to have to be skilled enough to succeed.

For example - say you're fighting someone who's several levels below you (maybe a horde of them attacked you or something). Would it be believable in that situation that he'd be able to pull off his awesome parry attack every time he wants to? Yes, because the opponent lacks the skill to prevent it, not because the warrior himself is somehow limited in how many tries per day or encounter he has to do it.

Those kind of rules make great sense in a gameplay perspective. They make for a fun game, sure. But they don't lend themselves for the kind of believability and immersion that I look for in a PnP role-playing game.

crosswiredmind wrote:

It seems you have gathered your information on 4e from the disinformation engine run by the disgruntled 4e haters. I suggest you head out to the nearest FLGS this weekend and actually play the game. I think you will find it to be very different...

I've gathered my opinions from my own reading of the rules, thank you. I came up with these conclusions on my own, decided that 4e wasn't for me, and then was surprised to see everyone that I saw online praising how awesome it was. I thought I was screwed because I was the only one who felt this way - it wasn't until I was complaining to the local gaming store employees about it that they suggested I check out Pathfinder. These forums are the only place I've seen anywhere on the internet where people aren't universally praising 4th edition and blasting 3rd edition and the people who actually thought it was any good.

So no, there's not going to be any moment where I read more of the rules or play a game of 4th edition and all of a sudden "see the light" and repent of all the errors of my ways and denounce the horribleness that is 3.5 and embrace the one and true D&D that is 4th edition.

You're right. 4th edition is very different. It's not D&D.

crosswiredmind wrote:

So you clearly have no idea how 4e works at all.

I suggest that actually play the game or at least read the rules and build a couple of characters.

This last paragraph of your post is so very wrong on so very many levels.

I have an idea. Instead of just telling me how wrong I am over and over why don't you point out the things that I said that weren't true and tell me why I'm wrong. Name calling really doesn't get anything done but get people pissed off.

Am I wrong that:
All classes have identical BAB progression?
All classes have identical save progression?
All classes have "powers" that are the functional equivalent to 3rd and earlier edition spells, but have them broken into at will/ per encounter/ per day?

This is the greatest 4th edition thread ever. At ENWorld they just bash 3.5 - here we digress into laywers' inside jokes that nobody else understands.

To this English major, it's all greek.

Kruelaid wrote:

Can't role play with the stat setup YOU want using 4E = very believable.

Thank you! That's exactly what I meant when I said 4th edition wasn't for roleplayers. Not that it's impossible to do it in the given game engine, but it doesn't lend itself very well to my roleplaying style.

That and the fact that Druids and Monks are nowhere to be found, which are what I prefer playing. That doesn't help either.

magnuskn wrote:
Which for a lot of people is also clearly totally okay as a starting point, but maybe I just like my PCs to start from a bit more humble beginnings.

I totally agree! I liked the fact that a lvl one character was kind of an everyman - the risk of dying heightened the excitement, and made the next several levels as we got more powerful that much more rewarding.

Tatterdemalion wrote:
countbuggula wrote:
4e just isn't a game for role-players.
crosswiredmind wrote:
i simply cannot agree with this...

I agree (with CWM) -- very strongly.

For the sake of discussion, I think D&D has changed its tone a bit. Play balance, a fundamental and almost overriding design priority in 4e, means balance in combat. More thought has gone into what characters can and cannot do in combat than ever before; perhaps more than I'd like. Even seemingly peripheral things show this thinking -- the Delve format is designed (IMO) solely around its utility in playing out combat situations.

There's plenty of good to this. High-level combat, in particular, was badly broken -- 4e offers streamlining that was desperately needed (I'd argue this was 3.5's biggest failing, by far and away).

But to say 4e isn't a game for RPers is exceptionally unfair. In some ways it has demonstrably improved some roleplaying-focused rules. In fact, I think you could more easily make the accusation to 3.5 -- which I often said read like miniatures rules.

As always, IMHO (though I'm not that humble) ;)

Good thing we're all entitled to our own opinion, and now have different products we can purchase to cater to our own tastes! Because to me, I read the 4th edition rules and think they read like miniature rules. I'm not saying you're wrong, we just each perceive it differently.

Personally, I liked the way 3rd edition forced groups to rely on teamwork more. In my eyes, excessive self healing (second wind, etc) and a huge negative HP pool diminishes the role and importance of a cleric in the group. Granted spellcasters were very powerful offensively in 3.x, but they were weak enough defensively that they relied on heavily armored friends to protect them, and had limited use before they ran out of spells. The heavies in turn could do slightly less dmg (though still impressive) but had the advantage of lasting indefinitely. Each class had its own unique and individual flavor, and there was a large emphasis on group tactics and working together (and playing smart).

4th edition, in comparison, dumbs classes down to identical templates using different powers. A fighter now casts spells that are called combat feats and use a martial power source instead of divine or arcane. Flat BAB and Saving throws across the board destroys individuality. In an effort to balance and simplify they've destroyed the uniqueness that made different classes excel at what they did - now everyone's exactly as mediocre as everyone else. Yay.

alleynbard wrote:

I am a 4e convert. I wanted to hate the game but I found I truly liked it.

Funny, I wanted to love the game but I found that I truly hated it.

Boy, I didn't realize my comments would get people's panties bunched up so much, as most of what I said had already been expressed elsewhere (and earlier in this thread). I thought I was giving 4th edition a pretty fair treatment, and even stated that the ruleset isn't bad, it just, in my opinion, didn't feel like D&D anymore. So much of this discussion is just about personal preference anyways - and I stated the things that I liked and disliked, which are obviously going to differ from other people's own opinions.

Anyways, most of what seems to have been "fixed" in 4th edition was a problem of DMs giving in to pressure (or catering to) players who wanted to min-max and throw convention out the window to make the most uber powered character possible. If the DM put his foot down and didn't allow a player to make a Barbarian/Monk/Rogue/Ninja/Paladin or whatever ridiculous combination there wouldn't be a problem. 3.5 edition even had its own checks and balances in place (though they were largely ignored) against people who wanted to abuse the rules like that - they'd quickly find themselves several levels behind the rest of the players in their group (unless everyone did it together...ugh).

It just seems like so much of what made its way into 4e was a direct result of DMs not having a spine.

I completely agree with the sentiment that while 4th edition might not be so bad of a game in and of itself, it's just doesn't feel like D&D to me. Perhaps if WotC had marketed it as a completely different game, or made these the new Miniature battle rules (since there's so much emphasis on combat in 4e that's pretty much what it is anyways) it would've have alienated the rest of us so much, but trying to replace D&D with something that feel so alien just seems wrong. The classes, races, and setting are such a strong departure from what we've all been used to that it makes 4e hard to swallow.

WotC has admitted that it's trying to reach a new player base with 4e, and I think they'll be successful at that. There are millions of people who play World of Warcraft and Magic who'll eat this stuff up and buy it by the truckload. However, I (and many of the people I game with) look at the 4e skills and abilities that seem like they're pulled straight from an MMORPG and I want to retch.

4e just isn't a game for role-players. They've gone the meta-gaming hack-and-slash approach precisely because that's what sells. You can't mass-market anything for role-players, though, because let's face it: role playing can be HARD. Not everyone can do it, not everyone wants to do it, and it takes a dang good DM to do it well. So good riddance to D&D - lucky for the rest of us we have the Pathfinder RPG to look forward to and fall back on.