|
Okau, so this is my opinion, where they come from. No marketing research, no fabrications, blah blah blah. Prices exclude taxes, surcarges, etc.
#1: WotC has not convinced me they have tha capability of producing a consistently good game within a single rule set, nor have their recent rule sets impressed me with their competence and quality.
#2: No software they have produced or endorsed has been so completly unique as to prevent secondary competition. Compare Master Tools/ e-tools to RPGXplorer or Hero Lab. They do the same thing, only WotC can produce content beyond the SRD.
#3: WotC is not rolling out just a new edition of D&D, they a rolling out a new edition of just about every (not all, but most) RPG in print currently. My group dips into other d20 based products, and some of those save space by refering you directly to the PHB or DMG for info. Sure the 3.5 SRD will remain in service, but my group likes books.
#4: I have seen nothing that makes me think that the DI will support house rules. Every group I have ever played with uses at least some house rules... how are we going to squeeze that in?
#5: The obfuscation of the release leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They could have announced where this was going 6 months ago when the pulled in all their licenses. A lot of us guessed, but they should have respected us enough to tell us.
Finally
#6: The preliminary release schedule fills me with dread. Yay, it will take 3 months to get the core books out, and another year or so to get back to where a point where the majority of what is out now is viable again. Why can't they release the three core books simultaneously, maybe as a box set? Why do I have to wait a year for the Eberron campaign setting update?
---
I concede that 4e could be a good thing, could be a great thing. I think the 3.0/3.5, especially the SRD and OGL revitalized the RPG industry, giving it a huge boost. Letting people migrate from one game to another, without the effort of new rules.
I have my problems with 3.5. Grapple, class skills, bad balance, 2000+ feats of which you get 7, non sense like the lack of 0th level bonuns spells.
Will the wizards address all my concerns?
I guess i get to wait and see...
#1: Agreed.
#2: Agreed if you are saying WotC is a substandard software producer.
#3: Anyone else smell a Windows like monopoly? O.k. granted neither is a true monopoly, but you have to give them credit from coming darn close.
#4: Agreed.
#5: N/A I was blissfully unaware they had said anything about it until after the announcement.
#6: Disagree. It will do this ole troll's heart good if I can steal some consumers away from WotC while they line their ducks up.
I would like to go off topic a bit on #3 and vent some frustration. I thought for sure with the whole d20 thing people would finally open their minds to universal systems. In my experience that simply has not happened.
|
|
#2: Agreed if you are saying WotC is a substandard software producer.
#3: Anyone else smell a Windows like monopoly? O.k. granted neither is a true monopoly, but you have to give them credit from coming darn close.
#4: Agreed.
#5: N/A I was blissfully unaware they had said anything about it until after the announcement.
#6: Disagree. It will do this ole troll's heart good if I can steal some consumers away from WotC while they line their ducks up.I would like to go off topic a bit on #3 and vent some frustration. I thought for sure with the whole d20 thing people would finally open their minds to universal systems. In my experience that simply has not happened.
#2. Well, I had meant that anything WotC can do, someone else can do just as well if not better in software.
#3: Bah, they aren't a microsoft monopoly until they try to find some way to eliminate the 3.5 SRD. Not sure if they could, but that would be evil empire time.
#5: Exactly. Would my spending practices been different if I had known what was coming? Probably not honestly, but for most gamers it is a huge percentage of their discretionary income. Please have the decency to say 'we have started work on a fourth edition, but it won't be out for a long time' instead of the constant denial routine.
#6: Meh. I was more concerned with the ability to factually review the new system, and form an educated opinion about it, not marketing strategy. Having the PHB in June does me no good if I need to wait till August to buy the DMG, so guess when I will buy both...
Do they have the staff to work on all three books at the same time? If not, would you rather them hold up on releasing until all three are complete?
…that fundamentally change the core game (or at least they claim that fundamentally change the core game while maintaining pretty much all the same stuff…wait…didn't I already make my point about 3.666?)
The thing about #2 is what I worry about. With the online collaboration tools, consider this:
A large percentage of people type like crap, especially while attempting to hurry, even when taking into account those who can express themselves with the written word at all. The alternative to this would be voice collaboration software (several of which I've used for MMORPG's, but don't personally care for), which will take "a lot" of overhead. Now, 6 people in a voice chat room isn't that bad, but times several million rooms....
|
And even when you try to get over all this meta-crap you end up realizing that the game is fundamentally changing. No gnomes. Vancian spellcasting is dying. Fireball is not 1d6/level. Everyone gets video game power ups so you can do loopy stuff like "then leaps over the heads of a line of enemies, waits for an opening when an opponent attacks him and then counterattacks immediately, and twists the knife to create a huge gash in the enemy" (see this link). Then Goodman games has officially said what Paizo and Necromancer have strongly implied - they're intending to switch as soon as is feasible.
Oh, it goes on and on...
And for what? So it's easier to grapple? Check this out. So Wizards won't fell left out? Check this out.
See, one of the things that is right about 3.5 (d20) is that there is a huge third party product base. You can make the game what you want.
...sorry, i really am trying to let this go.
The Hell you say!
The Hell you say!
Clever ;) I actually got that.
|
#4: I have seen nothing that makes me think that the DI will support house rules. Every group I have ever played with uses at least some house rules... how are we going to squeeze that in?
You will be able to incorporate house rules, and share them for others to use if you'd like. I imagine that'll be easy for things like new/revised classes, feats, spells, etc., but might be harder for basic mechanical changes.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
#4: I have seen nothing that makes me think that the DI will support house rules. Every group I have ever played with uses at least some house rules... how are we going to squeeze that in?You will be able to incorporate house rules, and share them for others to use if you'd like. I imagine that'll be easy for things like new/revised classes, feats, spells, etc., but might be harder for basic mechanical changes.
Actually, House Rules are part of the DI. If you want to use a certain House Rule like, oh... max hit points at every level, you can rent the rule from WotC for $1.99 a month and use it in as many games as you want. :P
...Fireball is not 1d6/level. ...
If I may ask, are you making this up? Or was that mentioned somewhere? And if it was on the WoTC site, don't bother linking me to it. I have no interest in signing up for the DI just to read tidbits.
(see this link).
Now, I read that article and I wonder: "just how is all that stuff classic D&D?"
Let's forget about good, or bad; complicated, or streamlined for a moment.That isn't classic D&D. At least not from my experience through out all of the editions.
On top of all that, it really does seem they are trying terribly hard to copy the feel of WW's Exalted. Are there any other Exalted players that can confirm this feeling? Or am I the only one getting it?
"Classic" or not, for over 25 years I've always had a few things that I associated with a game called D&D. Despite multiple editions, I always knew I could count on gnome characters, 9 levels of spells, "fire and forget" spellcasting, and 1d6/level fireballs, combat in which I roll to hit, tally damage, and the monster dies when I remove all its hp (unless it's a troll). A game with 25 levels of spells, changeling characters, and completely new spellcasting and combat mechanics might be fun, but it won't be D&D. Don't call it "fourth edition" when it's not D&D at all! I might still try out "World of WotC" 1.0, but let's call it what it is.
Well, reading the recount of that "rogue" has me wondering as well.
Running up walls
??? Is it a frickin´ Eastern movie or what?
Thanks to one of my magic items I would occasionally dash across the battlefield when an enemy got too close.
Can you say computer RPG power up here? What the hell is going on?
Between this and the dragon combat example, I´m wondering what they are doing to the game. I´m not against 4e in general, even though I think it comes out too early. But seeing these examples keep me wondering - if this is any indication for the game, it really is some weird mix of action cinema and computer game power-ups - and I doubt that these elements translate to tabletop RPG well. And it will change the D&D experience drastically.
Stefan
I found this link in another thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204119
After reading through it, I am intrigued and dismayed at the same time. It seems the mentality of 'killing things and taking their stuff' is being enforced. Everything seems to revolve around combat; specifically, roles and abilities. I keep hearing how combat is cooler. Great, but what about the role playing?
|
From the thread you linked to...
Keep of the Shadowfell
* April 2008
* Adventure for 1st-3rd level PCs
* Includes pre-generated characters
* Will include a set of quickstart rules for 4E.
* Quick-start rulebook; adventure booklet; player booklet; 3 poster maps.
* Additional content on D&D Insider.
* The adventure is designed to show off all sorts of 4e stuff. It serves as a quick start guide, but while parts of it are there to teach rules, it's a full-blown D&D adventure. You'll need to roleplay, figure out puzzles, out-think the bad guys, and everything else you need to do in D&D. Oh yeah, and there's tons of monsters to fight. - Mike Mearls
Notice that non-combat encounters seem to be spotlighted. Are people just seeing what they want to see here? It sort of seems like people want to see D&D 4th Edition as "all combat, all the time," which is also the way people used to (and some still do) see 3rd Edition.
Non-combat encounters spotlighted? I assume you are referring to the line that specifically states, " You'll need to roleplay, figure out puzzles, out-think the bad guys…"
"You'll need to roleplay…" is pretty vague and non-committal to me. "…figure out puzzles…" o.k. so there will be some traps in the dungeon, fantastic. "…out-think the bad guys…" which reads to me, "…kill the bad guys…"
To me, the most telling line is the last, " Oh yeah, and there's tons of monsters to fight." Tons? Really? If he had said "a few" then I might buy into your interpretation. A very subtle difference, yes. I just do not see roleplaying being spotlighted here. And even if this adventure was the most character driven, drama laden soap opera, it is just one adventure. Which is not necessarily the driving philosophy behind the game system itself.
I concede this is all wild speculation. I am entitled to my opinion despite the fact you may find error with it. I will continue to see what I want to see just as you will continue to see what you want to see. I am just not going to buy into your theory because one product's tag line says I'll have to roleplay. Advertising != Reality
Double Post
If I may continue to wildly speculate despite the fact some may disagree with my conclusions.
"In Fourth Edition, we've totally revamped the math behind the system, and that's a big part of the way that we've extended the sweet spot across the whole level range. When PCs fight monsters of their level, they'll find that the math of the system is more or less the same at level 30 as it is at level 1. There will always be variation with different PCs and different monsters, but that variation won't be so great that monsters are either too deadly or too weak." - James Wyatt
So combat math will be easier. Fantastic. I am all for this. I do not argue that combat is part of role playing. There must be conflict for the story to be interesting and conflict often escalates to combat. You want to make combat easier and more dynamic? I am right there behind you. What about skill level caps across levels? Are you doing anything to address that?
O.k. This is just one thing, so let's not jump to any conclusions.
" * Dwarven Resilience (1st level)
* Elven Evasion (1st level)
* Half-Elven Inspiring Presence (1st level)"
All seem combat related to me. 'Inspiring Presence' does not have to be combat related, but we all know it is. Still, just a small example. Let's keep looking.
"We are doing something different with hit points. It's not exactly what you described, but characters will be more likely to survive a single hit at low level. I like to say the changes we've made make it so you won't go down in one hit at low level or high level."
Hmmm, we are still on about combat. Funny that.
" All classes let you do a little of all three. At-will powers are there so you never run out of options. Per-encounter powers are there so you can always take it up a notch. Per-day powers are there so you can really bring down the thunder when you need to."
This line seems perfectly innocent all by itself. Hell, I even like the idea of having a mix of at-will, 1/encounter and 1/day abilities. However, 'bring down the thunder' says 'combat' to me. Now if it had read 'so you can really shine when you need to', I might read something different into it.
"Four roles: Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader. All classes fit one of those roles, with some hybrids."
Now I do not know about you, but Striker and Defender definitely say 'combat' to me. You could argue Controller and Leader, but given the first two it seems pretty slanted towards roles on the battlefield.
" Healing power triggered by striking a creature in melee"
WTF? I mean, sure it sounds kind of cool in a video game kind of way, but please tell me a Cleric can head out of combat too.
" The rogue (for example) still has plenty of social focus. The thing is, we don't take away his combat ability because of it."
…because, face it, otherwise, it is pointless to play a Rogue.
" A very enjoyable part of this work is designing sample encounters for the monsters. We talked just today about whether that would be better on D&D Insider, but we agreed that it's important to reinforce the message that an interesting encounter consists of multiple, different monsters grouped in interesting ways."
Do you really need monsters for an interesting encounter though?
Maybe no one has gotten around to talking about the other changes they are making. Maybe I am the only one that enjoys adding drama to the game. Maybe everyone else is happy hand waving non-combat abilities. Call me Chicken Little. I just see more of the tired old miniatures war game which I honestly feel is done better in any number of RTS video games.
Flame away. I am best extra crispy. You know…a 'man's chicken'.
To continue with the speculation:
What about skill level caps across levels? Are you doing anything to address that?
I believe the current guess is that skills will work like Star Wars Saga edition... Now I haven't read those rules, but if I understand correctly skills are either have, or have not. (Kind of like non-weapon proficiencies from 2nd edition.)
If that is correct, there will be no ranks or caps to skills.
Now I haven't read those rules, but if I understand correctly skills are either have, or have not.
I am very curious to see how that would work.
I am very curious to see how that would work.
That's how 2nd edition was. It was better than NO skills (as in 1e), but, frankly, it still kinda sucked.
.... And even if this adventure was the most character driven, drama laden soap opera, it is just one adventure. Which is not necessarily the driving philosophy behind the game system itself.
To me Id rather have strict rules for combat and less on roleplaying. Id rather have the players need to roleplay then just roll a d20 for those encounters. A good number of d20 modules even have parts talking about not making it just a roll. Maybe its just me, but most roleplaying in game rules seem more like a bioware/oblivion game to me. Have this many points in speechcraft and a good roll and you dont need to think on how to roleplay.
However, everyone has their own opinions on how it should work. With certain players and groups those skills may be needed to balance out roleplayers and hack and slashers in the same group.
So to be an expert at anything, you have to be a 10th level some-such? We are right back to NPCs having to have ungodly levels just to be proficient at their job. Or do we just hand wave the NPCs?
I think SW Saga edition is along the lines of have the skill = stat mod + level, don't have the skill stat mod + 1/2 level...
I hope they don't go that far
Im playing in a saga campaign soon (a break from bieng DM). It is an intresting way to control the skills a little bit. However, do you know if there is a way to gain skills later?
As for your problems with the DI...
Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have to use the computer program or whatnot. I, personally, know that if me and my group switch to 4e, we intend to still use the books and dice version of it instead of the computer program.
However, I agree with you on almost every other facet of this discussion. I just intend to wait and see, keep a watch on updates, and hear reviews of the edition when people actually get it. I'll probably get the three core rule books just to be able to look over the core mechanism myself and see how I like it.
4e might not be for everyone, sort of like how there are still people playing 2e that never went on to 3.xe.
To me Id rather have strict rules for combat and less on roleplaying.
Fair enough. And I do not want to simply replace role playing with making a skill check. On the other hand, I want my character to be able to affect the world he lives in beyond merely killing things. And I would like a more detailed presentation of what he can and can not do.
NTo me, the most telling line is the last, " Oh yeah, and there's tons of monsters to fight." Tons? Really? If he had said "a few" then I might buy into your interpretation.
Well to be honest the huge and larger creatures really do make having tons of creatures easy.
To me Id rather have strict rules for combat and less on roleplaying.Fair enough. And I do not want to simply replace role playing with making a skill check. On the other hand, I want my character to be able to affect the world he lives in beyond merely killing things. And I would like a more detailed presentation of what he can and can not do.
As DM I tend to favor the roleplay.
However, the few times I get to play a bard or such it can be frustrating when there are no clear rules for the dm.
Not to mention I want my Charisma 4 geeky friend to be able to play a silver tounged sorceror if he wants... wether or not he can act it out
I guess to me rolling a die isnt playing the character. However, at the same time Id say the players attempt is the fun part, not that they need to be amazing at it.
My hope is we get a mix.
However, the few times I get to play a bard or such it can be frustrating when there are no clear rules for the dm.
Or, as mentioned earlier, you, as a player, are no where as capable as your character is suppose to be.
For the record, if you are untrained in a skill, and a skill can be used in Saga system, the check is 1/2 level + relevant modifier. If you are trained in a given skill, its 1/2 level + 5 (trained)+ relevant modifier. If you have skill focus in a skill, the check is 1/2 level +5 for being trained +5 for skill focus + relevent modifier.
So a first level "non-heroic" character can still have a modifier of +10 + relvevant modifier, if he is "specialized" in his given profession.
It's worth adding that many skills have "trained only" applications. For instance, a 10th level character may have a +5 Survival check, but they still can't track with it.
-The Gneech
However, the few times I get to play a bard or such it can be frustrating when there are no clear rules for the dm.
Wow, someone's admitting to having played a bard. A cookie for your bravery.
However, the few times I get to play a bard or such it can be frustrating when there are no clear rules for the dm.Wow, someone's admitting to having played a bard. A cookie for your bravery.
Well to be fair I am almost always the DM. I think in 3rd edition Ive played a bard in two or three sessions (more in 2nd).
Ill still take the cookie.
So a first level "non-heroic" character can still have a modifier of +10 + relvevant modifier, if he is "specialized" in his given profession.
That helps…some. I still find it an inelegant method.
I want to create an NPC basket weaver who is the world's greatest basket weaver despite not having any combat ability whatsoever (quite possibly due to all the years he spent studying basket weaving). Sure, I could hand wave all of this, but honestly, I do not want to. I do not want to tell my players they can not be a world class anything because they are only first level. It just kills part of the immersion for me. Your talents in one field (combat) have little relevance to your talents (non-combat) in another, except for the fact that time in one takes away from time in another.
I would simply accept this if I did not know there were better ways of handling skills.
|
What I've heard about 4th edition that I like is that characters aren't as dependent on magic items. But there are many other rumors that have me worried.
The mention of sources of power for martial classes and that the Tome of Battle was used to design the fighter makes me worry that WotC is making D&D into an anime game. It has been given as an example that a rogue can jump over people which stretches but doesn't break my suspension of disbelief. But if fighters can make their weapon do fire damage or heal from a strike or shoot electricity I won't use it in my games. In my campaigns magic is like a science that must be studied. Adding Tome of Battle to my gaming world would be like saying a karate black belt has studied his craft for so long he can now do heart surgery.
It appears that character building elements are being taken out. The classes are being revamped to be better in combat but the out of combat role playing is being reduced. As a DM I used the profession skill. In between adventures the characters had expenses and could make money with profession checks. During my groups last game session we had 6 hours of role playing and 2 hours of combat and it was a great game.
To me it appears that 4th edition will be like the D&D Tactics game for PSP. You get a couple of sentences about why you are about to fight and then go into battle.
It appears to me that it is becoming a game like Hero Clicks. Your characters even a a role to fill like melee tank, shooter, flyer, leader. The character is just a list of combat stats and not a persona to develop, build, and grow to love.
And they mention encounters will be easier for the DM. I haven't found anything hard about encounters. As DM my hardest task is a fun believable plot and storyline. Now monsters will have specific roles and tactics to use in combat. It seems like monsters will be repetitive cliches.
The mistake I made with 3.5 is that I bought the splat books as they came out thinking one day I'll use something from them. If my group switches to 4th edition I won't buy a book until I need it for my next game session.
What I've heard about 4th edition that I like is that characters aren't as dependent on magic items. But there are many other rumors that have me worried.
How can you possibly have an impression of a game that is not out yet? You should unquestionably help WotC make money. Oh…and only you can prevent the utter collapse of the role playing industry. (snicker)
What I've heard about 4th edition that I like is that characters aren't as dependent on magic items. But there are many other rumors that have me worried.How can you possibly have an impression of a game that is not out yet?
One of the blogs goes on about this in a fair amount of detail. I have the same impression.
In response to several posts above which offered criticisms about the 'combat-dominant/quasi-video game style' flavor of the 4.0 game at the expense of the "role-playing" aspect of the game, I would say (with all possible respect to the previous posters):
At the risk of plugging 4.0, I have NO problem with the 4.0 'Core Books' being "All about the combat". They should be. I DON'T need or want entire chapters in the 4.0 PH & DMG wasted on "how to role-play your character" We've all figured out how to 'role-play' by now. I for one don't want another repeat of the 3.5 DMG II, which wasted entire chapters on how to 'role-play.'
Since the stated rationale for the release of 4.0 has been due to the need to "simplify" everything, every page of these bloody new books (PH/DMG/MM) had better be "extremely simple and clarified" rules so there's no need for "even simpler" 5th edition in 3 years from now.
We've all figured out how to 'role-play' by now.
From my own personal experiences, I disagree.
...so there's no need for "even simpler" 5th edition in 3 years from now.
I think that is naïve. I am guessing 4.5 in 2010.
the big problem I have with 4th eddition...
is 2nd ed "kitts". the brown books. you may be asking yourself, what is he talkin' about? A kitt was a way to mod your 2ed character similar to a 3e template, otherwise the classes where utterly inflexible save for dm fiat.
Every character of the same class was exactly the same...
fighter... 18(00) str. nuf sed.
the problem I foresee?
You have some 300 weapons to write fighting styles, feat combos, race bonuses, magical/clockwork/alchemical enhancements and more for...
sooner or later, somebody is gonna say, "this one is exactly the same as that! that sucks!" and they will be right...
Sooner or later, in play, somebody is gonna want to do something the designers could not have envisioned (not swinging a scimitar upright, but reverse grip, a defensive "wing" style ala last legion), but the rules might not allow for it. somebody is gonna say, "that sucks" and they will be right...
considering the number of fights over agincourt, fairy invisibility, the validity of chain shirts as armor, and so on- Somebody will want something the game doesn't offer... yet.
off topic.
So, why does a fighter have less skill points than the barbarian, than the ranger... I don't buy the old excuses. spellcasting should have a price tag attached. if you have to spend time mastering it, then a non magoical character should have more skills for the real world...
there will be an issue of cost.
my library is the full forgotten realms line, full core line, full support line, with lots of d20-ogl books...
all in all, over the years since 2000, I have spent $10,000 cash.
Now, none of those books are gonna be valid. all of that will be a waste.
I just get back from iraq to do some serious gaming, and my players tell me not to buy anything else... because it is ALREADY obsolete.
and they are right. I went to the website and watched the presentation video. "please, keep playing" they said. I will. But I won't be buying anytime soon. right now, I have to finish D.M.ing my own adventure module that is equal in size to two path adventure books.
I won't buy obsolete materials. let alone $40 books that I will have to throw away. (yeah I know they don't exactly cost $40, but I dont really see a difference for my gaming dollar when it is 39.99 plus tax for one book.
so here is to my last 3.5 character. A human "lurk" till 4th level, turn shadow mind till 7th, turn shadow dancer at 8th and 9th...
huh?
because "all of a sudden" one extra power point and one extra lurk power of psionic darkvision doesn't compute when compared to:
Darkvision (free, always on), evasion, hide in plain sight (affects everyone at once for free!), and Uncanny dodge. it's like, lame psion who is only a scout, suddenly turns into an assasin of worth.
so that is my problem.
EVERYTHING WE BUY SINCE 4TH ED WAS ANNOUNCED, IS NOW OBSOLETE...
and it isn't out yet
how's that grab ya?
|
so that is my problem.
EVERYTHING WE BUY SINCE 4TH ED WAS ANNOUNCED, IS NOW OBSOLETE...
and it isn't out yethow's that grab ya?
Since Sebastian doesn't seem to be around at the moment, I guess I'll take this one....
Let me ask, why is 3.5E stuff obsolete? Just because you say so, or WotC says so? I for one plan to keep playing and using 3.5E material for several more years, as does my entire group. If you want to throw it all away because you are mad at WotC then feel free. But then I don't see why you should complain.
And let's face it, 4E was coming eventually. WotC just decided to make it sooner rather than later, perhaps to coincide with their efforts at a more digital version of the game. Will it succeed? Who knows! It might end up being the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or, it could fall flat on its face. Try not to judge until you have all the facts. Granted, with WotCs abysmal handling of the communications issue, it is hard to keep faith, but I think they at least deserve a chance to prove themselves.