|
Moff, I agree with most of what you’ve been saying, but the thought of a holy warrior using a vampiric smite strikes me as both amusing and bizarre. I just love it when D&D terminology results in statements that appear incongruous.I was just using an established term. But you get the idea anyway -- suck life out of your evil opponent and heal yourself.
Well, vampiric is a flavor term. Mechanically its often referred to as a "lifetap". This a video game term actually.
In Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, there is a class called Bloodmage. Basically a Healer/Wizard that does damage to his enemies and transfers that life to allies...its very cool.
ALso in that game, Disciples (monk healers) do unarmed damage like a monk and "splash heal" their allies. This Paladin Smite Ability would be better termed a "splash Heal".
Its all very cool mechanically. The idea for the disciple is to as much damage as possible, constantly splashing allies health. They have a one-shot heal, but its a slow cast and doesn't do near as much as a dedicated healer.
Bloodmages want to do as much damage as they can as well, but rather than many small damage attacks, they do fewer large damage attacks (nuking) and heal for a likewise large amount. They have straight heals in a pinch as well.
why did I say all that? /hijack
Maybe subtle isn't the best word.
The biggest of those changes in my opinion was the inclusion of sorcerors and I must admit that I still don't like them as well as wizards.
In my opinion, the biggest of those changes were, together, feats and skill points.
But the rest didn't much change the world of DnD for me. There were always boss monsters with more powers and hitpoints. The Orc chieftian was always a better fighter for instance than his minions. Now there were just consistant rules for these facts.
True, but the mooks never had levels. Now I can use a group of 10th level figther orcs as fodder for a 15th level party. BIG change.
The inclusion of feats made it easier to broaden your character but the paladin of 3.0 was clearly the child of the 2.0 and 1.0 paladin. Skill points merely made it easier to do things that were doable under the old rules but in a clunkier way. Rogues could always climb walls, now the skill check replaced the percentage roll is all.
Yet its the feats that all the grognards point to when they claim that 3.0 is munchkinism at it's finest. Things like Power Attack et al were an absolute no-no in previous editions and those that stuck to AD&D were saying the same things about 3.0 as what's being said about 4e.
In my opinion, if 2ed as X away from 1ed, 3ed was 2X away from 2nd edition. 4th is now more like 3X away from 3rd. It's a "natural" evolution.
Greg
Forget about the healing, could someone explain to me how you attack someone with your Charisma?
"A Charisma attack against the target's Armor Class"
Sorry, but this sounds like Pokemon to me. "Jigglypuff, use your smile attack!"
I think you'll have to wiat for the rules to be released next summer. When Dragon started releasing 3rd edition stat blocks and other descriptions, they jmade little senses then. Where just getting a glimpse of the game mechanics. A lot of it just seems weird. SO did 3rd edition seven years ago.
Thing is, when 3E was in the same stage as 4E is now, we were also hearing tidbits. I don't remember those tidbits turning me off at all. In fact, I remember each new tidbit convincing me that 3E was really going to be better than 2E.One thing people really need to remember is that WotC didn't have nearly the web presence they do now. All the info on 3e came through print. Maybe publishing through a print medium caused them to be more "careful" and "selective" and maybe the web release causes them to be more sloppy. Don't know. But it certainly ain't like it was 7 years ago.
Greg
I agree the web format has made WotC lazy. When they release info on 4th edition it isn't well thought out. I don't think it there is very much editorial considerationas to what they put out on the D&D web page, when concerning things like design and development and the playtest reports. I think the designer blogs have no editing except what spell and grammer check by the author.
So yaah like most online contetn on the web (wikipedia comes to mind), it's lack luster and lazy.
Thing is, when 3E was in the same stage as 4E is now, we were also hearing tidbits. I don't remember those tidbits turning me off at all. In fact, I remember each new tidbit convincing me that 3E was really going to be better than 2E.One thing people really need to remember is that WotC didn't have nearly the web presence they do now. All the info on 3e came through print. Maybe publishing through a print medium caused them to be more "careful" and "selective" and maybe the web release causes them to be more sloppy. Don't know. But it certainly ain't like it was 7 years ago.
Greg
I concur with the above statements. I received my 3rd edition information from Dragon magazine and I recall liking pretty much everything I read at the time. I think for me this happened for a couple of reasons.
1. The authors had a very different approach to their writing, it came across as positive without being arrogant or conceited.
2. The explanations provided I felt were considerably superior to what we get from WOTC now. Seven years ago I felt they jumped right in and offered more information on a topic, they didn't go into the fluff or why things in 2nd edition were wrong. They didn't go out of their way to put down previous editions.
Now at the time I had not played D&D for perhaps 8 years or so (most of 2nd edition.) When the time came for 3rd edition, I was excited. I was already disapointed with 2nd edition because of all the softbound books but I was happy that I had purchased almost nothing beyond the core books. There were a lot of things about 2nd edition I didn't care for (art being one of them) so it was easy to set the books aside and play something else.
With such a gap in time, I found it easier to accept the ideas of 3rd edition. Sure, I found plenty of things I didn't like as well, but enough that I did like to make D&D a primary game once again in my household.
This time around, things have changed, at least for me. I made a lot of 3rd edition purchases, enough that no matter how great 4th edition is wouldn't buy it because I have already spent my money for a lifetime on D&D.
Perhaps I see things through rose colored glasses as I recall the events of 7 years ago, perhaps not. Maybe WOTC is marketing is poor compared to 7 years ago (I think so), maybe their timing is off with 4th edition (I think so). Nonetheless, they are not the same staff members we dealt with seven years ago (perhaps some, but not many IMO). Different people make it a different company, which thereby has different goals and approaches.
I think that is a lot of what we are seening...Different people, different approach, different ideas, different rules, dfferent fluff, different marketing, different customers. All of this added up makes things different, to different for me. The changes in te paladin are just another example of to different.
What most people are objecting to is the complete change in paradigms with 4e from OD&D/AD&D/2nd Ed./3.x. 3.x, while a very substantial change in the rules, mostly kept the same paradigms as the previous versions of the game. 4e, however, keeps looking as if the designers are using an entirely different starting point (CCGs/WoW) to come up with "New D&D." It's as if someone wanted to re-design Rifts using the Shadowrun rules as the basis for the new version and call it Rifts 2.
What most people are objecting to is the complete change in paradigms with 4e from OD&D/AD&D/2nd Ed./3.x. 3.x, while a very substantial change in the rules, mostly kept the same paradigms as the previous versions of the game. 4e, however, keeps looking as if the designers are using an entirely different starting point (CCGs/WoW) to come up with "New D&D." It's as if someone wanted to re-design Rifts using the Shadowrun rules as the basis for the new version and call it Rifts 2.
I just really don't think there has been nearly enough information released to call 4e a "complete change in paradignms". They've released, what, maybe 10 pages worth of material? Out of what will be a 250+ page book?
We need a much, much, much bigger sample size before we start making broad claims like this. If 10 pages is a complete paradigm shift, and the other 240+ are exactly like 3e, what does that make 4e?
Let's wait it out a bit more, ok?
Greg
|
We need a much, much, much bigger sample size before we start making broad claims like this. If 10 pages is a complete paradigm shift, and the other 240+ are exactly like 3e, what does that make 4e?
Let's wait it out a bit more, ok?
Greg
No. I won't wait it out a bit more. These bits they dangle before us is what WotC wants us to use to form our early opinions of 4E. Between the bad looking content that has been offered up, the naked greed displayed in WotC's marketing "strategy", the blatant lack of concern for certain customer groups, and the disgusting contempt/arrogance displayed by the God-Designers' egos, I am fully turned off to this edition. WotC is gonna have to create something immaculate to justify their actions and make me wanna do business with them.
If they want to feed me sh*t, and I complain that it tastes bad, they should try feeding me something different instead. I don't relish the thought of a whole 240 page plate of steaming sh*t. Show me another dish please. They haven't. Opinion is formed.FH
No. I won't wait it out a bit more...
Your call. I was merely offering a suggestion, not demanding your blind obedience.
Greg
So what we are saying is "The way we are doing it now is better because it is the way it has always been done". Why is coming up with new ideas a bad thing? 3.0 definately changed the "flavor" of the game. Not only did it change it, but it gave us 31 more "flavors" that worked within the system. So apparently adding "flavors" in 3.0 is good but adding "flavors" in 4e is bad. My grandparents didn't need a microwave oven -- I don't know why I need one now. Those newfangled gadgets... Next thing you know people will be talking on the phone without a cord attached. (And here I thought that I was the "old dog" on these boards.)
Ah, you misunderstand. Adding "Community Chest" cards to Monopoly (read: adding feats to 3e) didn't change the basic game of buying and improving properties. But if you swap the board for a "Candyland" board, trade the "Chance" cards for "Magic: The Gathering" cards, and start giving your tokens hit points, then at some point you're just not playing Monopoly anymore. It might turn out to be the coolest board game ever--good for them!--but for the love of Gary, don't call it "Monopoly" anymore. Instead of marketing this chimera as "4e," call it the "Wing Chung Golden Dragon Warcraft Experience: The New Standard in RPGs (Makes D&D Look Like Monopoly!)."
OK, sorry, got a bit carried away there. So, sticking with your grandparents' appliance analogy (and at the risk of venturing into increasingly bizarre metaphors), the microwave now automatically squirts frosting on your food as it cooks, and has a door that doesn't open except when you say "Open Sesame!" Some people might feel that these are "great new improvements," but what they boil down to, in my opinion, is change for the sake of change. Yes, the paladin drastically needs improvement. But my leftover dinner doesn't need frosting. And my D&D doesn't really need to be replaced wholesale with elements that mimic the designers' favorite video games.
Ah, you misunderstand...
I've just reread your analogies, and with all due respect, I really think that's it's you that are misunderstanding.
Absolutely nothing that has been written about 4e changes the fundamental aspects of the game. It is still a class-based role playing game, where each class gets levels from experience, increases in power with each level, and uses the d20 system to resolve random actions.
This is D&D and it describes very few other games. It is certainly not akin to turning Monopoly into Candyland.
I guess this is the whole problem I have with this 3e vs 4e "discussion" that goes on (and I use that term politely). Absolutely nothing I have read makes 4e any more indistinguishable from 3e than 3e is from 2e.
You may not like what you hear, and that's fine. Nobody is forcing anyone to like what's been said about 4e. (I've said before I probably won't be buying into 4e anytime soon.) But to pull the "this isn't D&D" argument out pretty much says to me that you haven't gone back and read your 1st ed AD&D books and compared them to 3ed lately.
Greg
What most people are objecting to is the complete change in paradigms with 4e from OD&D/AD&D/2nd Ed./3.x. 3.x, while a very substantial change in the rules, mostly kept the same paradigms as the previous versions of the game. 4e, however, keeps looking as if the designers are using an entirely different starting point (CCGs/WoW) to come up with "New D&D." It's as if someone wanted to re-design Rifts using the Shadowrun rules as the basis for the new version and call it Rifts 2.I just really don't think there has been nearly enough information released to call 4e a "complete change in paradignms".
PCs are super-special individuals head and shoulders above "normal" people, even at 1st level. All races will associated with specific terrain. "Combat roles" will be hard-wired into character classes. Every class will have flashy, supernatural abilities. Feats now exist to further specialize you in your "combat role." Vancian magic is gone, replaced by "spells" with "cool-down times." "Save or die" effects will no longer be part of the game. Adventures are based around the "quest" concept (perform specific task x for set reward y).
Sorry, this sounds like d20 WoW crossed with Magic: The Gathering more than D&D. The paradigms are not the same.
Absolutely nothing that has been written about 4e changes the fundamental aspects of the game. It is still a class-based role playing game, where each class gets levels from experience, increases in power with each level, and uses the d20 system to resolve random actions.
Now you're just being purposefully disingeneous. You're basically saying any game based on the d20 system is D&D. Iron Heroes meets those criteria, so does d20 Modern, Star Wars (d20), Ptolus, etc. Would the real D&D please stand up!
Now you're just being purposefully disingeneous. You're basically saying any game based on the d20 system is D&D. Iron Heroes meets those criteria, so does d20 Modern, Star Wars (d20), Ptolus, etc. Would the real D&D please stand up!
"Purposefully disingenuous"? Fer cryin' out loud! Is it absolutely impossible to have a reasoned conversation here, without it resorting to personal attacks? Do you actually think I have an agenda such that I would be "purposefully disingenuous"? Cripes.
Greg
Now you're just being purposefully disingeneous. You're basically saying any game based on the d20 system is D&D. Iron Heroes meets those criteria, so does d20 Modern, Star Wars (d20), Ptolus, etc. Would the real D&D please stand up!"Purposefully disingenuous"? Fer cryin' out loud! Is it absolutely impossible to have a reasoned conversation here, without it resorting to personal attacks? Do you actually think I have an agenda such that I would be "purposefully disingenuous"? Cripes.
Greg
Greg - I think your overall point is understood.
But we still have 7 months until these books are out. All we can discuss at this time are the released previews. So, yeah, we can't make a judgement on the whole product, but at this time, we don't have to. We *can* however, judge the parts. And right now, these parts are...of questionable quality to some of us. And, extrapolating, if the parts aren't cool, then we are concluding that the whole will probably not be cool.
Greg - I think your overall point is understood.
But we still have 7 months until these books are out. All we can discuss at this time are the released previews. So, yeah, we can't make a judgement on the whole product, but at this time, we don't have to. We *can* however, judge the parts. And right now, these parts are...of questionable quality to some of us. And, extrapolating, if the parts aren't cool, then we are concluding that the whole will probably not be cool.
Understood. And I have no problem with people not liking what they see. As I said before, back in the 2ed -> 3ed transition period, I saw absolutely nothing to make me want to switch. But the PHB itself did make me want to switch. I guess I'm just trying to tell people, that, from my 2ed to 3ed experience, this kind of extrapolation my be less accurate than people think.
But maybe I've said it enough times now.
Greg
I was a 2E -> 3E skeptic at first, but I liked the tidbits the more they came out.
I wonder how many went through the same thing you did, though, where the 3E previews were all or mostly turn-offs, but the PH itself convinced them to switch. Was your gaming group the same way?
And it will be interesting to see if any here go through the same thing.
For myself, a (large) part of my beef with 4E is the timing. I have too much 3.x adventures to play through before I can possibly contemplate switching (5E will probably be the right time for me). So no matter how much of 4E is "cool" (and not much is to me at this point), I still won't be switching. When the SRD is available for free, I may peruse the rules to port some desirable things to my 3.5 game, but it's not going to be the game for me.
This all seems like the WoW pally's seals for some reason.
Fizz
I've just reread your analogies, and with all due respect, I really think that's it's you that are misunderstanding.
Granted, I got a bit carried away with the analogies--as I noted previously (doubtless I've got a Dave Barry gene somewhere that got switched on). Still, I don't think I'm misunderstanding so much as disagreeing with you on this one. 3e, to me, was still the same game as the 1e that I happily played for so many years (and 2e, for that matter, which was really not much different from 1e). The rules changes, while mechanically profound in places, still supported the "feel" of the mishmash of pulp and classical sources that inspired the 1st edition. Some of the new things I'm seeing--healing smites, rogues who jump over ranks of people, leveling up after every "board," et al.--support the feel of a video game, to me. You obviously disagree, and that's OK. We draw the line in different places, is all.
Also, I don't mean to imply that I've disliked everything I've seen previewed: far from it. I'll doubtless pick up the PH when it's released, and may merge it with 3e to form a hybrid (hopefully I can come up with one that's compaitible with both source systems). What I particularly dislike here are the elements that seem so video-game-esque to me.
Now you're just being purposefully disingeneous. You're basically saying any game based on the d20 system is D&D. Iron Heroes meets those criteria, so does d20 Modern, Star Wars (d20), Ptolus, etc. Would the real D&D please stand up!"Purposefully disingenuous"? Fer cryin' out loud! Is it absolutely impossible to have a reasoned conversation here, without it resorting to personal attacks? Do you actually think I have an agenda such that I would be "purposefully disingenuous"? Cripes.
That wasn't a personal attack, that was pointing out the gaping flaw in your argument.
I was saying that based on the information available to us now (and by WotC's own statements), 4e will be a much different game than the previous editions, using a completely different set of assumptions on how classes, combat actions, magic, etc. work ("different paradigms"). Stating that 4e will be based on the d20 rules does not mean that 4e will allow the same sort of roleplaying experience that D&D has provided for the past 30 years.
That wasn't a personal attack, that was pointing out the gaping flaw in your argument.
"Purposefully" -> deliberately.
"Disingenuous" -> lying.Deliberately lying. That is a personal attack.
Get a dictionary before you post if that's not what you intended.
Greg
It seems like I got into this one too late. Sad. This is the kind of bandwagon I'm always looking to jump on. Unfortunately it seems to have degenerated somewhat into "oh well...let's wait and see".
Here's my take, for what it's worth. There's been a lot of talk about what abstractions to accept, and what abstractions to reject--and this whole crazy, whacky beast we call "dramatic realism".
My take is that a lot of the abstractions we already accept are damaging to suspension of disbelief, and that the current changes have just pushed what were already weaknesses in the system to the squeak point for a lot of folks here. They're looking at the game in the way I've looked at the game for years and stuff just doesn't play right. My answer to the question of what abstractions to accept is a pretty simple one. It's all abstractions, but you try to pick the abstractions that give you a game that's internally consistant, elegant and not clunky, and which results in the very fewest situations that give wonky, hard to narrate, results. The simple litmus test is if you saw the result on film as a "fantasy" movie, what would you think? The dragon bites the hero around the middle and in a spray of gore shakes him back and forth and spits him into a pool of lava. The hero immerges, brushes the blood and boiling rock from his armor and scowls heroically, bringing up his longsword for round two! Cut! Yuck! That was awful! If that dragon does that to you--you're dead! Who wrote this crap!
That's fantasy "realism". Nobody has a problem with the dragon. They have a problem with the hillariously ridiculous scene.
The paladin cradles his dying wizard girlfriend in his arms. "If only..." he stammers out through the tears "there was something I could do..." At that moment an ogre, spotting them, charges out of the darkness. The mourning paladin turns and deftly takes off it's head--and the mystic energies of his head choppa' swirl around and go into his girlfriend, who pops up to her feet with a grin on her face, good as new.
Not great moviemaking. Yarg.
Now is the problem just smites? Heck no. It's a lot of the old chestnuts of the game that I've never been able to accept--Hit points by level and armor as AC and all sorts of things.
That said, here's my response. I'll look at the flavor text and I'll change what it does to reflect the flavor--assuming the flavor isn't stupid. If one character's valor gives others morale, then the result will be a morale bonus, NOT hit points. If the flavor text is dumb and doesn't make sense, I'll try to spin it how I can and salvage it so it feels right and works well--to make a REALISTIC game. I love realism. I love good, internally consistant magic too. The one benefits the other. Things that aren't realistic hurt the game, hurt the story, make everything feel cheap and shoddy--and really are pretty easy to identify.
People don't want to change them, yeah--but it doesn't mean they're not patently fake and video-gamey. People like nostalgia. People want to play their Monopoly game the way they remember it from the grand ol' dusty days of the red box. They are sacred cows. That and people are scared that without a pad of a couple of hundred hit points that the game won't be "heroic" anymore. How you get heroic out of fights that take forever with characters and monsters ineffectually chopping on each other like firewood for five minutes I'm not sure I get. It's not realistic...it's not even fun.
Now you're just being purposefully disingeneous. You're basically saying any game based on the d20 system is D&D. Iron Heroes meets those criteria, so does d20 Modern, Star Wars (d20), Ptolus, etc. Would the real D&D please stand up!
I don't know that that's necessarily disingenuous--or even wrong. I would consider Ptolus to be D&D. Iron Heroes is a new kind of D&D--but still D&D. Some D20 Modern certainly has a lot of D&D to it (Urban Arcana for example). Star Wars, not so much, but more for reasons of niche genre than "feel" of gameplay. So yeah, I think you can change a lot and still be D&D. Dark Sun? Yep. Planescape? Yep? Ravenloft? Yep. And believe me those are all much more different from core D&D than any of your examples.
That said--I think disingenuous covers a whole lot more ground than just "you're a liarhead". A lot of us (me included) sometimes push our arguments further than are reasonable, and defend a position or a claim beyond credibility. It's hard not to really. We believe in our ideas. When we're stretching--we're being disingenuous. I think that was the accusation, not that you're a man in black secretly working for WotC to make us love their stuff, or that even you're a more flawed than us or a bad person. It was just a call that perhaps you're maybe pushing your views further than even you think they go in order to defend them. That's really no mortal sin.
That said, I really agree with you on your point--so I'd say you aren't being disingenuous at all!
That said--I think disingenuous covers a whole lot more ground than just "you're a liarhead".
I agree. Someone who is disingenuous may be doing so unintentionally. (Although there is a negative connotation to the word, intentional or not. Disingenuous is not a nice thing, no matter how it's cooked.)
However, the phrase was "purposefully" disingenuous. He was in fact asserting that I was lying on purpose. And where I come from, you don't just call someone a liar. To insult someone's credibility is pretty much as low as you can go.
And it's yet one more example where people are willing to insult other people just because they can do it from the comfort of a chair in front of their keyboard.
But this is now incredibly off-topic. I've said my peace, and am frankly quite done with Mr. "Dragonchess Player".
Greg
|
|
That said--I think disingenuous covers a whole lot more ground than just "you're a liarhead".I agree. Someone who is disingenuous may be doing so unintentionally. (Although there is a negative connotation to the word, intentional or not. Disingenuous is not a nice thing, no matter how it's cooked.)
However, the phrase was "purposefully" disingenuous. He was in fact asserting that I was lying on purpose. And where I come from, you don't just call someone a liar. To insult someone's credibility is pretty much as low as you can go.
And it's yet one more example where people are willing to insult other people just because they can do it from the comfort of a chair in front of their keyboard.
But this is now incredibly off-topic. I've said my peace, and am frankly quite done with Mr. "Dragonchess Player".
Greg
I'm pretty sure he is lying here......again....
;P
FH
PS- totally joking, bro. I may not totally see eye to eye with your opinion in this particular matter but I do respect it and always value it in the various threads in which you post.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The paladin cradles his dying wizard girlfriend in his arms. "If only..." he stammers out through the tears "there was something I could do..." At that moment an ogre, spotting them, charges out of the darkness. The mourning paladin turns and deftly takes off it's head--and the mystic energies of his head choppa' swirl around and go into his girlfriend, who pops up to her feet with a grin on her face, good as...
Good thing smite won't affect allies (or at least, let's hope it won't) or the scene would go like this:
Paladin cradles his dying wizard girlfriend in his arms. He sees the party rogue nearby. "Hey, Ron, come here, I found some treasure." Ron runs over, gets a smite to the face, and the girlfriend pops up to her feet with a grin on her face...
Yeah.
Totally.
Man I hate lame game mechanics. I just think it's funny now, in this new context, folks who would have never said anything about it before are coming out of the woodwork. It's great.
Granted it's going to take a lot of retooling to get these rules into a form that isn't embarassing to me. But then, that's really nothing new for me. Every edition has taken some serious wrench time under the hood before it was ready to play. I guess maybe that's why it doesn't bother me so much...
That wasn't a personal attack, that was pointing out the gaping flaw in your argument.
"Purposefully" -> deliberately.
"Disingenuous" -> lying.Deliberately lying. That is a personal attack.
Get a dictionary before you post if that's not what you intended.
"Absolutely nothing that has been written about 4e changes the fundamental aspects of the game. It is still a class-based role playing game, where each class gets levels from experience, increases in power with each level, and uses the d20 system to resolve random actions." (emphasis mine)
I'm talking about "the fundamental aspects" of D&D, not d20 RPGs in general. Is the d20 Wheel of Time Roleplaying Game the same game as D&D? Is Iron Heroes? If I develop a d20 game for the Coldfire trilogy, is it D&D? No, they aren't. They may be similar in some aspects, but there are fundamental differences in how the rules for specific classes, equipment, magic/supernatural powers, races, etc. work in the game. D&D has, up until this point, kept a pretty standard set of assumptions ("sacred cows") on how most things work. 4e is changing so many of them that the developers themselves are saying that converting from previous editions will be so difficult that everyone should start over from scratch.
"Absolutely nothing" has a pretty specific meaning, too. 4e may be a great game, but it's not going to be using the same set of assumptions about "the fundamental aspects" that have defined D&D for the last 30 years.
3e, to me, was still the same game as the 1e that I happily played for so many years (and 2e, for that matter, which was really not much different from 1e). The rules changes, while mechanically profound in places, still supported the "feel" of the mishmash of pulp and classical sources that inspired the 1st edition.
This is my big problem with all the 4E stuff I've seen -- too much MMO-on-paper, not enough pulp/heroic fantasy. :-`
Heck, even the grafted-on Tolkien elements don't fit any more.
-The Gneech
PS- totally joking, bro. I may not totally see eye to eye with your opinion in this particular matter but I do respect it and always value it in the various threads in which you post.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Greg
This is my big problem with all the 4E stuff I've seen -- too much MMO-on-paper, not enough pulp/heroic fantasy. :-Heck, even the grafted-on Tolkien elements don't fit any more.
Thanks, Gneech. Nice to know that not everyone thinks I'm smoking crack here.
To be a little less "anti-everything" here, and after having read through all the posts again, a quite plausible patch has immerged (thanks to Moff).
What about totally removing the chopping requirement to "smites" and making them almost entirely internalized, instantaneous effects? The paladin doesn't need to hit the badguy to heal his ally, but can attack and heal simultaneously--willing down a beam of healing energy upon his friend. The attack doesn't do it (and would still work, even if he missed) but the healing effect takes nearly no effort on the paladin's part either.
I sort of like the idea both for healing and hurting--that holy power smites down, healing allies or striking enemies depending on the power.
Granted the resulting paladin is a fairly "blasty" paladin, but I get the feeling that where classes like the Wizard and Warlock blast and blast round after round, that for the paladin this would be a relatively rare thing that he can only call down, to harm or aid, a few times a session.
I think I could live with that...
I aggree with you Grimcleaver. I like your way of thinking. What I cannot understand is why everyone seems to be ready, when a new article on 4th comes out, to attack it.
I fully agree with the problem of smiting and healing, but from the whole article they took only this?
For me the likelyhood that the smite ability evolves as you grow in levels is totally good. Now, if some details do not attach well with the concept every individual DM has of DND, then I suppose this could happen.
What I would like to hear are proposals how you could change the ability or in what way you could describe it in order to fit-in in a storytelling, as some have suggested.
|
|
I still dislike renewing smite. It just reeks of MMO on paper. As long as they separate the smite and the healing, I can live with it. Renewing smite should be a smite that lets the paladin say a healing "prayer" as a swift action after the smite to heal his friend. His ally shouldn't automatically heal just because the paladin hit something really hard. I think we will see a lot of non-sensical stuff like this in the future. Classes will be able to do something fun, like a smite or sneak attack, and something else that fits their "role" will automatically happen, so they don't have to "waste" actions to do something boring. They obviously don't care how silly it is to have two completely disconnected things occur simulatanoeusly. All that matters is that the character does what is needed to fulfil their "role". Who cares how silly or absurd it appears?
|
|
I still dislike renewing smite. It just reeks of MMO on paper. As long as they separate the smite and the healing, I can live with it. Renewing smite should be a smite that lets the paladin say a healing "prayer" as a swift action after the smite to heal his friend. His ally shouldn't automatically heal just because the paladin hit something really hard. I think we will see a lot of non-sensical stuff like this in the future. Classes will be able to do something fun, like a smite or sneak attack, and something else that fits their "role" will automatically happen, so they don't have to "waste" actions to do something boring. They obviously don't care how silly it is to have two completely disconnected things occur simulatanoeusly. All that matters is that the character does what is needed to fulfil their "role". Who cares how silly or absurd it appears?
What if there was a good reason for it? Would it be OK then? They've presented a mechanic (crunch) without the reason (fluff). That doesn't mean there is no reason. But Mechanics without fluff has no context and appears absurd. Even something as trivial as swing a sword and hitting for damage is a very mechanical process, but we don't need a reason because the reason is assumed. We have real world experience to fill in the details of why this mechanic makes sense.
The Renewing Smite does have 2 components that we all can rationalize if they were separate. Attack/damage and Heal. The assumptions we make for our rationalization is that both aspects work as we know them.
I can imagine that a Paladin has the power to heal when he is "filled with divine power" and that such divine power can "spill over into the paladins allies". In that context, the heal portion looks like the divine power fills the paladin on a successful hit. A sort of "huzzah" from god. This is different in terms of Vancian magic, there is no spell to cast.
It is what it is, and while slapping on a context/reason (fluff) after a mechanic is poor design IMO, it can be done. I believe that the context/reason should come first and then the mechanics are built to support them. But I digress.
So, what if there is a plausible context for Renewing Smite? Is it ok then?
So, what if there is a plausible context for Renewing Smite? Is it ok then?
My answer would be that if it's plausible then it's useable, if it breaks any sense of realism in the game then it's junk and needs to be reimagined in a way that does make it plausible.
That said, had they done things according to your philosophy (which I love) and tried to figure out first what a paladin is, where their powers come from, what they should do, and how they should feel--and THEN came in with the mechanics to make the flavor text happen as accurately and elegantly as possible, what they would have had would have been much more than simply useable. It would have been gold.
As it is, it's looking more like copper.