It completely cripples any sense of competing city-states, widespread conspiricies, foreign spies, etc. Any criminal network or secret society will be purely local, given the difficulties in travel and communication. Wipe out the local cell and that's it.Have you never played in Wilderlands? It's all of those things and still very much a points of light setting.
Central points of light concept: "Scattered far and wide amid that darkness, like faint stars in the night sky, are the enclaves of civilization; here and there one finds a great city-state or strong barony, but mostly you encounter frontier towns or close-knit villages of farmers and artisans who cling close together for protection against the dark." Expansions on that theme include: travel between points of light is rare and dangerous and communication/influence between points of light are the exception instead of the rule. The "darkness" surrounding "the enclaves of civilization" is not empty, but filled with monsters. In such a setting, only the gods would have either a reason or the influence to establish a widespread network in several different communities (maybe that's why they're just epic-level encounters in 4e?).
Also, the techniques for misdirection (Bluff), bargaining/creating a good impression/inspiring others (Diplomacy), and scaring someone (Intimidate) are different.I'll disagree about needing varying mechanics though. In my opinion, 90% of those activities should be done through RP, not die rolling.
Who said they needed varying mechanics? A skill roll vs. DC works fine for each. However using the same skill for all three is over-simplifying, IMO. I'm not advocating replacing roleplaying with die rolling (except, perhaps, to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters; do you really need to spend 15 minutes of game time having a player convince an appointments clerk to move his audience with the guildmaster to tomorrow instead of next week?), but having an objective system helps a DM determine the results the character achieves, as well as the player. Again, this is a consistency of the game issue for me.
Quest cards aren't mandatory anyway, they're a piece of advice, an aide memoire.
The cards themselves aren't mandatory, but the focus of adventuring in 4e is being presented as "do Task X, get Reward Y." The focus of adventuring should be "do Task X, accomplish Goal Y." The focus should be on the characters and plot, with the reward as an extra benefit.
This came up over on Einstein and D&D4, but is relevant here.
It ends up being an argument about which is better... Coke Classic or New Coke... and we know that's futile. :)But their New Coke doesn't have caffeine in it and smells of oranges.True... and that's a good analogy. If Crush had come out with a Cola/orange hybrid around the same time Coca-Cola stopped producing Coke altogether... do you think that people would have trashed the Crush product so heavily? Probably not, because they would recognize it as a totally different product.
But if Coca-Cola Co. stopped producing Classic Coke and started marketing a cola/orange hybrid as "New Coke," they would definitely be trashed. That is what WotC is doing with D&D.
I think that's most of the problem here... people aren't recognizing D&D4 as a brand new product
We understand quite well. 4e is a new product attempting to use an old name, even though there are vast differences in flavor. That is our gripe with WotC.
|
@Psion - good points
@Razz - well worth your post going long, well said
@Dungeon Grrrl - I agree not buying 4E sends a message.
I flipped through XPUD's newly released garbage yesterday at my favorite game store. I was disgusted. (I can't even bring my self to spell out that company's name any more...)
4E IS NOT DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS It is a new game and it breaks the public's faith in that company's stewardship of the game's intellectual history and traditions. THE MUNCHKINS HAVE TAKEN OVER. Ostensibly, one can play 3.5 and still be playing Arneson & Gygax's game! However, one look at the new material propaganda, and you can see just how badly the fundamentals have been corrupted. Oh how my blood boils.
D&D is dead. Long live the game.
I deeply understand how someone born in the late 80s or early 90s might not appreciate this frustration. If all one has been introduced to is video games then I'm sure this "bleeping" system will appear normal.
4E IS NOT DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS It is a new game and it breaks the public's faith in that company's stewardship of the game's intellectual history and traditions. THE MUNCHKINS HAVE TAKEN OVER. Ostensibly, one can play 3.5 and still be playing Arneson & Gygax's game! However, one look at the new material propaganda, and you can see just how badly the fundamentals have been corrupted. Oh how my blood boils.
So 4e is going to be the counter-culture game, while previous versions of D&D are "the Establishment." That would fit in with the rest of WotC's marketing.
I'd laugh if I didn't feel so sad.
|
|
This is a fun thread to read! There are a lot of great people on these boards!
Thanks to Allen Stewart, Razz, Dungeon Grrrl, Pax Veritas, DM Jeff, and others for making some great statements without having to attack someone in the process!
Who said they needed varying mechanics? A skill roll vs. DC works fine for each. However using the same skill for all three is over-simplifying, IMO. I'm not advocating replacing roleplaying with die rolling (except, perhaps, to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters; do you really need to spend 15 minutes of game time having a player convince an appointments clerk to move his audience with the guildmaster to tomorrow instead of next week?), but having an objective system helps a DM determine the results the character achieves, as well as the player. Again, this is a consistency of the game issue for me.
If you want to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters why do you roll? If it's meaningless then you really rolled for no reason. If it's just not that important then why not skip it, or sum it up with a narration or petition.
Ostensibly, one can play 3.5 and still be playing Arneson & Gygax's game!
Nobody tell Gygax that...
|
4E IS NOT DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS It is a new game and it breaks the public's faith in that company's stewardship of the game's intellectual history and traditions. THE MUNCHKINS HAVE TAKEN OVER. Ostensibly, one can play 3.5 and still be playing Arneson & Gygax's game! However, one look at the new material propaganda, and you can see just how badly the fundamentals have been corrupted. Oh how my blood boils.
Dude - the Arneson/Gygax game died in the early 1980s. It has been a different game for quite a long time.
I deeply understand how someone born in the late 80s or early 90s might not appreciate this frustration. If all one has been introduced to is video games then I'm sure this "bleeping" system will appear normal.
I was born in the 60s and I do not see this new edition as anything less than D&D.
Age has nothing to do with it.
Dude - the Arneson/Gygax game died in the early 1980s. It has been a different game for quite a long time.
Just curious: by your lights, when did D&D become "a different game" and what brought it about?
Who said they needed varying mechanics? A skill roll vs. DC works fine for each. However using the same skill for all three is over-simplifying, IMO. I'm not advocating replacing roleplaying with die rolling (except, perhaps, to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters; do you really need to spend 15 minutes of game time having a player convince an appointments clerk to move his audience with the guildmaster to tomorrow instead of next week?), but having an objective system helps a DM determine the results the character achieves, as well as the player. Again, this is a consistency of the game issue for me.If you want to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters why do you roll? If it's meaningless then you really rolled for no reason. If it's just not that important then why not skip it, or sum it up with a narration or petition.
Because the actions the PCs attempt should have consequences beyond DM-fiat. Because even actions not central to the narrative should have a chance of failure. Because PCs should not necessarily know which NPCs are important to the plot. Unless they are interacting with an obviously important NPC or wish to role-play in detail, I ask my PCs for a brief description of their conversation and a skill roll. It keeps the game moving without being arbitrary or revealing. It also rewards characters who are built to be good at social interaction and not just combat.
|
|
Dude - the Arneson/Gygax game died in the early 1980s. It has been a different game for quite a long time.Just curious: by your lights, when did D&D become "a different game" and what brought it about?
I started playing with the original edition. It played like a wargame and we told wild stories to go along with it. We did not draw world maps. We did not have pantheons of gods. Characters would fit on one side of an index card.
The game had few rules and very little fluff. The great part was just getting together and whacking some goblins.
AD&D was cool. More stuff to crunch on.
I think everything changed when the worlds started to form and these new "wilderness encounters" led to campaign settings and histories and maps.
By the time 1987 rolled around Forgotten Realms came out the pulp was gone.
That was not such a bad thing but it did signal a new direction.
But in 1982 i had already jumped ship to RuneQuest and by 1987 I was playing Warhammer fantasy Role Play.
D&D no longer did pulp gaming very well and other game systems did setting based gaming better.
To me D&D will always be the original. Once Gygax broke up the band and split with Arneson it was all over.
Because the actions the PCs attempt should have consequences beyond DM-fiat. Because even actions not central to the narrative should have a chance of failure. Because PCs should not necessarily know which NPCs are important to the plot. Unless they are interacting with an obviously important NPC or wish to role-play in detail, I ask my PCs for a brief description of their conversation and a skill roll. It keeps the game moving without being arbitrary or revealing. It also rewards characters who are built to be good at social interaction.Who said they needed varying mechanics? A skill roll vs. DC works fine for each. However using the same skill for all three is over-simplifying, IMO. I'm not advocating replacing roleplaying with die rolling (except, perhaps, to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters; do you really need to spend 15 minutes of game time having a player convince an appointments clerk to move his audience with the guildmaster to tomorrow instead of next week?), but having an objective system helps a DM determine the results the character achieves, as well as the player. Again, this is a consistency of the game issue for me.If you want to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters why do you roll? If it's meaningless then you really rolled for no reason. If it's just not that important then why not skip it, or sum it up with a narration or petition.
But if nobody "built" a social character their die rolls will pose problems as more and more meaningless or unimportant actions become major stumbling blocks. Don't you agree?
If you want to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters why do you roll? If it's meaningless then you really rolled for no reason. If it's just not that important then why not skip it, or sum it up with a narration or petition.
Because the actions the PCs attempt should have consequences beyond DM-fiat. Because even actions not central to the narrative should have a chance of failure. Because PCs should not necessarily know which NPCs are important to the plot. Unless they are interacting with an obviously important NPC or wish to role-play in detail, I ask my PCs for a brief description of their conversation and a skill roll. It keeps the game moving without being arbitrary or revealing. It also rewards characters who are built to be good at social interaction.But if nobody "built" a social character their die rolls will pose problems as more and more meaningless or unimportant actions become major stumbling blocks. Don't you agree?
If nobody builds a social character, then they will have problems in social situations. They will not be able to convince clerks to move up appointments, bargain with merchants for favorable prices, high-society will view them in the same light as mecenary troops, etc. Appropriate? Damn straight. Campaign-stopping? Nope.
If nobody builds a social character, then they will have problems in social situations. They will not be able to convince clerks to move up appointments, bargain with merchants for favorable prices, high-society will view them in the same light as mecenary troops, etc. Appropriate? Damn straight. Campaign-stopping? Nope.If you want to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters why do you roll? If it's meaningless then you really rolled for no reason. If it's just not that important then why not skip it, or sum it up with a narration or petition.
Because the actions the PCs attempt should have consequences beyond DM-fiat. Because even actions not central to the narrative should have a chance of failure. Because PCs should not necessarily know which NPCs are important to the plot. Unless they are interacting with an obviously important NPC or wish to role-play in detail, I ask my PCs for a brief description of their conversation and a skill roll. It keeps the game moving without being arbitrary or revealing. It also rewards characters who are built to be good at social interaction.But if nobody "built" a social character their die rolls will pose problems as more and more meaningless or unimportant actions become major stumbling blocks. Don't you agree?
Campaign stopping? That's extreme. Your example was of situations that were meaningless or unimportant. If they were that meaningless then why are you attaching consequences to them? If they were unimportant why are they even in the game. I likely just don't get the point but it is seeming like you are looking for a reason to roll dice.
To me D&D will always be the original. Once Gygax broke up the band and split with Arneson it was all over.
That's an interesting notion, but one I disagree with because, by my lights, by the release of Supplement I in 1975, nearly all the major additions and augmentations that would become hallmarks of AD&D were already in place. If you play OD&D with everything in Greyhawk, you're already three-quarters of the way to 1E. To think otherwise would be to suggest that D&D diverged quite early from what you see as its original vision and I don't think that can be supported historically.
I rather think it was the publication of Dragonlance that spelled the beginning of the end for the original feel of the game. Everything since 1984 has been dealing with the consequences of that series of adventures and novels.
|
In such a setting, only the gods would have either a reason or the influence to establish a widespread network in several different communities (maybe that's why they're just epic-level encounters in 4e?).
I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree there. I believe Wilderlands to be a prime example of a Points of Light setting with political intrigue, reaching organizations, etc. If you've never checked it out, you need to. The box set by Necromancer Games is pure AWESOME. Highly recommended.
However using the same skill for all three is over-simplifying, IMO. I'm not advocating replacing roleplaying with die rolling (except, perhaps, to speed up meaningless/low-importance encounters; do you really need to spend 15 minutes of game time having a player convince an appointments clerk to move his audience with the guildmaster to tomorrow instead of next week?), but having an objective system helps a DM determine the results the character achieves, as well as the player. Again, this is a consistency of the game issue for me.
That boils down to a difference in play styles. I don't mind the 15 minutes of RP for the clerk if that is what the players are going for. If not? Then a simple CHA roll usually works for us. Both me and my group prefer slimmed down mechanics.
This is a fun thread to read! There are a lot of great people on these boards!
Thanks to Allen Stewart, Razz, Dungeon Grrrl, Pax Veritas, DM Jeff, and others for making some great statements without having to attack someone in the process!
I think this calls for a quick aside, and a thanks.
I never mean to insult anyolne, but that can be hard on somethign as cold and souless as a mesaagebaord. I appreciate tha opinion of everyone here. I am not trying to convince anyone else TEHY should dislike 4e, or feel insulted, or frefuse to buy it even if they play it.
I'm just trying to expalin why my own ire is raised, which is the question that forms this thread.
So no, no one should have to attack anyone. It's gratifying anyone is paying attention to post styles, so thanks DitheringFool for the shout out when I succeed.
And apologies if I fail. I mean to do no harm, lest it return to me threefold.
|
|
I rather think it was the publication of Dragonlance that spelled the beginning of the end for the original feel of the game. Everything since 1984 has been dealing with the consequences of that series of adventures and novels.
Yeah. AD&D was cool. I guess I count that as just an extension of the original like you suggested. Though the original 3 books will always hold a special place for me.
As for Dragonlance ... never did like that.
But my point is that D&D is whatever our first experience happened to be. What follows is never quite close enough.
That is why I do not get the irrational 4E hate.
I can see not wanting to buy it. I can understand not liking the direction it is going. But it is D&D just like AD&D, 2E, 3E, Basic, Expert, and even that Immortal crap.
Some change works for us and some does not. That's life.
Yup, still not getting the hate either. I accept that it exists and I've read the reasons, but I still don't get it.
But it is D&D just like AD&D, 2E, 3E, Basic, Expert, and even that Immortal crap.
Nothing wrong with this perspective and indeed it's very defensible, but it's one that equates "D&D[/i-ness" with whatever carries the logo. For a sizable minority of players, it means more than that. I think it's these people, who see an essence to [i]D&D that's more than the name, that look on 4E as the gaming equivalent of a pod person.
While I share the belief that 4E is a step too far, I agree that there's no reason to engage in irrational hate. If people get enjoyment out of 4E, great, but it's most assuredly not for me. I suspect, as the months wear on, more people will be able to step back and just walk away from it. Right now, though, some nerves are still raw and it'll take some time before they can accept the change.
having an objective system helps a DM determine the results the character achieves, as well as the player. Again, this is a consistency of the game issue for me.That boils down to a difference in play styles. I don't mind the 15 minutes of RP for the clerk if that is what the players are going for. If not? Then a simple CHA roll usually works for us. Both me and my group prefer slimmed down mechanics.
If you are lucky enough to play or DM with a steady group and agreed upon methods, then one style is fine. However, I game with several groups and rotate DM responsibilites even within a single campaign. The fact that the rules for determining social interaction are part of the core rules and not something different for each DM/group (unless house-ruled) is a very good thing, IMO.
If...
1) It's important to the story for the appointment to occur later, some players don't get the point until 15 minutes or more pass...
Yay, railroading!
2) If the player and DM are having fun role-playing the encounter, then definitely; if either one is bored by it (or after 15 minutes - that's about the longest the OTHER players can generally sit and watch one person hog the spotlight), then by all means.
Otherwise no.
See my response above: "Because the actions the PCs attempt should have consequences beyond DM-fiat. Because even actions not central to the narrative should have a chance of failure. Because PCs should not necessarily know which NPCs are important to the plot. Unless they are interacting with an obviously important NPC or wish to role-play in detail, I ask my PCs for a brief description of their conversation and a skill roll. It keeps the game moving without being arbitrary or revealing. It also rewards characters who are built to be good at social interaction and not just combat."
If nobody builds a social character, then they will have problems in social situations. They will not be able to convince clerks to move up appointments, bargain with merchants for favorable prices, high-society will view them in the same light as mecenary troops, etc. Appropriate? Damn straight. Campaign-stopping? Nope.Campaign stopping? That's extreme. Your example was of situations that were meaningless or unimportant. If they were that meaningless then why are you attaching consequences to them? If they were unimportant why are they even in the game. I likely just don't get the point but it is seeming like you are looking for a reason to roll dice.
Think of the real world. People with poor social skills tend to have problems being taken seriously, even if they make a lot of money, don't they? They have "major stumbling blocks" that they have to deal with. Breathing life into even "bit-part" NPCs (merchants, clerks, etc.) should be done as a matter of course, IMO, even if it's a set-up for a summary/skill-roll. The DM should know how potentially important each encounter or NPC is, the players should not.
Yay, railroading!If...
1) It's important to the story for the appointment to occur later, some players don't get the point until 15 minutes or more pass...If you're running with modules, this can be tough to avoid.
4E seems to cater heavily to a "module-using" audience, judging from the fluff we've seen and attituded they've been tossing out (it may not really do so, but it is giving that impression).
"Let's make social interaction more like combat." That was why I brought this topic up in the first place.
I'd love to have players be willing to do that - most of mine have either insisted we just have NPC interactions "off camera" or want to go deep into the minutia... Whichever I'm least prepared for, natch.
I find the "summary/skill-roll" to be a good compromise between ease of play and presenting the campaign world as a living, breathing environment.
Everything I've seen of Fourth Edition suggests that the game that WotC wants to sell me is a tactical combat game, with some role-playing to make it cool. Like Warhammer, or Chainmail, or...
Of course, 3.x is in reality just a table-top mini's game "with some role-playing to make it cool".
|
I'd like to give my opinion, but first, I should probably grant the lot of you some context into my point of view.
I was born in '83, and started playing about two years ago. Sorry for being late and all, you'll have to take that up with my parents. However, I'm not new to RPGs. My first is a game my friends made and I joined in almost a decade ago and have helped to develop(I've done most of the Naval combat system myself).
Anyway, I'll spare false modesty and admit that I quickly got a firm grasp of the rules, quickly enough that my first few games I was DM. I also have a penchant for playing unorthodox, and sometimes demented characters. Examples would include my Barbarian Mime; my boozehound Pirate with two hooks, two peglegs, and two eye-patches; my clinically insane Sorcerer, who likes to cast magic just for the hell of it; a constantly sermonizing Cleric with the personality of a preachy, self-righteous, hypocritical televangelist; and my current character, a Longbow-wielding, lecherous Monk named Kip. I try to have my characters behave as their personalities allow, but I still try to fight smart. Dueling a villain at the edge of a precepice? Bull rush him! Fighting a Fire Elemental? Shout to the Druid to cast Create Water! Zombies shambling up from the depths of a swamp? Tell the Cleric to cast Bless Water!
I'm currently playing in a game with a DM who has played since D&D first came out, and occasionally rules-lawyer when he accidentily slips back to some older rules without realizing it(Literacy, anyone?). Right now, we're playing pure 3.5 Core with the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil module. No other suppliments. I've been trying to get my friends in the party to think up tactics(most haven't played since 2E or earlier) such as keeping at least one Spear on hand(ahh, the Spear, such an under-appreciated weapon, I think my next character will be a Fighter who specializes in the use of this wonder-weapon). My Party's Ranger and I quickly figured out a clever method to enter rooms we're uncertain of. He uses a ring of Mage-Hand to open a door while I have a readied action to shoot anything I think is hostile coming through the doorway.
Now, I hope that grants proper context into what I say next.
I do not hate 4E. That does not mean that I like it. I simply have not found out enough to form an educated opinion on the matter. I will admit that I do not like what little I have heard about it(except the Gnomes, the little punks can fry :P ).
I like having to make saving throws.
I like trying to figure out what that big doggie's Damage Reduction is and is overcome by(Damnable Yeth Hound, I'll track you down).
I like different classes having wildly different abilities and contributing to the whole of the party.
I don't like non-magic-using classes having "Combat Powers" that can be used over and over(reminds me of that stupid Book of Nine Swords).
While I don't like Magic-users becoming spent after three rounds, I don't think they should be able to use all their powers all day long, either, nor do I like the Wand and Staff thing I hear is happening(having a bonus to your magic because you carry a Wand or Staff will quickly turn into having a penalty because you don't carry).
Healing your Allies because you attack an enemy is plain silly.
I admit though, when it comes out, I will go to Hastings and read it. If it is to the contrary of my expectations, I may buy it. But, it will be some time before it will actually be used. I'm currently trying to build a campaign world in 3.5 and have already gotten a significant amount to change everything.
To all haters and lovers of 4E, at least, those insulting each other. Stop. You're just making yourselves and your positions in the argument look bad.
To all those who can't provide an argument for/against 4E other than spouting "IT SUCKS!" or "IT ROCKS!": Stop. You're just making yourselves look stupid.
To all those who might respond in a hostile manner because you may think I insulted you: I never mentioned your name. Don't take things personally.
To any who do take it personally anyway: Screw off. :P
Listen my good man, W$TC spat in my face, called my lady friend some curse words, slapped me with a glove and challenged me to a duel on the common at dawn tomorrow! And for good measure they insulted my man servant, kicked my dog, shot my horse and poured custard over my grandmother!
And by gad, sir, I mean to keep that appointment! They shall see that I shall have no truck with their ways. They are the very devil I tell you! The devil!
|
|
Listen my good man, W$TC spat in my face, called my lady friend some curse words, slapped me with a glove and challenged me to a duel on the common at dawn tomorrow! And for good measure they insulted my man servant, kicked my dog, shot my horse and poured custard over my grandmother!
And by gad, sir, I mean to keep that appointment! They shall see that I shall have no truck with their ways. They are the very devil I tell you! The devil!
How dare they! You should give them whatfore! Where I in your shoes, I would declare that what I left on their grave, after winning the duel, of course, would not pass for daisies!
I hate it because the flavor is wrong.
Succubi are devils? But they were demons before? Way to go, Wizards! Destroy every existing long running campaign and don't support them!
Dragonborn? I cannot say enough about how LUDICROUS this race is. In the Forgotten Realms, in Greyhawk, in any preexisting world, the chance of being mistaken for a Yuan Ti and shot down by village archers is amazing, because provincial people in points of light settings are stupid.
Wizards pretty much chose to ignore their own campaign backstories for their gameworlds, and now they're making us pay money for it.
This is what I posted on the Wizards boards, somewhere in the grand mess of Forgotten Realms threads.
This will ruin every existing game.
If any PC's WERE tieflings, and you ran a game with backstory, that backstory is now ruined.
Dragonborn? WTF is this? This is out of theme and stupid. Suddenly this race existed where no such race existed before?
And how would this race, in the Forgotten Realms, overcome the general prejudice against scaly folk like Yuan Ti?
Hi, guys, I'm a Dragonborn Ranger.
Gee, Mr, snake guy, you look like a Yuan Ti archer to me...Thunk...Thunk...Thunk...
But I'm a...URK....(Body hits floor.)
People assume that 10 int is average. But if you look at the world around you, an average int is pretty provincial and stupid.
The transformations to tieflings beg all sorts of interesting questions...
4th edition transformations....
Tiefling: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! My a** flippin' hurts! Oh, my GOD! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Tail...what the (BLEEP) is this? My pants...I don't have any pants....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, my head! I have HORNS...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! My helmet! My magic helmetttttttttttttttt! !#$$%%!@!!!!!!!...
...No...pants...(SOB!)
Dwarves: The unbearded Dwarven hottie?
Guys, there was one thing that was always cool. Dwarves have beards. Dwarf women who don't have beards need to shave them. The fact that both sexes had beards differentiated them out and made them cool.
It's not the mechanics I don't like. It's the flavor.
No half orcs? No half elves?
I've seen a glass that was half-full. This is more than half empty.
How dare they! You should give them whatfore! Where I in your shoes, I would declare that what I left on their grave, after winning the duel, of course, would not pass for daisies!
Just so. Then I shall take my battle to the Illumaniti themselves, the sinister backers of this cabal and give them what-for with my sabre! We have a battle for the very imagination of humanity on our hands! Are you with me, sah?!
|
|
While I share the belief that 4E is a step too far, I agree that there's no reason to engage in irrational hate. If people get enjoyment out of 4E, great, but it's most assuredly not for me. I suspect, as the months wear on, more people will be able to step back and just walk away from it.
Very well said, and a sentiment that I can agree with.
|
|
Succubi are devils? But they were demons before? Way to go, Wizards! Destroy every existing long running campaign and don't support them!
This is what I do not get. WotC took an imaginary being and made it a different type of imaginary being and so people hate them for it as if you cannot simply say - in my campaign they are still demons.
sheesh
This is what I do not get. WotC took an imaginary being and made it a different type of imaginary being and so people hate them for it as if you cannot simply say - in my campaign they are still demons.
Hate to inform you otherwise, but a Succubus is an actual type of demon. D&D didn't make it up. So WotC is now going against folklore, which, at least I thought, the game was based on.
Yesss.. a demon is an "imaginary being" however you look at it. And in real world myth there is no difference between devils and demons.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yesss.. a demon is an "imaginary being" however you look at it. And in real world myth there is no difference between devils and demons.
Theological debates aside...
It doesn't change that WotC is changing an element of the history of the game that has been a constant for 26+ years. And why? 'because they look humanoid'
Yeah, right.
|
|
Wand and Staff thing?!? Haven't heard that one... Is it something like the rule in Tunnels and Trolls that makes it more taxing to cast spells without a "proper" staff, and more advantageous to cast with a "special" one?the Wand and Staff thing I hear is happening(having a bonus to your magic because you carry a Wand or Staff will quickly turn into having a penalty because you don't carry).
What I remember reading is that Magic users will be able to keep a Wand, a Staff, or some other type of magical instrument(I forget, maybe an Orb, or something). WotC says that these items are not necessary, but grant a bonus to the spellcasting, and the normal level is how power the spellcaster is without these items. Kinda like they're chanelling their power through them and amplifying it.
Figure A: Normal + Staff = Bonus
However, this will become the opposite, because every spell-slinger will have them. Making carrying one of these things the Normal. Thusly, a magic user without one essentially a character with a penalty.
Figure B: Normal - Staff = Penalty
I could have misunderstood how they stated things, but I do not believe that to be the case.
|
|
Just so. Then I shall take my battle to the Illumaniti themselves, the sinister backers of this cabal and give them what-for with my sabre! We have a battle for the very imagination of humanity on our hands! Are you with me, sah?!How dare they! You should give them whatfore! Where I in your shoes, I would declare that what I left on their grave, after winning the duel, of course, would not pass for daisies!
We shall rally forth, blaze a trail of destruction right through them, only stopping for Lunch at Noon! This Battle for the Imagination of Humanity will be fought not in our homes, nor on our lands, but in a setting of Imagination itself, where the sky is purple, the trees grow baked hams, and where we bleed hitpoints instead of blood!
Cato,
I agree with several proposed things about 4E that you made reference to, namely: I appreciate the ability to make a Saving Throw (rather than just be told, I'm screwed, and I can do nothing about it); the "Non-Magic wielding classes" having 'powers'; and other changes I'll elect not to list at length.
I will ask the question, Where was the outcry or public demand for these changes to be made to the game? I cannot recall ever hearing anyone on these Paizo boards or over on WoTC boards calling for Saving Throws to be scrapped.
It is my opinion that the release of 4E is ENTIRELY driven by finaicial reasons and by the Hasbro brass. It is also my opinion that many of these proposed changes for 4E are merely contrived rationales to attempt to provide an explanation for the release of 4E.
That being said, WoTC has already watered-down 3.5 so much that starting from scratch is not a bad idea. My sincere hope is that WoTC/Hasbro will learn from past experience and stop cranking out endless & watered-down junk, just because they think that customers will buy more of a LOWER quality product. It is my hope that many of us 'customers' will purchase MORE of the higher quality products so that we don't have to see 4E run the same course as has 3.5.
Incidentally, Merry Christmas everyone: 4E proponents and 4E opponents...
This is a fun thread to read! There are a lot of great people on these boards!
Thanks to Allen Stewart, Razz, Dungeon Grrrl, Pax Veritas, DM Jeff, and others for making some great statements without having to attack someone in the process!
Thank you for the kind words. And if you have (correctly:) viewed my remarks as beneficial, then you're certainly no fool...
Although I am a "middle-of-the-road'er" as far as 4E goes, I certainly empathize with the strong feelings of those who are not pleased with 4E. I would be loathe to purchase a new car, knowing full well, or even strongly suspecting that it would not only: last only 3 or 4 years, but would not be supported with new parts/products in the years that followed it's "life expectancy". I sense a feeling from many posters that WoTC/Hasbro has forced this change to 4E on everyone without much if any public outcry, like there was for 3.0E, merely to sell more products.
|
|
Agreed Mister Stewart, almost everything I've heard, I have to say that I don't like. But, I do not have enough information for a properly formed opinion one way or another, so I shall reserve judgment.
I do admit, however, that when I dislike virtually everything I hear/see about a product, it makes me want to avoid it. Therefore, I will be taking a wait and see approach to this.
Edit: I would like to add, that if these Non-Magical Powers that non-magic users get are more akin to Special Abilities, then its not too big of a deal, but with everything we've been hearing, it doesn't seem that way. Personally, if I roll a Rogue, Fighter, or Barbarian, its because I don't want to rely on Magic. Not get Magic Powers that Aren't Magical.
Succubi are devils? But they were demons before? Way to go, Wizards! Destroy every existing long running campaign and don't support them!This is what I do not get. WotC took an imaginary being and made it a different type of imaginary being and so people hate them for it as if you cannot simply say - in my campaign they are still demons.
sheesh
The point is that there is absolutely no need for this. Just recently, the FC I and II introduced to us the advanced versions of both the succubus (lilitu) and the erinyes (brachina), alongside tons of other new and old (converted) fiends. Now they merge - for no obvious reason - the seductive demon with the essential fury-ladden but no less charming erinyes and make them devils. Why? We will have about half a dozen more monster books in 4E with tons of new and old fiends and there will surely be a seductive demoness on their way too.
Apart from that, they bin about half the lore on various Abyssal Lords along the way, namely Grazz't and a quarter dozen Queens of Succubi, namely Malcanthet, Shami-Amurae and the one who I can't name right now. For no point whatsoever. (Obviously, they already cut the main soul providers' straight access to the fiendish realms when they removed their planeshift abilities. Unless you think that the succubi and erinyes only subverted and corrupted the souls, but hand no hand in their transfer - energy drain and all).
I agree with the previous poster that the 'Tweaking' of the evil Outsiders was unnecessary and unwarrented. More 'revising' by WoTC in an attempt to 'justify' the "need" for 4E.