Still very few specific answers on 4e, the game ??????HEROIC 1st level characters.
Different rules for PCs, NPCs, & Monsters.
Mook rules.
Core rulebooks every year.
Consolidated (or is it oversimplified?) skills.
Defenses instead of Saving Throws.
AC instead of DR.
Succubus is now a devil.
Inclusion of Tieflings and Dragon-whatitsname as core races.
All characters must have equal utility/power in combat as a design goal.
Video-gamey "uber-cool" powers. Specifically, I hit someone and my allies heal. WTF?
The Digital Initiative content being "core".
The "reimagined" gnome.
EPIC level play assumes players will take on gods in combat. (Wasn't cool when I was 13, still seems dorky now.)
The extremely weak reinvented Dragon "magazine".
And that's just off the top of my head. Give me time to think about it and I'm sure I can come up with more. This, of course, is excluding the demeaning way that they've been telling us that if we're not salivating about 4e, there must be something wrong with us. Nor does it include the pathetic arguments that 3.5 is "too hard", or overinflating the difficulty of the Grappling rules.
Also, no matter how many times they tell me how cool 4e is and how much I'll love it, they're not going to convince me unless they show me why it's cool. (It'd also be nice if they then explained why they made the mechanics changes. Kinda like they did with 3e...)
Final point - Paizo, Green Ronin, and other companies act as though they want to earn my business and appreciate my support. WotC acts as though I've got no other choices for where my RPG dollar will go. If they say it's time for 4e, well I better get on board or be left behind.
1. Because I know I liked it in The Whispering Cairn when two parties went in and had to leave after the first two encounters. In both cases, we had a party of 5-6.
2. We know that they are building stack blocks differently for PCs and...
So, to sum up:
1. Your opinions equate to fact. The existence of differing points of view is irrelevant, at best, or idiotic, at worst, to you.
2. You can speculate free from discussion or opposing points of view. If your speculation runs counter to another's opinion that was formed by information leaked/previewed from WotC, your speculation is still more valid.
3. The existence of a publication (Bo9S) equates to fan response being 100% in agreement with the content of the publication. [If the Bo9S was the highest-selling D&D book since the PHB, I'd say you're on to something. It was met with lukewarm reviews for the most part, which is the only "industry data" I can offer.]
4. To underscore your viewpoint, it's acceptable to denigrate or insult those with an opposing viewpoint. (Not just in this thread, but in several others.)
The post asked for specific reasons why people disliked 4e. I provided mine. If those are all "good features" for you, that's great. If 4e outsells all previous incarnations of D&D, good for WotC. But neither they nor you are going to convince me that my OPINION is "wrong". Only the game in play/use will do that. It's not my problem that everything I'm seeing is going to make that a very large hill to climb.
I can't really tell if you just want to be argumentative and insulting or you think you're being persuasive. If it's the former, well it is the Internet I suppose. If it's the latter, you're failing miserably.
I'm beginning to think I owe it to WotC to buy a copy, just to pay them for all the entertainment the "Pro" and "Con" debates are inspiring...
Probably not, though... :D
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week!
For the sake of fairness, I believe they are doing what they think is right for WotC and D&D (and what they're being told to do).
Oh I'm quite sure they believe that they're doing right by D&D. But the short of the long is is that they are ignoring the base...
I agree with nearly everything you said.
I also think they are trying to redefine that base. They have your money and mine -- they want someone else's.
They've as much as said so :(
I'm beginning to think I owe it to WotC to buy a copy, just to pay them for all the entertainment the "Pro" and "Con" debates are inspiring...
Probably not, though... :D
No, real entertainment would be to see those clowns running for President taking sides as to which version of D&D is the best. Then watching the radio talking heads eat themselves alive over what who said about what on D&D. (Esp the talking heads that publicly hate D&D)
Anyone else STILL find 4E to be the same game now? Shall I pull out more quotes from this book? How about ones that WotC contradicted themselves on a dozen times? Give me the word, I'm ready to pick this thing apart and eat it whole.
I have to read through the elf section again, cause a friend of mine found one in that part of the book that had us laughing. When I find the two quotes, I'll place them here. (heck, I should start a thread on the contradictory statements of WotC on the topic of D&D itself).
I have no intention of getting Races and Classes. And the part you just quoted about Fey blew my mind that WotC really said that. So I would very much love a new thread full of excerpts from the book full of these quotes and contradictions you mentioned.
Assuming that any encounter will even breach 50 orcs. I somehow doubt that at higher levels you will still be fighting lower-level mooks to the point where you WILL be fending off an army worthy of Mordor.
Among their first playtests was a group of 1st-level characters against THIRTY goblins.
I can see 10th-level characters going against 1000 orcs in 4E.
Replace Half-Orc with Dragonborn because "orcs suck and dragons are cool" is the only logic I can see.
Actually, the reason they haven't done half-orc (don't forget half-elf is gone too) is really much worse than that.
They stated they don't want the half-orc in the PHB (not the first one, anyhow) as a core race because they don't like the conception of how half-orcs are made. (half the time, rape)
In other words, half-orcs are bad because of the "idea" that some are conceived through rape---yet tieflings are ok as a core race in 4th Edition, because selling your soul to the darkness and evil is much better than the possibility of having a character conceived through rape.
What?
The folks at WotC now are just morons, The End.
I can see 10th-level characters going against 1000 orcs in 4E.Or one drow ranger.
Yes but that drow ranger will be level 1000 by now.
I need more information on fourth edition. Just my two cents: I'm certain 4e will be fun to play, my only problem with it is simply (at least from the information I've gathered)is that it has to be played (or is being designed in a way that makes it difficult to do otherwise) be played by WoTC rules and in their designated world.
Sure, 3e (3.5 rather, I suppose), has some troubles because of the complexity, however the complexity of 3e seems to stem from the fact that the system was designed in a way to allow for anything to be possible (and you can ignore alignment class restrictions as exceptions or for your gameworld), and have a relatively stable system to play it in. Any issues that come up from the complexity of the rules can simply be overruled by the GM. From what I've read and heard at least, 4e seems to derail that freedom. On the bright side, the simpler mechanics may at least make it easier to introduce new players to tabletop rp'ing. Once their into it, it shouldn't take much to get them hooked on the freeform 3e rules :D
In any case, play 4e if you feel like it, 3e is so completely open ended that it'll probably be going strong with some groups well after I'm dead (and I'm twenty).
I'm sure something like this has probably been said before, but to be completely honest I didn't want to read through every single page.
BTW: I'm new here, not sure where I should put a topic like that :p
Also, I haven't played anything earlier than 3e. I sat in on a 2e once, but the mechanics were a little confusing. 3.5 comes naturally to me I guess. So don't bash me too hard if any bits of my argument here squabble against older editions...
Assuming that any encounter will even breach 50 orcs...
That's crazy talk.
Delve format doesn't do more than a couple of opponents :P
I need more information on fourth edition. Just my two cents: I'm certain 4e will be fun to play, my only problem with it is simply (at least from the information I've gathered)is that it has to be played (or is being designed in a way that makes it difficult to do otherwise) be played by WoTC rules and in their designated world.
<snip>
Well, first off, welcome!
Second, I see what you mean. There are pros and cons to both editions. It really depends on the gamer. One set relies on gamers from 30+ years ago to the present whereas the other set are the gamers of present to 30+ years later, possibly.
As much as I hate 4th Edition, I really can see me and my friends having fun with it. As long as we don't treat it as an actual D&D game and as long as we keep what we feel is truly D&D to our 3.5E games, because we'll never be able to even mimic the same experiences with 4th Edition. The minute we actually try to play 4E as D&D (and not an entirely new game with just the logo on it) I think that's where the debates will rage. As I've stated before, 4E is a "Glorified D&D Minis". But I will never agree that it is the actual "Dungeons&Dragons" game. It's losing too much of its soul for it to still be that same game we all have known for so long.
3E is rather interesting in that I remember the very first previews of the edition. One of the first things that WotC said was they wanted D&D to be "simpler" in 3rd Edition. And, sure enough, it was.
The complexity only came when new material was released. It's bound to happen in any game. You add more new toys, things get more and more complicated. But I believe it should be the DMs job to restrict the use of new material. You can play D&D just fine with the 3 core books and never have to branch from it. It just angers me when I hear complaints about 3E being complex, yet these same complaints are coming from people who use 15+ D&D rule books in their 3E games.
My own 3E games are highly complex. Not because the system is complex, but because I use 80+ rule books for my D&D games. I chose to make it that complex.
4E is now much "simpler" than 3rd Edition. But, give it a few years, and the new material will suddenly slow things down and you'll eventually hear the 4E players start to say "4th Edition is too complex".
It's a horrible process that's bound to repeat itself, in 4E, then 5E, etc. Splitting the fan base further and further until D&D fizzles out completely.
I personally believe there's only 2 solutions to that problem. Produce new material for D&D at a slower rate. Fill up the other "slots" with adventure books. The only problem with that solution is that it's been proven that "new game material" outsells any of the other products. The second solution is to simply expand what you currently have, do not create brand new material for a long period of time. WotC produced too many new rules too quickly and never expanded upon what they already had. Within 2 years, we've seen an influx of over 45+ new classes introduced into D&D beyond the initial Core 11.
What they should've done was introduce new things annually or bi-annually. First year (or two years), sell expansions to the core game. Next year, do something new like Psionics and expand on psionics for a good year, while giving love to the core at various intervals. Next year, do incarnum, and so on.
In any case, you didn't miss much if you're new to D&D with 3rd Edition as your start. In fact, what's cool about the older editions, you can still use the material, just ignore the mechanics. I use old 2E Forgotten Realms material for my 3E Forgotten Realms games. It still works. Replace old adventure modules with 3E monsters encounters and 3E traps and 3E items, but use the same descriptions and maps.
Personally glad you didn't start with 4E, there's a huge gap between the consistency and the mythology of the editions. 1E, 2E, and 3E kept strong to its traditions and roots. 4E isn't. You'll see why soon, probably.
I need more information on fourth edition. Just my two cents: I'm certain 4e will be fun to play, my only problem with it is simply (at least from the information I've gathered)is that it has to be played (or is being designed in a way that makes it difficult to do otherwise) be played by WoTC rules and in their designated world.
My sentiments exactly. Dan is a wise man :)
Well said, Razz. A very thoughtful post. I agree with much of it.
In any case, you didn't miss much if you're new to D&D with 3rd Edition as your start. In fact, what's cool about the older editions, you can still use the material, just ignore the mechanics. I use old 2E Forgotten Realms material for my 3E Forgotten Realms games. It still works. Replace old adventure modules with 3E monsters encounters and 3E traps and 3E items, but use the same descriptions and maps.
Heh. I do exactly the reverse. :)
BTW: I'm new here
Welcome to the boards! Have a good time.
I also think they are trying to redefine that base. They have your money and mine -- they want someone else's.They've as much as said so :(
They shouldn't have made it "I want their money instead of yours". Because they can't be sure yet whether they will get the money form those new guys.
But it's proven that they got our money in the past. But we still have more money to spend, and they don't want that, even though it's quite likely that they would have gotten a lot of our present-and-future money. But instead they refused that certain money to get potential money.
Always a bad idea to burn your bridges.
The complexity only came when new material was released. It's bound to happen in any game. You add more new toys, things get more and more complicated.
I've been saying this for months, that WoTC will inevitably release too many products and hopelessly complicate 4.0 just as they've done 3.5. When I mentioned that perhaps fewer products were desired, and there were perhaps too many mouths to feed over at WoTC, I was decried as being the Antichrist...
I also think they are trying to redefine that base. They have your money and mine -- they want someone else's.
They shouldn't have made it "I want their money instead of yours". Because they can't be sure yet whether they will get the money form those new guys... But it's proven that they got our money in the past...
I think so too.
It's so odd to me -- the most expensive RPG to play is getting more expensive to play, but increasingly targeting a younger (hence poorer) audience.
In the process, they alienate a whole bunch of loyal customers with lots of discretionary cash to spend.
:/
I don't know about older=richer - I hear adolescents often have a rather large amount of money to spend on hobbies and pastimes - but still, the trading of actual customers for potential customers is a mystery to me.
Yeah that's kinda wierd; They've taken all our money from 3.5 books and miniatures and are now discarding us in hopes of a whole new batch of customers/players whom like dragonmen and devil worship for character design. A shot in the dark...
I agree. When I was in high school I lived at home and had no expences at all. Heck my entire paycheck was disposable income.
Now that Im 32, married and own a home...Not so much disposable income.
Not so much at all. :(
|
I need more information on fourth edition. Just my two cents: I'm certain 4e will be fun to play, my only problem with it is simply (at least from the information I've gathered)is that it has to be played (or is being designed in a way that makes it difficult to do otherwise) be played by WoTC rules and in their designated world.
I have heard this a few times now and I don't really se that. Is there something specific that leads you to that conclusion?
Actually, the reason they haven't done half-orc (don't forget half-elf is gone too) is really much worse than that.
They stated they don't want the half-orc in the PHB (not the first one, anyhow) as a core race because they don't like the conception of how half-orcs are made. (half the time, rape)
In other words, half-orcs are bad because of the "idea" that some are conceived through rape---yet tieflings are ok as a core race in 4th Edition, because selling your soul to the darkness and evil is much better than the possibility of having a character conceived through rape.
What?
The folks at WotC now are just morons, The End.
Well, yeah. At least a character conceived through rape has the possibility of proving themselves good in THIS world, or remaining evil.
I can see whole societies hunting down Tieflings and killing them just for their blood to perform arcane rituals with, purge them from the world, pr whatever. A fiendish pact that lasts for ages? Dumb beyond imagining.
|
That kind of really moronic tidbit like the rationale behind the exclusion of the Half Orc (which I would have replaced by a true-blooded orc or conceptually similar species in a new edition, for completely different reasons, by the way) is exactly what makes me think sometimes that 4E is to 3E what 2E conceptually was to 1E (politically correct, elimination of so-called "problems" by just eliminating stuff the designers don't like, framing of the system with the underlying idea of "story" in role-playing games, and so on).
I know I had far more money to spend on games and such between the ages of 14 and 21 than I do now, at just past 40...
That's very interesting.
I have far far more disposable income now (early 30's, home-owner and all) than I ever did at the ages you mention. Once I graduated from university and started my career, my disposable income has exploded.
I know I had far more money to spend on games and such between the ages of 14 and 21 than I do now, at just past 40...That's very interesting.
I have far far more disposable income now (early 30's, home-owner and all) than I ever did at the ages you mention. Once I graduated from university and started my career, my disposable income has exploded.
Wait until you become a parent. Then you drop down into the "I don't have two dimes to rub together" disposable-income-bracket.
:-)
Greg
Games Workshop target round about 10 yrs up through teens because the parents have the money. Maybe that's the example that's being followed? I don't know, just a thought.
The rules i couldn't give a stuff about. If the rules work better changed then so be it.
However I am a huge lore and history junkie. I know more about planescape than my own countries history, same with FR, Dragonlance and so on.
For me, you cannot cannot just change a lore setting that has taken 25 years to set up so much. Discovering a new plane I can understand, but to suddenly go 'the inner planes are now one plane!' and ' outer planes? No! No Spire! No Sigil! No great wheel!'
im not even going to mention FR because, well I cannot read how they are going to butcher it.
I think 4E could be fun. I like some of the ideas for the mechanic but not really any of the flavour ideas.
But I don't like the move to "high fantasy" over "sword and sorcery".
Simple as that. You would think (by the material released) that WotC has never heard of "low magic". I have slowly been trying to correct this. The game that was most fun for me to play in, was one where a +1 weapon found at 10th level was a big deal. A +4 weapon? Heard of, but never seen (much like a legend).
The Great Wheel is how the multiverse was viewed at one time. Evidence surfaced favoring a "Great Tree" cosmology, and now that's been "proven" false as well, since apparently there's only one Lower Plane (and, presumably, one Upper Plane?).
That might work for our universe, where our methods get ever more defined and we are only now in the position to see things properly, and even go there, while a couple of thousand years ago, our options were a lot more limited.
But in a fantasy world where the abilities, the options were there all along, having been there for millenia (if anything, they had more awesome magic back in the day, hence all those artifacts), where people have travelled the planes for thousands of years, it makes a lot less sense.
Gawds... Can't believe I'm about to defend a decision made in 4E that I don't agree with but...
<snip>
I've always gone with great wheel, i even removed the FR version in 3.0 and put back in the great wheel. The reason why was mostly down to reading what was written about planescape from the planers view. I've never followed an individual campaigns idea for what the planes looks like.
I get that primes will not understand what the planes look like, but you'd think that planers would.
Whilst I understand the planes can change, I feel the change is too drastic. If the planes function the same and I find iconic places such as Sigil and the Spire are still in tact and are considered the 'hub' my ire will subdue a little, not a lot mind.
I also don't like the abyss being elemental now, nor the removal of Erinyes, Succubuss being made Devils, This dead plane....
Then theres the Elves, im not even going to mention the elves apart from Eladrin are Celestials from Arborea, and im stickin with it.
Im sticking with 3.x and just going to continue to use 2nd planescape.
So much to say...
But I'll be brief. My prime issue with 4E is that it's too soon.The analogy I'll use is a computer game. [snipped for space]
I'm sorry, but what? Are you kidding me? You're going to use expansions and sequals to video games as an analogy to role playing game editions? They are completely different in their release cycles.
It's time for a new edition, before third edition wears so thin we all start hating it and the brand collapses. Better that they do it now, print the last few 3rd ed books to complete the collection, and start...
1st edition was out from 1977 (the Monster Manual) until 1989. The PHB and DMG came out in 1978 & 1979, so I'd count that as a 10 year run.
2nd edition was out from 1989 until 1999... another 10 year run. The changes in the Revised edition of 1995 were relatively minor, so I don't consider them to be version 2.5 (though some people do).
3rd edition was release in 2000 and 3.0 stopped being supported in 2003 with the release of 3.5. That means it had a 3-year run!
3.5 has been around for 4 and 1/2 years.
Sorry but that just isn't cool with me and I won't be buying any of their products from this point onward.
PS: Nice avatar!
That's not the thing that really gets me. The thing that really gets me was that they worked to BREAK 3.5 by putting in things like BO9S and the Warlock, and the Tome of Magic, that were all really PLAYTESTS FOR 4th EDITION! How the hell can you create a game system and then deliberately set out to break it?
3.x has, apparently, been nothing but a Playtest for 4E...
If that were true, I'd be all over 4E. Not true, they playtested elements of what they wanted in 4E in 3E (and that's totally normal for RPG companies to do that). But stuff that was just massive overhauls (i.e. magic system), never got a 3E playtest.
The rules i couldn't give a stuff about. If the rules work better changed then so be it.
However I am a huge lore and history junkie. I know more about planescape than my own countries history, same with FR, Dragonlance and so on.
For me, you cannot cannot just change a lore setting that has taken 25 years to set up so much. Discovering a new plane I can understand, but to suddenly go 'the inner planes are now one plane!' and ' outer planes? No! No Spire! No Sigil! No great wheel!'
im not even going to mention FR because, well I cannot read how they are going to butcher it.
Well, you are first assuming that the "new cosmology" will be official and unable to be changed in anyway. Forgotten Realms never used Great Wheel cosmology, and neither did Eberron. I see no reason why you cant just make up your own cosmology.
Well, you are first assuming that the "new cosmology" will be official and unable to be changed in anyway. Forgotten Realms never used Great Wheel cosmology, and neither did Eberron. I see no reason why you cant just make up your own cosmology.The rules i couldn't give a stuff about. If the rules work better changed then so be it.
However I am a huge lore and history junkie. I know more about planescape than my own countries history, same with FR, Dragonlance and so on.
For me, you cannot cannot just change a lore setting that has taken 25 years to set up so much. Discovering a new plane I can understand, but to suddenly go 'the inner planes are now one plane!' and ' outer planes? No! No Spire! No Sigil! No great wheel!'
im not even going to mention FR because, well I cannot read how they are going to butcher it.
as I said i'll just work the great wheel into what I use, which will stay 3.x, as I said with FR i replaced it with the Great Wheel. I consider the view FR has as a belief that is incorrect.
For me, you cannot cannot just change a lore setting that has taken 25 years to set up so much. Discovering a new plane I can understand, but to suddenly go 'the inner planes are now one plane!' and ' outer planes? No! No Spire! No Sigil! No great wheel!'
Gawds... Can't believe I'm about to defend a decision made in 4E that I don't agree with but...
The "redefinition" of the planes is analagous to the redefinition of the Solar System.
At one time, we believed everything revolved around the Earth. For CENTURIES that was the view. Then it was discovered that the Earth revolves around the sun, and the sun revolves around some other point in the universe.
For centuries, we believed there were exactly nine planets, with the smallest being Pluto. A few years back, the "official statement" came out that there might be, IIRC, 11 planets, and Pluto was not one of them.The Great Wheel is how the multiverse was viewed at one time. Evidence surfaced favoring a "Great Tree" cosmology, and now that's been "proven" false as well, since apparently there's only one Lower Plane (and, presumably, one Upper Plane?).
But, we're talking a FANTASY world. The DM can choose to state that NONE of these definitions are correct (in my old campaign world, the Elemental Planes were inside of the planet itself, on a "moebius strip" configuration - actually more of a Klein Bottle, since it served as a prison for an Elder God but still), run with the current "official" one or backtrack and use a pre-existing one as they wish. Some of the fluff won't make sense - but again, that's the result of incorrect understanding at some point, not a "flaw" in the rules.
Tell that to your player characters, some of whom may have built relationships and/or cast from these now extremely perturbed, angry, or dead entities.
I can tell you right now, I have at least five PC's who, if their god died or became a servant, would suddenly say 'No, screw you, I'm gonna fix this.'
I have players who would walk away from their dieties because they were LIED to. Your strategy doesn't work because it assumes the existence of a mass media enterprise, but the reality is that Dungeons And Dragons doesn't have newspapers, a 7 o clock news, or any of the other things that lead to such. And angry high level clerics...well...they can do a lot more than cast spells.
Did you put all your points into Diplomacy? Do you have a wooden crate? See what happens when you proseletyze about the greatness of your god over and over. See how long that god stays a servant.
It doesn't WORK for existing games. Wizards is telling us to drop all our old games, not care, and !#$%!!#$$@@#! off. Players don't appreciate these sorts of things.
Plus, I don't appreciate being called an idiot for liking the 3e cleric.
I wonder.....if ENWorld and WOTC DIDN'T kybosh negative 4e. threads, would the "4e friendly" nature of those places prove illusory?
I was starting to wonder why there was no threads like "omg, wtf where my gnomes?!" on the wizards forums.
Jeese and I thought blizzard was bad.