Fourth Edition = Awesome


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Steve Greer wrote:
Mind you, that glut of new products accompanying the ushering in of 3rd Edition resulted in a huge amoung of CRAP. Hopefully, we've learned our lesson and the products we see this time will be much higher quality.

Don't hold your breath for quality. There are plenty of companies out there ready to unleash more crap than colony of monkeys!

They will be hoping to lure the money from the pockets of the gullible.

My advice, until a few months have passed, create your own adventures or adapt 3.5 stuff as there is plenty of that around.

On second thoughts, don't wait a few months, just make stuff up anyway.


BTW, if anyone wants to create a "4th e. = Pile of Crap," I promise to stay out of such a thread.

What I like about 4e:

Faster game play (i.e. no saving throws, no convoluted grapple systems)
Power distribution - more equal yet everyone has a specific role
New races - Like tieflings, verdict still out on dragonborn (but like the idea of a dragon race for PCs), like further high elf (eladrin) and wood elf differentiation, like halfling's new more realistic height
Spell casting - Wizards never run out of spells to use
Combat options for fighters - less "I hit", then "it hits", then "I hit", and more, "I attempt this power", "it deflects using this power", then "I try this new power"
Simplified attacks of opportunity
No rule-based alignment systems
Combat options separate from roleplay options (therefore combat powers are not gained to the detriment of roleplay powers and vice versa)
Feywild sounds fascinating, so does Shadowfell
The option (without the requirement) to enhance the game at various levels with online services
The new art is awesome
Magic items aren't as essential to buff up characters
Combat encounters are more dynamic with more monsters with different roles, environment is important, and traps can be an interesting factor
The game levels (heroic, paragon, epic) takes into account how the game changes at different levels
No Wish spells
Less preparation time
No life or death saving throws
Magic items in the PHB rather than DMG
Better differentiated devils vs. demons
The inclusion of Warlocks in the core books
Fewer and less rules involved skills
Dwarf women are allowed to be feminine
XP not required to make magic items
Game breaking spells are redesigned or eliminated
No schools of magic except as fluff
No five page NPC stats
"Points of light" allow for a lot of adventure, differentiating the citizen vs. the adventurer
Forgotten Realms will no longer require a PhD in FR lore to DM and NPCs will not be the heroes, PCs will


You know, I recently discovered that when I listed all the changes 4E is bringing to the game, I liked almost all of them (exceptions being changes in cosmology and the digital initiative). It's the attitude and marketing by the designers that gives me such a negative reaction. So, yeah, 4E will probably be very nifty. I just wish they'd stop hawking it like a used-car salesman making a hard sell.

What I like:

* Different power sources (I've had this in my games forever)
* Interesting abilities for each class (as long as it doesn't become the magic item christmas tree problem all over again)
* Dragonborn and tieflings are neat
* Amazing art (I'm a simple man and this sells me on a game)
* Simplified rules (if this is really true)
* Points of light setting
* More options for characters in a fight (as long as it doesn't degenerate into wargame tactics)
* Stunts, terrain, etc. from Iron Heroes


hmarcbower wrote:

Then the audacity of people to think that nobody should be allowed to post cons... it just rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyway, as you were... :)

I’m audacious. Yeah baby!

(seriously though, there is so much 4E bagging (from myself included), I had to step up and do a “feel-good”)


hmarcbower wrote:
Antioch wrote:

Power sources is basically a term that lets you know how the class does its stuff. The fighter has a martial power source, meaning that for all the things he does, its not magical per se. I dont think we'll be seeing Book of Nine Swords stuff from the fighter, since many of those maneuvers were supernatural in nature.

The other two out right now are arcane and divine.

There are several items in Races and Classes that indicate what you got in Bo9S is basically what you're going to get for the fighter class in 4e (obviously modified somewhat from that 3.x presentation).

Rob Heinsoo, in Races and Classes, wrote:


Baker, Donais, and Mearls translated current versions of the Orcus I mechanics into a last-minute revision of Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. It was a natural fit, since Rich Baker had already been treating the Book of Nine Swords as a "powers for fighters" project.
Rob Heinsoo, in Races and Classes, wrote:


Mike was fresh from adapting Orcus II ideas for Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords.
Orcus I and Orcus II were development phases in the rules which included classes and the powers they would have.

Various Book of Nine Swords mechanics are being used as a model for differing roles. White Raven maneuvers, for example, fit very well with leader roles and I can easily see both paladins and clerics getting some mileage out of them. Likewise, I can also see both classes getting some love from the Devoted Spirit discipline. However, both classes also rely more on a divine power source, and can thus get away with supernatural abilities so having a paladin do a "hit & heal" is more logical than, say, a fighter, who has a martial power source.

Mind you, Orucs I & II were design phases, and we dont know what kind of impact Book of Nine Swords had on that, what they used, what was kept, and what they did away with. We dont even know what from that book applied to which class.
Much of what I've heard from the fighter is the ability to deal out a lot of opportunity attacks in addition to being able to get a lot more out of their weapons than any other class can, not that they are going to summon fiery swords and fly around wuxia-style.

If we go waaaaaay back to one of the earlier Design & Development articles, we will stumble upon Martial Power Sources. To quote a line from the article:

"At low levels, martial characters have abilities that are impressive but don’t stretch the boundaries of what is or is not possible. Only at the highest levels do we see martial characters verging into the truly impossible acts of agility and strength attainable only in fiction."

Dark Archive

It's ironic that the biggest 'sell' for me from 2e to 3e was the articles in the Dragon that went class by class to discuss what was being changed.

It was the perfect platform to preview what they had in mind, and now they seem to be stuck with random ill-thought out dev posts scattered randomly around the internet, which, from a marketing standpoint, must be a nightmare.

They picked the exact wrong time to kill Dragon, methinks...


While I dont exactly like the idea of Dungeon and Dragon magazines being ported over to an online model, I DO like Pathfinder, and I'm not sure how difficult that would have been for Paizo to kick off had they still been pouring blood, tears, and first-borns into that.

Also, Pathfinder is a great campaign setting with a lot of great stuff in it, so it gives me something to run besides Age of Worms and Savage Tide.


Set wrote:

It's ironic that the biggest 'sell' for me from 2e to 3e was the articles in the Dragon that went class by class to discuss what was being changed.

It was the perfect platform to preview what they had in mind, and now they seem to be stuck with random ill-thought out dev posts scattered randomly around the internet, which, from a marketing standpoint, must be a nightmare.

They picked the exact wrong time to kill Dragon, methinks...

A bit of a threadjack, but I can't say I disagree. I think a lot of the 4e hate would be lessened if the magazines were still around.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Set wrote:
They picked the exact wrong time to kill Dragon, methinks...

QFT.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Set wrote:
They picked the exact wrong time to kill Dragon, methinks...
QFT.

Since it isn't technically a 4E bash, I think we can all agree that, "Holy crap what a stupid idea!"

Jon Brazer Enterprises

mwbeeler wrote:
Since it isn't technically a 4E bash, I think we can all agree that, "Holy crap what a stupid idea!"

Not a 4E bash at all. It's a WotC bash. That mag did 4-5 times more then their website replacement could. R&C is the only way they had to compensate for the loss of the mag. And frankly, I wouldn't buy it (even if I was in the pro-4E camp) because its nothing but a brochure. It will have NO use whatsoever 10 minutes after the core books are released. At least in Dragon, you still had other articles and such to make the mag useful after the new edition came out.

In short, pulling the licence now was a piss poor idea.


Set wrote:

It's ironic that the biggest 'sell' for me from 2e to 3e was the articles in the Dragon that went class by class to discuss what was being changed.

They picked the exact wrong time to kill Dragon, methinks...

Can't disagree with you there.

During the switch from 2e to 3e those articles were interesting reading.

Online bits and pieces just don't compare.

Dark Archive

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
In short, pulling the licence now was a piss poor idea.

Pulling the license 4-6 months after the 4E launch, just long enough to have introduced a half-dozen well-written articles with ideas that just didn't fit into the core books (such as an 'Ecology of the Tiefling' article that would help to give a little more in-depth background to this newish PC race) and a bunch of teases of what's coming up in the next run of Core books (Druids and Necromancers and Bards, etc.), to whet appetites for the next run of class and race options, *that* would have been brilliant, as it would have gotten everyone worked up, jazzed about the stuff they already had in their hot little hands (thanks to sexy write ups of newish stuff like Warlords and Dragonborn, helping people to find the 'hooks' in them), and yet also made it much easier to transition them to the Digital Initiative, as they wouldn't see WotC as abandoning the print edition just in time for the new edition (and unintentionally souring long-term fans who've been subscribers since issue 47 to the new 4E launch), so much as transitioning to the new model as part of the 4E launch. The fans would have already 'bought into' and invested in 4E before the transition to DI, so it would be *much* more palatable a 'sell' to move from print to web-based publishing.

But hey, I work in corporate America, so I'm very much aware that marketing people have an uncanny gift for doing the exactly perfect thing to piss off the greatest number of customers. Every company I've worked at, the marketing people stay up late selling products *that we don't make* (and quite often, that no human technology could possibly produce!) guaranteeing that the customer will be really, really pissed off to find out that we can't give him what he was promised by the well-groomed but clueless young professional in the nice office out front.


Set wrote:
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
In short, pulling the licence now was a piss poor idea.
Pulling the license 4-6 months after the 4E launch

I have no specific knowledge in the Dragon/Dungeon situation but I know some of the other licenses that they pulled back were timed like they were because they'd negotiated these contracts for a set amount of time and worded it in such a way that they would have to either renew the specific contract for the same period again or go back to square one and renegotiate from scratch.

As they didn't want the renewals to overlap their own projects and apparently lack the manpower/finances to engage in any contract discussions, they simply opted to cancel the contracts when they expired.

At least this is the impression I've been getting; the only license I've been "close" to is the Ravenloft one and I left the group that had it about four months before they signed it...

Dark Archive

crosswiredmind wrote:
I'll ad a vote for "no gnomes" as a very good thing.

It should be "gno gnomes".


DangerDwarf wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I'll ad a vote for "no gnomes" as a very good thing.
It should be "gno gnomes".

Did someone declare Gnome Pun Season?

Dark Archive

Gnope.


Where're y'all gettin' 'no gnomes' from?

They're gonna be in the Monster Manual with a "how to make a gnome PC" write-up. No need for yer dang third parties there.

Dark Archive

Whimsy Chris wrote:


Dwarf women are allowed to be feminine

Aye! I'll drink ta that!


Elves aren't the best at everything anymore. SIGN ME UP!

The Exchange

Another awesome aspect of 4E - the new art for female dwarves. They finally look like women.


Now I'd like to add:

Critical hits don't need a confirmation role and do maximum damage

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Set wrote:
Pulling the license 4-6 months after the 4E launch, ... *that* would have been brilliant

If you stop and think about it for a bit, pulling Dungeon and Dragon from Paizo is really where 90+% of all the 4E hate originates from. People talked about 4E and how its announcement is coming this year didn't have serious ground until the licences were pulled. Oh sure people like that paid attenction to the products they were announcing knew SOMETHING was coming and our collective best guess was 4E, but when WotC made a bold move of killing their own main source of communicating with the world told everyone that something HUGE was coming and that it was totally different then before.

Then they clammed up. They handled the licencing pulling poorly and then they didn't even try to allay people's fears. Yea WotC employees started appearing more on ENWorld, but that didn't really do much. Then they announced eDungeon and eDragon. The way they handled that gave people the impression that they didn't have a clue what they were going to do before pulling the licence and were now scrambling to get something to calm people down. That only served to make it look worse.

So when they finally got around to announcing 4E, people already started off feeling bad about it and WotC was starting 4E with a PR deficit, not a place where you want to be when rolling out a product that people's jobs depend on. They don't offer any new information in the last issue of print Dragon; eDragon has like half the info that print had and it is nowhere near the same quality.

Really, WotC's handling of 4E is pretty much a case study in what NOT to do.


Sebastian wrote:
Takasi wrote:
Grapple is AWESOME.

You go too far. Too far, I say.

How many casters have been tackled and restrained by loutish barbarians? How many imps have been pinned to the floor without even having an opportunity to poison and run away? How many bad guys have spent three turns using their action to break free, only to be grappled again, then dogpiled into oblivion.

So Antioch thinks grapple isn't effective enough to be worth attempting, and Sebastian thinks grapple is too effective.

Hmm. Methinks grapple is, like most tactical options in 3.5, pretty well-balanced. Sometimes, it's the right tool for the job (shutting down spellcasters), and sometimes it's not (grappling a troll like that idiot in the 4e announcement video). Personally, I like having the option available, and I lament that it is going to be changed or taken away from me in 4e because a bunch of dullards couldn't figure out how and when to use it properly.


Andrew Turner wrote:
mevers wrote:
.

I'm definitely in! And taking a look at Amazon's sales rankings of the 4e Core Books, the greater majority are with us.

I've had 4e Core on amazon pre-order for months to lock in lowest price

but I've I fully intend to Cancel before June 6 unless Wizards can convince me otherwise.


HolyInquisitor wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
mevers wrote:
.

I'm definitely in! And taking a look at Amazon's sales rankings of the 4e Core Books, the greater majority are with us.

I've had 4e Core on amazon pre-order for months to lock in lowest price

but I've I fully intend to Cancel before June 6 unless Wizards can convince me otherwise.

I'm all for trying something out, but we've all heard the story about friends jumping off high buildings. Amazon sales rankings mean next to nothing compared to quality.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Vegepygmy wrote:

So Antioch thinks grapple isn't effective enough to be worth attempting, and Sebastian thinks grapple is too effective.

Hmm. Methinks grapple is, like most tactical options in 3.5, pretty well-balanced. Sometimes, it's the right tool for the job (shutting down spellcasters), and sometimes it's not (grappling a troll like that idiot in the 4e announcement video). Personally, I like having the option available, and I lament that it is going to be changed or taken away from me in 4e because a bunch of dullards couldn't figure out how and when to use it properly.

I meant my post mostly in jest - I don't actually think grapple is too effective. Grapple, trip, and disarm are all nice combat options. If they were to be removed completely, I agree that it would be a step backward for the game. If they are simplified or replaced with different tactical options though, that could be good.*

*it could also be bad. there are more ways to do something wrong than to do something right.

The Exchange

I am a negative person (I call myself a Realist) but I will try because I want the DDI so badly.

Although individually most of these changes might be good, I think they are trying to make too many changes at once with not enough playtesting. The synergy effect of these 'individually' good changes might be broken but...

I like that the DDI will allow a seamless upgrade to the edition as improvements are identified. We will not need a Edition 4.5 or 5.0 since Edition 4.0 will smoothly evolve.

And we will be able to customize software to permanently kill Gnomes if a DM wants to.

And even the nay-sayers will be able to join down the line (with an extra helping of Sebastian's Humble Pie), because all future products will be easy to get electronically.

There I tried.


I dont think that grapple is completely worthless, I just think there are many instances where it is definately a tactically inferior combat choice, especially when you either have the option to make a full-round attack, or try to grapple them a couple times so that...what, other people can hit them better? The classes that can grapple the best often wont even need the bonus gained via grappling, and other classes suck to much in melee to grapple anything.

I think trip and disarm are much easier to execute and much more effective (tripped creatures have to burn an action to stand up unless they have a lot of Tumble, and if you disarm a creature...well, its pretty obvious).

I just thought of something about the whole D&D mythology debate. I dont see that "new" mythology as a re-understanding or a complete rebuilding of the D&D game into something "unrecognizable just to mess with the 3E grognards". I look at it as something just, new.
A lot of the mythology, as it were, hasnt changed, and people who played 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition know what its about. If they didnt change it, I'm sure a lot of people would gripe about the recycled fluff. Story is very easy to use, or lose, and the reality is that the default mythology wasnt used in its entirety in ANY 2nd Edition campaign setting, and was likewise not used in any 3rd Edition campaign setting.
Honestly, the changed story and titles shouldnt bother anyone, and its certainly not going to change anyone's campaigns unless you pathologically HAVE to follow whats written in the vanilla story.


I have been completley non-vocal on the whole 4E deal because, to be frank, i was tired of D&D. I was sick of the countless amounts of books and new character options that i felt rendered the old ones obsolete coming down the pipeline and i was ashamed at myself for buying into it and owning so much 3E. I started playing D&D in 2E and my group and i loved and craved it. I was impressionable at 14 when 3E came out and i purchased it immediately because it was new and fresh and i thought that 80s-90s fantasy was a bit hokey.
My girlfriend then, now my wife of 4 years, was interested in trying D&D out so i wrote up a brief fantasy setting that cut away all realism and earth-like stuff and the outcome was a small island setting full of gnomes, dwarves, elves, fairies, and woodland monsters. It had only one dragon (the enemy of the campaign that i felt was the perfect intro into D&D) and no humans or dirty gritty settlements. I named this picturesque high-fantasy wonderland Arko and it has been my passion, and that of my gaming groups, for the last 7 years. I have finally plugged it into D6 Fantasy which the absolute perfect fit for the setting imo.
I left D&D on the wayside when i saw that 3E didnt have that old school fantasy feel of the 80s and 90s, which i grew to love after delving further into the fantasy genre. It was a bit too gritty and angsty for my setting and the games i wanted to play. To be honest when i heard about 4E i thought, "Well, what do i care. I have Arko in D6 Fantasy and it wont be compatible with 4E anyway so ill just sit back and watch the lovers and haters gripe about the game since that is where i get my info rather than the clammed-up WOTC people."
If anything i was against 4E because i was against D&D.
But after reading this thread and really brainstorming i have come to the conclusion that it was D&D that got me into this fantasy genre so much that i adore. The works of Tolkien only inspired me so far but when i found out that i could make characters in fantasy settings and adventure i was hooked, and when i found that i could DM and run other heroes through a story of my own making i was enthralled. Hell, it was even D&D that created my Arko. And now i love all that "hokey" 80s and 90s fantasy. I think Willow and Legend are far superior to the LOTR movies and all these real-world-connected-to-a-fantasy-land-flicks. This new edition of D&D is very intriguing to me and from what ive heard you people say i will likely purchase them and use them as a tool to teach my kids (they're still too young damnit! Hurry and grow!)to play D&D like i did with my wife 7 yrs ago. Im glad heroes will be very ultra-heroic just like the characters in the old-school fantasy movies we watch and the 80s fantasy we read and i love the fluff and crunch (especially the magic system). Im not very keen on all the digital crap as I feel that having a computer at the game table detracts from the essence of pen and paper rpgs, but from what i understand all the digital stuff isnt mandatory anyways. To me 4E is very much still D&D and for some reason it gives me that weird excited feeling in my gut that i had when i first purchased the 2E rulebooks back in the day. Im ready for something new. My Arko setting will stay with D6 Fantasy but now i have the opportunity to create a whole new vibrant and rich world in which to introduce a new game group to rpgs. Sign me up for 4E!


I've just spent the Last 13 hours reading everything I could on 4e at Enworld;(It really is gonna be awesome!)
After falling asleep at my computer, I awoke in a pool of my own spittle and must say it's on, I want to play a Dragonborn, I'm just really amazed at how quickly I turned from anti-4'er to a Pro-4'er.

Dark Archive

Tobus Neth wrote:

I've just spent the Last 13 hours reading everything I could on 4e at Enworld;(It really is gonna be awesome!)

After falling asleep at my computer, I awoke in a pool of my own spittle and must say it's on, I want to play a Dragonborn, I'm just really amazed at how quickly I turned from anti-4'er to a Pro-4'er.

O.o

*head explodes*

Sovereign Court

mwbeeler wrote:

I ran out of ideas for titles. Bail me out here people.

Less stuff to carry around.
Quicker gameplay.
Less confusing grappling.
No Gnomes (you heard me).
Easier for younger players to understand (as a new parent, this might jive with me).
Rules intended for smooth integration with video games.

Discuss.

I don't agree with you at all. To me, 4e = Bleaaaargghhhh !

Less stuff to carry around.=> If you play with basic 3e core books you don't have this problem, and it's still great fun.

Quicker gameplay => Go ahead, make me laugh ! Judging from the WOTC preview, this is pure marketing talk.

Grappling : OK, this might be true. but Given that pretty much all the same is going to be confusing, this is not so good. how often do you use grappling anyways ? Personnally, I don't

No gnomes. Don't care, but you have stinking tieflings and Dragonborn as core. That's even worse.

Easier .... BWAHAHAHA !
Have you not noticed that younger people learn much more easily than older folk ? So if they CARE to learn, they will... that's the whole problem. I do not think that 4e will help any on this.

Video games ...
That one is more of a matter of personal taste. I lobve video games. I HATE MMOs. And yes I have tried them. I do not want that stench in my D&D. Especially, as there are much better video games out there.

So you raise some good questions, but I don't agree with you nonetheless. And NO, I won't ever spend one cent on any 4e product.


Stereofm wrote:
I don't agree with you at all.

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.

There is a mailbox here.

Open mailbox.

Inside the mailbox is a clue.

Get clue.

Dark Archive

Stereofm wrote:

Easier .... BWAHAHAHA !

Have you not noticed that younger people learn much more easily than older folk ?

Thats a pretty valid point.

Shadowrun 4e is billed a an "easier" system. It still hurts my brain.

Clunky previous editions of Shadowrun, I can run in my sleep.

Darn youngsters and their new-fangled brains.

Sovereign Court

Duncan Clyborne wrote:


I like that the DDI will allow a seamless upgrade to the edition as improvements are identified. We will not need a Edition 4.5 or 5.0 since Edition 4.0 will smoothly evolve.

Never seen problems in software updates so far ? New to computers ?

Duncan Clyborne wrote:

And even the nay-sayers will be able to join down the line (with an extra helping of Sebastian's Humble Pie), because all future products will be easy to get electronically.

Assuming we want them to begin with.

Sovereign Court

mwbeeler wrote:
Stereofm wrote:
I don't agree with you at all.

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.

There is a mailbox here.

Open mailbox.

Inside the mailbox is a clue.

Get clue.

If you expect any kind of undiluted 4e love from me, forget me. This will never happen. I would have loved the idea of a new edition, done properly.

This is not the case, so don't expect me to blindly love this thingie.

i read more of the thread later : you want something positive about 4e : I'll give you something : better traps. That's it. There is nothing else.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Another awesome aspect of 4E - the new art for female dwarves. They finally look like women.

BS. They oughta have beards. I never had so much fun as when I played Olia Ballstones, the eighth dwarf, and everyone kept thinking she was a guy.

Dark Archive

Bearded lasses are fer the circus and not fit fer me bed!


Tobus Neth wrote:

I've just spent the Last 13 hours reading everything I could on 4e at Enworld;(It really is gonna be awesome!)

After falling asleep at my computer, I awoke in a pool of my own spittle and must say it's on, I want to play a Dragonborn, I'm just really amazed at how quickly I turned from anti-4'er to a Pro-4'er.

So buy Races of the Dragon and play one in 3.5 - we've had that option for a long time...


Stereofm wrote:
you want something positive about 4e : I'll give you something : better traps. That's it. There is nothing else.

Thanks :)

That's all I want. Just one happy, gripe free thread. Not too much to ask. Sorry for the harshness.


DangerDwarf wrote:
Stereofm wrote:

Easier .... BWAHAHAHA !

Have you not noticed that younger people learn much more easily than older folk ?

Thats a pretty valid point.

Shadowrun 4e is billed a an "easier" system. It still hurts my brain.

Clunky previous editions of Shadowrun, I can run in my sleep.

Darn youngsters and their new-fangled brains.

I didn't know 4e ShadowRun was all that different. I had the 1E one and flipped through the 2E when it was on the shelf. It looked to me to be the exact same thing. Right down to the art. Some games just don't change much from edition to edition.

CyberPunk (2020)was like that from it's first edition to the second. It just had a lot more detail, background, and other 'flavor' offerings in the second edition. But, I looked at the newest edition and it was totally different.

The Exchange

Stereofm wrote:
Duncan Clyborne wrote:


I like that the DDI will allow a seamless upgrade to the edition as improvements are identified. We will not need a Edition 4.5 or 5.0 since Edition 4.0 will smoothly evolve.

Never seen problems in software updates so far ? New to computers ?

Duncan Clyborne wrote:

And even the nay-sayers will be able to join down the line (with an extra helping of Sebastian's Humble Pie), because all future products will be easy to get electronically.

Assuming we want them to begin with.

Hey, I was being sincere. If they launch this thing a little out of balance, they can fix it mid-stream without hassle. This I see as the greatest strength of 4.0. Re-read the thread and I think is one of 4.0 greatest strong points. This is why I want DDI. I don't want to keep figuring out which set of Polymorp rules I should use in 3.5. And my computer does not help me in 3.5. So ;p.


I don't see how the computer and DnD Insider are going to allow "seamless" integration to rule changes and whatnot. It's not like the PHB is going to be online and you can download patches that are going to rewrite your PHB for you and note the changes. You're still going to have to print out and keep whatever changes they make, which out to be really fun to sort through dozens of pages of errata and changes. Hmm - the same as the DnD website has now. Except you have to sign up to DnD Insider now whereas before DnD Insider you just clicked on it. This is just more propaganda about how "great" 4th will be.


Kruelaid wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Another awesome aspect of 4E - the new art for female dwarves. They finally look like women.
BS. They oughta have beards. I never had so much fun as when I played Olia Ballstones, the eighth dwarf, and everyone kept thinking she was a guy.

The thing I love about the bearded dwarven women concept are the number of jokes it's spawned.

From Terry Pratchett's "Dwarven mating rituals revolve around trying to subtly discover the gender of one's intended partner" to the old Judge's Guild module that has the Sage E. Gory Greyaxe trying to hire adventurers to track down the existence of the "Fabled bearded dwarven women."

It doesn't matter one way or the other if dwarven women are SUPPOSED to have beards or not - one campaign WILL rule one way, another the other. It has no effect on game play (unles someone inserts a trap that sets fire to beards or some such), so really isn't even fluff-worthy, IMO.
And 3E is what shaved them, IIRC (well, officially; 2e implied they didn't have facial hair while 1e implied they did but never really stated it, IIRC).


Barrow Wight wrote:
I don't see how the computer and DnD Insider are going to allow "seamless" integration to rule changes and whatnot. It's not like the PHB is going to be online and you can download patches that are going to rewrite your PHB for you and note the changes.

Actually, they're implying this WILL be the case, with the "e-book" versions. Which you can use in an electronic format very easily - just lug a laptop along to the game (I've taken to doing this at conventions anyway) or game at home to look up the latest version "at need."

Provided, of course, your subscription is paid up...

Jon Brazer Enterprises

nrtrandahl wrote:
But after reading this thread and really brainstorming i have come to the conclusion that it was D&D that got me into this fantasy genre so much that i adore.

I hope 4E works out well for you.

Sovereign Court

mwbeeler wrote:
Stereofm wrote:
you want something positive about 4e : I'll give you something : better traps. That's it. There is nothing else.

Thanks :)

That's all I want. Just one happy, gripe free thread. Not too much to ask. Sorry for the harshness.

No need to apologize. I am overly tense myself on this issue, and sorry if I bugged you unduly.

There is something else : the revision of the diplomacy rules. I don't know much about it, but I believe it could be good. That's all I can offer, I am afraid.

Sovereign Court

Hey, I was being sincere. If they launch this thing a little out of balance, they can fix it mid-stream without hassle. This I see as the greatest strength of 4.0. Re-read the thread and I think is one of 4.0 greatest strong points. This is why I want DDI. I don't want to keep figuring out which set of Polymorp rules I should use in 3.5. And my computer does not help me in 3.5. So ;p.

Ah I get carried over way too much on this subject. I did not want to offend you, but I think I could use more ranks in etiquette.

I understand why you would want this, but I don't trust them to deliver what they promise given their current record.


Vegepygmy wrote:
So Antioch thinks grapple isn't effective enough to be worth attempting, and Sebastian thinks grapple is too effective.

I think Sebastian was just being sarcastic.

101 to 150 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Fourth Edition = Awesome All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.