Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Wow. This is really interesting. Thanks for posting it.
I like and respect Mike Mearls. He is a product of the d20 license and the OGL, and was really the first "from out of nowhere" freelancer to arise from the minor leagues, establish a reputation for himself on the internet, and graduate to the lofty RPG R&D department at Wizards of the Coast. It's exactly where he belongs, and Mike would probably have been the first person I'd have contacted were I in charge of redesigning D&D. Well, ok, the second person, because the real first person I'd talk to would be James Jacobs.
But Mike is right up there. His work on Iron Heroes was paradigm-shifting, and while I haven't spent much time with the Book of Nine Swords I know he was heavily involved in that product, probably for the better.
Which is a long way of saying that I think Mike Mearls' opinion on D&D is extremely significant, and very much worth strong consideration.
With that said, I'd like to muse about a few of Mike's observations.
Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
100% agreed.
I think those of us who played first edition have missed the ease and speed of play of that edition when playing 3.x, even while we appreciate the current system's flexibility. In the final analysis I think the game benefits when there is less hand-waving, and I know for a fact a game that has an answer for just about every question is qualitatively better for huge organized play campaigns. The more everyone plays by "the same rules" the stronger and more compatible the social network that makes D&D possible. I am looking forward to a 4e that makes the game easier to set up (and write and edit) without sacrificing the specificity of the current rules set.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
I guess. High-level games do get a bit cumbersome, especially in campaigns plagued by power-gamers, but I don't think low-level D&D sucks as bad as the design staff over at WotC seems to.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
I think by "swingy" Mike means that the difference between success and catastrophic failure flip-flops too easily, which essentially means that it's too easy for things to go disastrously wrong for low-level PCs. I view that as a feature of low-level play. When I started playing D&D the fear of death was a constant in just about every game session. It's the tension that runs the engine, in my opinion. In fact, I think death is better in low-level play, because it emphasizes the deadliness of the world by sacrificing a character that the player has not yet grown too attached to. It's also scarier because for the first few levels the character might not be "worth raising" yet, which means dead is dead. I consider that a feature of not just 3.5, but of every single edition of the game.
It's possible (even probable) that Mike meant something other than "easy at one moment, disastrous at another" when he said "swingy." I don't know. I'm not hip with the WotC lingo anymore.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
This is true, of course, but it doesn't generally produce wonkier results than balancing an encounter "by eye" or flipping to a random page of the Monster Manual and pointing your finger, which was the traditional method. And sometimes that traditional method made for a fun, exciting game. I appreciate that wotC is trying to fix this, but I am very skeptical that it's possible to create an encounter balance system that works unerringly, especially as the system swells with a half-decade of ill-considered expansion powers, feats, prestige classes, etc.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
I don't disagree with Mike here at all, but I did want to point out that subconsciously at least I'm enough of a grognard that I do not consider "warrior-wizards" to be a classic trope. I am hard pressed to come up with a legitimate example from the literature and cultural source material I draw upon when thinking about D&D. Interesting.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
I think that _certain_ characters (clerics, fighters) have too few skill points, but I suspect the real problem here is that there are skill points at all. There is likely a much more elegant way of handling this, and I have heard rumors that 4e will not include them per se.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
Certain lame, ill-edited monsters are unnecessarily complicated. Dragons are unnecessarily complicated. Having to figure out how many ranks of Climb a bullette has is overly complicated. That said, I think this is a problem that Wizards is over-emphasizing to "prove" how crappy the system they've been selling for a decade is. I am not 100% buying this line of attack.
10. You don't get enough feats.
I am ambivalent on this point. I think feats increase the amount of stuff you have to keep track of on your character sheet, which I think is part of what makes high-level combat more complicated than it should be. If you have 20 different minor combat modifiers for a feat at every level, I can see how that might make going up in level fun (yay, a reward!). I can also see how it might make each round more dynamic and interesting, but at a certain point players are going to have to hold a fan of cards in their hands just to keep track of all the little combat jukes they can do. I'm happy to publish such a product, but in the end I'm not sure that it's fair to bemoan complexity in certain areas of the current game while exploding an overabundance of options and complexity in others.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
Not really. You lose a lot more than you gain in the way of special combat maneuvers and stuff by doing dropping them, but if it's all really so complex how about just making it an optional rule?
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
So?
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Yeah, I agree with that 1000%, although I think certain little sub-systems have their charms.
More to the point, Krypter said:
I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented.
And that's the rub, really.
--Erik
|
Swingy is when a random effect has a very strong change to the game. Critical hits at low levels are swingy because they change the result from "take some damage" to (generally) "die." 3e sleep was a very swingy spell because it could easily result in a one sided encounter. x3 crits are more swingy than x2 crits. Etc.
swingy.
|
I'm enough of a grognard that I do not consider "warrior-wizards" to be a classic trope.
Mona makes Gandalf angry!
;D
Erik Mona wrote:
Krypter wrote:I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented.
And that's the rub, really.
--Erik
as the kids say, QFT.
Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
Some people have fun with this, others don't. Provide a huge book of pregenerated NPCs and sell it to the ones that find it boring. If the book doesn't sell well, then hell, that means people DO like making NPCs.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
The fault of you guys at WotC, fix it in 3rd Edition, no need to develop a whole new edition cause you screwed up on the low and epic level parts. Fix it!.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
Anything in any game is swingy. What the hell?
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
Again, your fault. Should've had it fixed during 3rd Edition's SEVEN years.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
No one feels that way that I know of. Because spellcasters, I dunno, RUN OUT OF SPELLS! People still play non-spellcasters because of that balance.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
It worked just fine, what the hell is he talking about? Warrior/Wizard did not need new core classes. Ugh, the fool. Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorcerer had no problems.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
WHAT!? I'd have to say they have TOO many skill points, honestly. Besides, a character shouldn't MASTER everything, or even be remotely mediocre at everything. What's the point of skills, then, if everyone is good at everything?
And, I like skill points. So do my players. I HATE condensed skills. Just because you've trained yourself to notice things better does not mean you've trained yourself to also Sense Motive better, or hear things better, or search better. Just because you move as quiet as a cat does not mean you can hide like a chameleon. Also, skill points show the variety of skill level that I enjoy. I may be good at, say, jumping, but Bob is the BEST at jumping (due to his higher level, Skill Focus, etc.), and Joe is a little better (he has 2 more skill points), while Sandra is a little worse than me (2 points less), etc. etc.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
Really? Guess he isn't playing his monsters right. I pre-plan my monster's attack routine, like a good and smart DM. I have a blast with the monsters.
10. You don't get enough feats.
Wrong, Mike, you offered so many feats that people think 7 feats within 20 levels is too little. Again, a problem you could've easily fixed in 3rd Edition.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
No one I know ever had a problem with AoO. Seriously, how hard is it to figure out AoO? Took me, I dunno, a few weeks maybe?
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
Who cares? That's the player's problem to figure out.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Grappling is unneccessary? What if the warrior wants to wrestl the mage so he doesn't cast a spell, or hold down an enemy so they don't attack the other party members? Or if a giant wants to throw one of the PCs? It's a NECESSARY element of the game.
There's more, but I'm tired, and I have more weird analogies to dream up.
More like he's loaded on crack or something.
But when it comes to magic items, I honestly don't see what the problem is. If you don't want the player characters in your campaign to have rings, cloaks, and permanent buffers, then:
(a) make them very rare to find, and unavailable for purchase, or
(b) make them very expensive. I found that, by making ability raising items cost 8000, 64,000, and 216,000 gp for +2, +4, and +6 bonuses, I let my players know that they couldn't rely on finding / buying / making such items.It's your campaign. Nobody makes you put treasure places.
And I admit that I remember a different AD&D than you do. I remember a game where magic items were the only thing differentiating two 12th Level fighters with 15 STR, whether 1st or 2nd Edition. (Take a look at some old AD&D write-ups of PC's -- such as the old "Rogue's Gallery" supplement. Those characters had some serious loot.)
The issue comes when you realize that after a certain level, in order for the PC to stay "relevant", they need those items.
For a high-level character to have an AC high enough so that creatures of their CR don't auto-hit, or an attack bonus high enough to ensure they can hit the monster, or even have saves good enough to not fail on anything less than a natural 20, they need, in 3.x, magic items that enhance their combat-relevant stats. It's not a guesstimation, or much of an opinion, but the way the system is built.
Try running a party of 20th level PCs without any magic gear against a CR 20 monster, and see how quickly they fall. In fact, some of the higher-level monsters (Outsiders and Dragons for instance) require magic items in order to harm them. I personally have seen a group of 4 Gelugons butcher a 16th level party, because the party didn't have Good-aligned weapons. That wouldn't have happened in an earlier edition, unless the DM didn't want the party to have mere +2 weapons.
Sure, it's just about inevitable that high-level adventurers are going to have boat loads of loot, but how much of it is actually "combat-useful" in earlier editions? A mug that fills with cold beer upon command isn't going to see any use in combat (unless you're a Drunken Master), but I imagine any dwarven adventurer worth his beard is going to be willing to pay for one.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Hmm. Iconic warrior-wizards. Elric comes to mind, and Yrkoon, but they weren't really wizards the way we think about wizards. I don't count Gandalf, because he wasn't really much of a wizard.
Mages not being able to fight has been in fantasy for a long ways back. And I'm not sure mages need to be both be able to fight well and be good at magic. That seems a bit Waldorf to me.
|
|
Ironically, or not, I read that Elric was designed in dimetric opposition to the classic "stupid Conan guy" type fantasy hero.
Still, the motif hearkens back to Egil's Saga; I think the guys in Kalevala were into the warrior/mage thing, it's a legitemate motif in fantasy or myth.
I think he was talking about 1e days, not sure though; the f/mu elf was a staple back then.
|
|
Since all the cool kids are doing it, I'll give my opinion...
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
Yup. Part of the reason I'm much more likely to use (and buy) pre-written adventures these days.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12..
I'd say 1 to 12, 13 or so ... same with 2nd edition really.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
So I hear ... never run any in 3.x
4. Low level games are swingy.
Now that I think I understand what this means ... this is bad why?
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
It's not that confusing. I'm certain there's room for improvement though.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
Not sure I agree with this, though it's probably more true at higher levels. Maybe they should be? At their best, they tend to be in a lot of fantasy literature ... doesn't make for a well balanced game though. But do they really under the current core rules?
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
Somewhat agree ... but ... is this a bad thing? (Besides, with all the extra classes in various books, we've got warrior-wizards etc. covered)
8. Characters have too few skill points.
For the most part I agree.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
Some are. Some aren't.
10. You don't get enough feats.
Somewhat agree ... maybe there are just too many feats?
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
They're really not.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
Um ... so?
Well, to be fair the importance of magical items does have a negative impact on certain styles of game.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
It could be streamlined, or more simply explained ... but it's not THAT complex ... not hard to understand or remember if you make a bit of an effort.
Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorcerer had no problems.
Until the Fighter 10/Wizard 10 tries casting a spell that checks against SR on a CR 20 monster, like a Balor (SR 28), and then his offensive, opponent-targeting spells are useless.
|
Fine, 3E is broken.
Fine, 4E will improve many things.
Fine.
This does not change the fact that WotC cancelled the mags and angered much of their fan base.
This does not change the fact that WotC mislead its fanbase about when a 4E (perhaps $E) would be designed.
This does not change the fact that WotC insulted a great many of its customers in its botched transition-stage PR campaign.
This does not change the fact that WotC is changing well developped, used, and often beloved Fluff.
Fine. I will not support WotC.
-W. E. Ray
First:
>I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented.
That's an unfair criticism since he's said time and again that his area is mechanics, not story, and as such he's not the person to ask about that issue.
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
Which is why I assiduously avoid it in toto by either making everything up on the fly or using NPCs from printed adventures. The time spent doing this activity far outweighs the time the NPC is used at the table, by and large.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
The only thing to quibble about are the actual numbers but there's little denying that D&D breaks at high level. Some say "high" is 12, others 15, but the jury is in that the closer you get to 20 the worse things are.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
For both PCs and DMs, it's true.
4. Low level games are swingy.
I haven't personally found that to be the case but that's how I run my D&D, I guess.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
It's not confusing--it's unfathomable. It's made up.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
Certainly not at low- to mid-level play--which is where the majority of D&D games are played.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
The certain combinations comment is absolutely true.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
Given the current skills and skills system, that's true. PCs don't have access to skills that are necessary for roleplaying. It sequesters fighters, in particular, do doing almost nothing skill-related and other classes toward pushing the game toward skill checks. Everyone should have the same skill points--skills should not be a balancing factor.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
See 1, above.
10. You don't get enough feats.
See 8, above.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
I wouldn't have thought so but I keep hearing, repeatedly, that they actually are so I'm willing to go with the masses and agree.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
The problem with magic items goes far beyond this.
You know magic items are broken in D&D when you'd literally sacrifice your life to avoid having your armor smashed. You can be back from the dead within seconds, but replacing your high-level gear is practically impossible because the cost is fantastically prohibitive.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Obviously true, I think.
I did want to point out that subconsciously at least I'm enough of a grognard that I do not consider "warrior-wizards" to be a classic trope. I am hard pressed to come up with a legitimate example from the literature and cultural source material I draw upon when thinking about D&D. Interesting.
You're accurate in describing this perspective as grognardian. A warrior-wizard is a classic--expected--trope and one that 3e penalizes you for trying to play. That framework is out of place in a modern fantasy RPG.
I think the potential player of today is drawing upon a different set of classics than someon over 35 who's playing the game now. I think it's something the current re-designers have taken into account as evidenced by their promised reduction nearly to the point of irrelevancy of the Vancian system.
A new player's classics are Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy, anime, and a novel here and there (or manga). As such, the idea of wizard running out of spells by 9:03 a.m. or a wizard not having a staff is an anathema (and Gandalf in the movies had both). In the media they already consume, it's not uncommon for a fighter to cast a spell or a spellcaster to defend themselves with a sword.
Instead they (hopefully) want to play in a game where they get to take what they're familiar with and expand on that and realize their ultimate character in a game they control, which is D&D's best--and only--strength.
In the media they already consume, it's not uncommon for a fighter to cast a spell or a spellcaster to defend themselves with a sword.
I am not trying to claim your wrong...
But this doesn't help defend the game much.
It was bad enough when 4th Edition felt a little too much like WoW. This description made DragonBall Z and Street Fighter come to mind.
Your spin may be accurate, but it is hardly a defense to some.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
A bunch of stuff.
Hey, Razz, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but could you please tamper down the personal attacks? Agree with him or not, Mike Mearls is a good guy and accusing him of smoking crack and the like is way more vitriol than the situation warrants.
Please take it down a notch.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I think the potential player of today is drawing upon a different set of classics than someon over 35 who's playing the game now. I think it's something the current re-designers have taken into account as evidenced by their promised reduction nearly to the point of irrelevancy of the Vancian system.
I think that is true, but then I am also enough of a literary snob to sniffle at your use of the word "classic," but again that's just a reminder of how I am getting old and cantankerous.
I like the Vancian system, but in fact the fire-and-forget method of spellcasting is almost unique to his writings in the canon of fiction that inspired D&D. I have no problem with a spell system that allows for spontaneous casting (say, for example, the sorcerer), but so far throughout the whole history of D&D such systems were attached to a system rooted in the Vancian assumption.
I dunno. Speaking as a grognard the idea of spells with names and sometimes with the names of powerful wizards grafted onto them is more important to me than how many times they can be cast per day or how you regain them or whatever. I'm interested to see other approaches for sure. This isn't really a sticking point for me.
That said, I think some of the standard rules assumptions that have lasted the game the whole time it's existed come dangerously close to the "IP" of the game, and their whittling away is a potential threat to converting the 3.5 audience. This is the whole "will it still feel like D&D" thing. I _assume_ that the answer to this question is that it will still feel like D&D, and to some degree I think the challenge of the WotC design team was to "fix" the game and make it a better business and honestly attempt to innovate as much as possible while still retaining that sense of D&D-ness.
I think most of the anti-4e anxiety is coming from people who are afraid it won't feel like the game they have played for most of their lives.
If the game is awesome and assuages those fears, that sentiment is going to shift swiftly and resoundingly.
I think most of the anti-4e anxiety is coming from people who are afraid it won't feel like the game they have played for most of their lives.
If the game is awesome and assuages those fears, that sentiment is going to shift swiftly and resoundingly.
When I read their posts at wizards.com I just doesn't feel like the DnD that I've played the last decade and a half. I hit someone and everyone gets healed?
But maybe I am wrong and it is really cool.
Back to the 13 points:
I like statting NPC's
There are enough feats as is
More skillpoints would be nice
Never done high level play
I like the swingy low level feel
AoO are easy
Grappling is easy
There isn't a spellcaster in the world that can't be killed by a sword ;>
Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Late to the show, but still:
1. There are programs for that2. Maybe.
3. That´s pretty much the nature of the beast, due to the multitude of options.
4. A good DM can handle the problems.
5. The CR system is indeed not all it could be - but then, a good DM can handle that as well.
6. I don´t think so.
7. That is indeed true for some combos. Well, you could argue that broadening your focus means that you are not as good in your chosen fields.
8. Easily houseruled.
9. Depends - some are, some are not. Depends on the DMs style and preferences.
10. This seems so due to the multitude of feats available.
11. I don´t think so.
12. What´s the point? Not everything needs to be equal or balanced.
13. I think they are not overly complex, but rather seldom used and thus misunderstood.
I concede that there are some problems with 3.5, but nothing as big as to warrant a complete new edition. Most of the points could well have been adressed with the next step in evolution of the game.
And many of the problems seem to stem from an unwillingness to truly make the game your own. Face it, no rulesystem is perfect for everyone, and you need to change a few things here and there to make it fit for your preferences.
If to have to use the RAW, like in a living game, then you have to accept rules you don´t like - but this won´t change with any edition of the game.
just my 2c.
Stefan
Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorcerer had no problems.Until the Fighter 10/Wizard 10 tries casting a spell that checks against SR on a CR 20 monster, like a Balor (SR 28), and then his offensive, opponent-targeting spells are useless.
Unless he uses spells that ignore SR (Evard's black tentacles, the orb spells, etc.)... If the fighter 10/wizard 10 has prepared well, then his spells will be relevant; if a wizard 20 has prepared poorly (all electricity and fire spells, for instance), then his spells will be just as useless.
|
|
Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
-> Sometimes. Only for important NPCs. For other, you just grab common coherent feats, mention only important skills (spot, listen, sense motive & a few others).
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
-> I never went higher... yet.
However, I do find low level exciting.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
-> ?? don't know. Probably, but it has always been more difficult to run an encounter with several demons of CR12+ than an encounter with a bunch of orcs or goblins (even with the 1st or 2nd edition).
4. Low level games are swingy.
-> low level are nice.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
-> not that much once you get used to it.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
-> not at all levels. Besides, some players don't like to play spellcasters and don't mind being outclassed. Also, a good balanced party is essential to the game.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
-> they created those : duskblade, warmage, beguiler, spellthief. if you add prestige classes, you can find almost everything.
Just work with your DM if there need to have a little twist to fit right.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
-> I do have to agree, since I think the same.
However, it's not that difficult to say : +2 skill points at each level (i.e. +8 at 1st level). Does that change need a complete new rule ?
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
-> Nope !?!
10. You don't get enough feats.
-> Yes, I do think the same also. See point 8. Easy to change : +1 feat at first for background, and choose another advancement (ex : keep 1 feat every 3 lvl, add a feat at 4 / 11 / 18, or 2 / 7 / 12 / 17, as agreed with your DM).
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
-> No. Players need to read the rules to avoid them.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
-> It has always been like this. However, some items are not powerful or spectacular, but very useful : murlynd's spoon, Heward's handy haversack and so on...
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
-> every DM can work on this : grappling, sundering, pining, hardness, tripping, and even DR, are the rules I find the most complex.
However, I can live with that.
Do those points really need a brand new system ?
Because I know that other problems will appear with a new system...
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
If you build one from scratch, it's somewhat complex, true. IMO, that's a consequence of the level of detail that 3.x allows. However, the "typical" NPCs in the DMG and pregenerated NPCs in modules and supplements are available for most circumstances.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
Perhaps. A lot depends on the players and DM.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
To an extent. However, if the DM and the players prepare ahead of time and familiarize themselves with the options/rules/spells that they will be using, this is not a huge issue.
4. Low level games are swingy.
This is one of the defining characteristics of both low-level AND high-level play. At low level, the threat of death for inexperienced adventurers and the importance of luck should be part of the game, IMO.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
Perhaps. It's a major improvement from previous editions, though. They need to convince people that 4e won't be just as bad.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
It depends on the situation. Spellcasters tend to be more powerful in some situations and less powerful in others; non-spellcasters are more uniformly useful in most circumstances.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
Which have already been covered in the SRD, under the optional rules (alternate classes, class abilities, etc.). A battle sorcerer makes a pretty decent warrior-wizard, especially with the metamagic variant from PHB II (trade the ability to gain a familiar for the ability to apply metamagic feats to spells without taking a full action).
8. Characters have too few skill points.
More accurately, some classes have too few skill points. This can easily be house-ruled to give starting characters "background/regional" skills, though.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
Some are and some aren't. Similar to NPCs, it depends on how much detail the DM wishes to define and how much pregenerated material is used.
10. You don't get enough feats.
I think it's about right. Similar to skills, this can easily be house-ruled to give characters "background/regional" feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
Not really.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
To some extent, the importance of magic items in the CR system is annoying. A DM can adjust the encounters to some extent if running a low-magic game, but there's a lot of guesswork involved.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Only if you use them without being familiar with them.
|
|
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
I see a lot of people responding to this one with either:
A. Buy a program to do it.
B. Buy a book / module / supplement / that has that stuff already in it an you won't have to.
Am I really supposed to believe that while previous editions were bad because of convoluted systems, it is something that should be accepted in 3e?
If it can be improved, why begrudge it?
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorcerer had no problems.Until the Fighter 10/Wizard 10 tries casting a spell that checks against SR on a CR 20 monster, like a Balor (SR 28), and then his offensive, opponent-targeting spells are useless.
..so he draws his sword and takes it on that way...
I think most of the anti-4e anxiety is coming from people who are afraid it won't feel like the game they have played for most of their lives.
That's definitely part of it, but the main thing is that not only will the game feel differently and the fluff will be different, but it looks like it will be incompatible with the numerous adventures, sourcebooks, and settings that were developed for 3.5 (of which I have many) and earlier.
If 4E was designed with one of the goals being to make the adaptation of the 3.5 player easy, then I'd be feeling a whole lot more positive about it. Instead, it's turning me off.
|
|
Ok, there are some problems ans quirks with 3.5 that could be addressed and fixed in a 3.75 version of the game.
BUT
WOC wants to sell Stuff. Many gamers are heavily invested in 3rd edition and there is not much room for further complete books etc.
AND
Most gamers would probably only but the PHB and get the rest of the fixes out of the SRD.
SO
It was nessessary to produce another edition that differs fundamentally in its mechanics from the previous one.
Now all the complete books, Spell companions etc. can be sold anew.
AND
To discourage using the Fluff of 3d edition books and only change the mechanics they had to change some of the Fluff.
So now a new Manual of the Planes can be sold and a new Demon and Devil book can be sold etc.
IMHO some the changes done in 4th in the game mechanics and the flavor of the game were only done so 4th differs enough from 3rd to make most of the 3rd products obsolete.
That is not evil, that is business.
But I do not have to like it.
Am I really supposed to believe that while previous editions were bad because of convoluted systems, it is something that should be accepted in 3e?
Convoluted systems are not bad per se IMHO - I played Rolemaster many years back and enjoyed it. If systems get needlessly complicated, or if subsystems are badly integrated into the main system, that should be changed and improved.
In older editions, I missed a working skill system. I know the proficiency system in 2e, and the skills (or whatever they were called) in Basic D&D - these are what I consider badly integrated subsystems. The skill system of 3.x is basically one I like, and consider well integrated, and an improvement. Yes, it is quite complicated and takes some time to do manually. So, for a system I consider good if involved, I´m willing to accept needing helping tools to speed up the process.
Pretty much the same goes for feats.
And hp, ac, to-hit bonuses and damage needs to be calculated for any edition of the game, so this is not a critizism of 3.x only. Not to mention the need to look up the saving throw tables for the older games - in that regard, I consider 3e stat blocks an improvement.
Stefan
Regarding the CR system, while it is an improvement of previous editions, often confused and complained about stuff like associated/disassociated class levels and NPC level=CR are part and parcel of the core system...just food for thought when people say that the CR system does not have any problems as RAW.
|
|
Convoluted systems are not bad per se IMHO - I played Rolemaster many years back and enjoyed it. If systems get needlessly complicated, or if subsystems are badly integrated into the main system, that should be changed and improved.
Rolemaster was awesome.
But yes, I understand some folks enjoy that level of thing, and while it is not for me I can still respect that.
But, for the examples in my last post, those people are not arguing that they like complex systems, they are basically saying yeah, its rough but thats why you buy either a program to do it or buy books and use those NPC's. That is just not a compelling argument for me. In fact, that is more of an argument against the NPC system.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Convoluted systems are not bad per se IMHO - I played Rolemaster many years back and enjoyed it. If systems get needlessly complicated, or if subsystems are badly integrated into the main system, that should be changed and improved.Rolemaster was awesome.
But yes, I understand some folks enjoy that level of thing, and while it is not for me I can still respect that.
But, for the examples in my last post, those people are not arguing that they like complex systems, they are basically saying yeah, its rough but thats why you buy either a program to do it or buy books and use those NPC's. That is just not a compelling argument for me. In fact, that is more of an argument against the NPC system.
One resource that seems to be overlooked is the section in the back of the Dungeon Master's Guide that contains tons of NPC stats, skills, and even equipment. I use that as a resource when I need a quick NPC. All I have to do is come up with a background and motivation, and I'm good to go!
I think most of the anti-4e anxiety is coming from people who are afraid it won't feel like the game they have played for most of their lives.
That's definitely part of it, but the main thing is that not only will the game feel differently and the fluff will be different, but it looks like it will be incompatible with the numerous adventures, sourcebooks, and settings that were developed for 3.5 (of which I have many) and earlier.
If 4E was designed with one of the goals being to make the adaptation of the 3.5 player easy, then I'd be feeling a whole lot more positive about it. Instead, it's turning me off.
To me, the mechanics aren't terribly important. If I can Conquest of the Bloodsworn Vale and use it in WEG D6 Fantasy and all I have to do is generate new stats for the NPCs and find something close as far as spells go, and it doesn't feel shoehorned, that's good enough for me. IMO, it'll feel shoehorned so I don't do that.
My problem is with 4E is that it will feel shoehorned. I can't make the same character right out of the gate since there won't be a half-orc or druid. Wizards can cast spells at will; what about druid? Will they be better fighters or better spellcasters?
Mearls list of mechanics changes don't bother me. They can change all the mechanics they want, as long as I can still play in old adventures and they feel the same. Everything I am seeing says, I can't do that.
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
>>> It is certainly for important and detailed NPCs, but you can go faster on minor NPCs (by maxing skills) and it's not as if there was not any excel sheet to help you create NPCs. An,yway, this is a common problem of all systems with complex skill (anyone wants to create a NPC for RoleMaster ?)
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
>>> The game is fine from level 1 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
>>> I'm not the best person to give an opnion on high level games, but it is surely slower
4. Low level games are swingy.
>>> Yes they are and they must remain !!!! In a game, if PCs can do everything without facing the sometimes deadly consequences of their acts, they wil start to act stupidly and ruin the game.
So the "swingyness" is a result of this but it is not such a big flaw. Don't forget that all heroes first started as normal people, then faced danger and managed to survive. That is how you became a true hero !!!
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
>>> The CR system works well but too often DMs only see the CR of a monster and don't check if this monster has an ability thaht his PCs can't handle. Let's imagine a level 2 party without magic weapon or a source of magic damage facing a shadow => TPK to come.
"I don't understand boys !! It's only a CR3 monster, you should deal with it easily ..."
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
>>> Yes and no !! Spellcasters will rule as long as you don't push them to their limit : if your spellcasters use their most powerful spells as soon as they can and the party stops to rest just after to let him retrieve these spells (the famous 5-minute work day), then the spellcasters will rule withyout contestation.
On the other hand, if your spellcasters use their spells with precaution, to last as much as they can, every one in the party will shine.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
>>> I completely disagree : multiclassing works perfectly in 3.X !! The only problem is that some people want to have the strength of a monoclass in their 2 classes. As we say in France, "You can't have the butter, the money of the butter and the smile of the dairyman"
8. Characters have too few skill points.
>>> The main problem is that some classes have too few interesting class skills (like fighter : climb, jump, swim, ride, handle animal & intimidate). The skill fusion of 4th is a good idea, but I hope they'll keep skill points
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
>>> I'd really like to see an example.
10. You don't get enough feats.
>>> You have enough feats, and if you want some more, you can multiclass.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
>>> AoO are confusing if you don't learn the rules.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
>>> Yes that's true : in 3.X some magic items are important, and they were too in 2nd and will be in 4th. As long as you have magic items, some are more useful than others ...
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
>>> It's true that these subsystems make the game more complex, but this doesn't bug enough the game to justify a new edition.
I'm a fair-minded person. I love D&D. I want to like 4E. In fact (cue chorus of derision and vituperation from WotC bashers), I spent $26 on the 2 preview books because I was really eager to check out what is coming. And I read them pretty carefully. And I really don't like much of what they're presenting.
Example: In my opinion, they're going gonzo with the core races.
Playing a race other than a core PHB race has always been an option, if it doesn't unbalance the game and your DM allows it. That doesn't mean that that race should be supported as a core race.
Thri-kreen make sense as a core race in the context of a gonzo world like Athas, and can perhaps be played in other settings; but that doesn't mean that they belong with the core races in the PHB.
I expect that if you're making significant changes to something fundamental that's good, that's been essentially the same for ages, (I'm not talking about halflings getting darker or +2 racial modifiers rather than +1. I mean that the roster is basically the same as it's been, in name and substance.) you will present cogent, compelling argumentation to support your decisions. Here is text from the book, my comments in parentheses. You be the judge:
Why Dragonborn?
Short Answer: Because they're cool! (....)
Medium Answer: Because the game needs an interesting, playable dragonlike humanoid (Been just fine for 30+ without one--and you still haven't answered the question. We need it because we need it?)
Long Answer: There's something intrinsically attractive about playing a dragonlike person (still not explaining anything-you're saying the reason it's good is because it's good). Players want as an option a race that captures the power and majesty of dragons (maybe you have met many who do. I haven't sensed that thirst among gamers, but that's just me. But as I said above, alternative races have always been an option). For the first time in the game, we fulfill this need right from the beginning of the edition.
Here's more from the section about why dragonborn appeals to different kinds of players:
Some folks went immediately to survey the stat boosts. Others started in on the descriptive text. One small bit of the dragonborn flavor text really caught one player's attention and enthusiasm.
Erin: "Oooh! I hatched!"
Susan: "Do you still have pieces of your shell?"
Erin: "Oh! I totally want some!"
It wasn't the race's dragon breath or dragon wings or its natural strengths...that appealed to her. She didn't look at the attractive stat boosts. The flavor text was what sold her.
This is how they're deciding that they've made good design decisions?
It simply doesn't inspire confidence.
|
|
Mearls list of mechanics changes don't bother me. They can change all the mechanics they want, as long as I can still play in old adventures and they feel the same. Everything I am seeing says, I can't do that.
I wouldn't discount the ability to play games that feel like D&D yet.
On occasion I use the Savage Worlds system to play D&D and it is WILDLY different system than D&D. I've even run a couple of old modules with it and every time the game had the feel of a D&D game. So I would imagine that 4e, will pull it off better than my Savage World games.
Someone started a very interesting discussion on rpg.net about whether 4E is "Mike Mearls' Heartbreaker RPG". What makes it interesting is that Mike himself showed up and added some fuel to the fire; specifically, he listed 13 things that were wrong with 3.x:
Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.There's more, but I'm tired, and I have more weird analogies to dream up.
I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented. The thread is long (60+ pages) but worth checking out.
Have also to agree, mostly...
1. Yeah, good to have some programs doing that...
2. agreed
3. agreed
4. agreed. a small boost to PCs would be ok...
5. confusing? no. wonky? yes
6. never experienced that
7. that's the price for multiclassing. jack-of-all-trades or specialist...not agreed...why must always everything be balanced?
8. agreed. increase by 2 or whatever number you like
9. partly true, depends on monster
10.oh. you want more feats, to make every character and monsters and npc even more complicated? i think characters have enough feats...
11.really?
12.agreed
13 true
|
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
This is the second time something that I like is being deemed a problem. All magic items are not created equal, nor should they be. There needs to be chaff magic items. Its just makes finding these doo-dads interesting. They are fun.
This is where I think that it is the availability of said magic items that is defunct. If all you could get was the middle of the road item, then you would use it. Magic items should be self made or rare. The only magic weapons local wizards should make for you is a + weapon - no other abilities.
|
|
OK - Diary of a thread read, by me.
1) Saw the line "13 things wrong with 3.x" and the FIRST THOUGHT in my head was "is that all? 13 things and they're making 8 years of sourcebooks and game materials obsolete for this"?
2) I opened the thread and saw 13 things, about 7 of which I think are convient attacks to justify the other 6 and pad the list. Many of the things I have simply seen gamers work around or adapt to as their tastes fit.
3) Got a little boiled up again at how flimsy some of the reasons are and again thought simply these are their reasons for a new edition so soon?
4) Then I laughed as I realized nearly every 'scoop' I read doesn't even address *any* of these 13 things but instead talkes about pointless stuff like getting rid of gnomes and bards, making spellcasters all blasters, and changing the cosmology and the Forgotten Realms.
5) Wrote this and wanders away, shaking his head at it all. :-)
-DM Jeff
P.S. I REALLY enjoyed Mr. Mona's thoughtful perspective on the "13". A Great read.
Just a point of clarification, from everything I've read regarding the 4e multi-class system (and I have to admit there is not much information), the point is not that you will be equally effective in both classes as a single-classed character of the same character level (you won't), but that you won't be appreciably worse-off for making a weird choice. It reminds me of a couple of old Class Acts articles where the author told what you should and should not multi-class with because some of the classes would not synergize properly. Apparently, this issue is gone, though I'm not sure how they achieved the results.
|
|
Many of those things on that list are hot button issues in 3.x and need to be addressed, but we really haven't got much of a clue if 4E is gonna make them better. Wizards say it is, but we still don't have any hard numbers to crunch (an that's what we seem to like...crunchy crunchy numbers...mmmm).
From what I can gather they're going to address encounter building, which can be a problem if you don't have quality publishers like Paizo here to do the hard work for you, but I'm still not convinced that with all of the other changes the game will "feel" the same.
I recently bought Star Wars Saga Edition from my FLGS and I must say that I like it a lot. It's easy to build a character (my wife, who's a novice to d20, built a great character in 20 minutes), the talent tree system is neat and flexible, and combat appears to be less complicated (that's my impression from my first read-through anyways). Everything seems to have a more "cinematic" feel to it, which is great for a sci-fi game based on a popular movie franchise.
Wizards has already told us that SWSE was a test drive for a lot of 4E, but do I really want that same cinematic feel in a fantasy RPG? Shouldn't it be grittier? Shouldn't characters die more often? I guess it's a matter of taste. I played Harnmaster and ICE for years, so I'm used to (and expect) a certain number of esoteric rules in my fantasy gaming. Maybe the next generation of gamers don't want that. Who knows?
Now to threadjack a bit: there's a lack of decent SWSE adventures, so why doesn't Paizo put out an AP for it? I bet they'd do super.
Ok, before I list off the agreements and disagreements, what exactly does "Grognard" mean? I take it to mean someone old and set in their ways, but is that even close? I have no idea!
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
- Only if you don't like it. I for one LOVE statting out my NPCs. When the Exemplars of Evil book came out, I derided it as a tool for lazy DMs. I realize that the easy answer is "buy a book that someone else did for you", but maybe that's what it should be. I for one know off the top of my head that if I need a 3rd level rogue, he'll have a BAB of +2 and 5 ranks in Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, and Sleight of Hand, leaving room to tweak as needed. It's not that tough.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
- These are opinions, and I can't say that they're right or wrong. Running RotRL with 6th level PCs now and they've had a blast since level 1. I've never run a high level game, and low level games are, in my opinion, susposed to be harrowing ordeals. You're novices, not veterans/
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
- I haven't had an issue with it thus far.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
- In terms of spellcasting prowess, yes. Rogues outclass everyone in terms of dealing extra damage to an flat-footed target. Fighters outclass the spellcaster in terms of lasting power. If this is really a problem, then there should only be one class to pick from. Up until then, everyone will be a bit better and worse then everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
- Here's where I begin to have a problem; it feels like I'm being told how to play my game. If I want to play a sorcerer/barbarian who blasts away with burning hands until he's out and then bashes away with his greatclub, that's my choice. If I want to play a druid/monk who practices animal-style martial arts and is "at inner peace with himself and nature", that's my choice. If I want to play a paladin/rogue who justifies his sneak attacks as "advanced understanding of the body's vital areas" due to his max ranks in Heal, that's my choice. Heck, if I play a barbarian/monk who turned his back on his wild ways and turned his rage into a personal calm, but still knows how to beat people senseless with his walking stick, that's my choice. Play the character that's fun for you. This harkens back to point 6; everyone's not gonna be the best. Yeah, my fighter/wizard has half the caster levels of the evil pure wizard. I'll cast bull's strength, enlarge person, shield, and magic weapon before i roll up and feed him my greatsword. It'll take a few rounds, but I've got the Hp to soak up some attacks (thanks d10 hit die!). It's about give and take.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
- Again, opinions, but I will comment on them.
As Erik said (thanks for chiming in by the way), some monsters are confusing. Dragons are a great example of this. However, as a DM, you should look things over before the game starts, find what part confuse you, and either figure them out or simply don't use them. If the ability is key to your game, make sure you figure it out, or at least have a hard-line stance as to what it does when you run it. It's not easy, but it can be done.
As for the skills and feats, I know what I do in my games. Half-elves gain skill points as humans do. The next game I run will have a houserule that grants 1 bonus feat and 4 free skill points to put towards "back-story skills". I'm also implementing "profession synergy" where 5 ranks in a Profession will grant a +2 bonus in certain situations (5 ranks of Profession (locksmith) would grant +2 on Disable Device or Open Lock checks). Admittedly, this is in response to the "My Game is Not Fun" thread, but that's neither here nor there. Aside from that, my PCs haven't really complained about a lack of skills thus far. Well, at least they haven't complained to me.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
- IMHO, not really. You do something, you could get smacked. You've got a nifty ability that lets you not get smacked, you don't get smacked. I don't see the confusion.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
- Magic items are only as important as the game makes them be. I'm playing an artificer in an AoW game and let me tell you, the items help but the buffs are where I really shine. A +1 longsword is the same thing as a mundance longsword with magic weapon cast on it. Same with armor and magic vestment. Magic items are neat and fun no matter what they do (at least to me) so I don't mind the combat/non-combat disparity.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
- As a DM, you should learn those "weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity". Maybe that's me asking a bit too much, but that's my opinion.
|
|
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
Thanks to 4E decoupling PC generation from 'monster' generation, it should be much easier now, with an entirely new system to learn, along with a subsystem for how to interact PCs using one set of rules to NPCs using another set of rules. Woot! An extra level of complexity is *exactly* what will make this easier!
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
Agreed. Our games lose steam around level 8, it seems. I'm not sure how much Evard's Black Tentacles is responsible for that...
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
Don't know. Haven't done them. The Epic rules looked pretty dodgey.
4. Low level games are swingy.
All or nothing spells, 'save or dies,' are swingy, and it's more noticeable at lower level. The whole system has always been based on the all-or-nothing approach. I take 49 hit points of my 50 hit points, and I'm *completely fine* and able to operate at full power. I take that 1 extra hit point, and boom, dropped like a stone. There's no 'wounded' or 'winded' status. It's all or nothing.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
I kinda miss having the exp amount being a fixed number. An Orc is worth 15 exp. Bang. The DM can decide if the players don't deserve exp for killing them. "No, Elminster cannot cast Epic Fiery Devastation on the entire country of Vaasa from the safety of his cottage and get exp for killing 40,000 people." The DM can also decide if the PCs deserve a story award. "Well, they were Tucker's Kobolds, so you get an extra 100 XP each for not crying like babies when the alchemist's fire hit the oil-topped water in which you were ankle-deep..."
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
Certainly can be a problem, particularly when the spellcasters have auxiliary powers (such as Wild Shape or Animal Companion) that are individually as useful / effective as some characters. If all primary spellcasters had d4 or d6 hp, poor BAB and couldn't wear armor (or only light armor) or use all martial weapons, as well as were limited to not use all or nothing spells that can invalidate whole class roles, I think this would be less of a problem.
Quite a few 'all or nothing' spells need fixin.' We haven't had, or wanted, or certainly needed, a Rogue or 'skillmonkey' for over 20 years of gaming, and I suspect the ability of a spellcaster to do most of what they do without fail is a part of that. (Basic disinterest in the class / role is also a part of it, 'trapfinding' in our games generally consists of healing the dude in front after he 'finds' the trap.)
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
Yup. 3E tying of DCs to level of spell and basing many spells on CL trope really crippled the fighter / mage concept, ensuring that anyone who isn't a full caster is going to be effectively useless against threats of his level.
It will be interesting to see what Mearls has in mind to make these sorts of characters viable.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
Also, too many redundant skills. Listen and Spot should be one skill, Notice, which would also cover 'spotting' things via scent or tactile senses. Hide and Move Silently should be one skill, Stealth. Disable Device and 'disable devices that are shaped like Locks' should be one skill, still called Disable Device. Balance, Jump and Tumble could all be one skill, Acrobatics (and a Fighter could learn it, allowing for a non-Dwarven, non-Mountain Plate-wearing Fighter to actually be able to get out of his own way during a fight, and perhaps even buckle a swash every now and then!).
Folding together a few skills would result in Bards, Rangers and Rogues actually having a *ton* of skills. The classes with 2+Int skill points per level would still suck, 'though. A minimum of 4+Int sounds better, so that those Fighters and Clerics and Sorcerers can actually take something other than their 'must-haves.'
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
The idea of stripping away any power or ability that does not fit some narrowly defined role doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather the monster have some ability I'm not gonna use for this single encounter than be completely incapable of surviving in a world that has more than a 2 round encounter in it.
Removing non-combat abilities from monsters reminds me too much of 'Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth' mentality, where monsters only exist in 10x10 rooms adjacent to each other for the purposes of brief fights with visiting adventurers. Insert sword into Screaming Boogley-Boo for 76 exp, go to next room, rinse, repeat. Yawn.
10. You don't get enough feats.
Also known as 'too many Feats' and 'too many basic things that anyone should be able to do labeled as Feats.'
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
Yes, Barbie, reading a sentence or two in the PHB is hard. Let's do away with it, so as to provide equal opportunities for the illiterate, or the persons impatient enough to have not been able to finish this sentence.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
To post to public forum in actual sentences, Yoda should endeavor. Being professional writer, he is.
I agree with the sentiment, 'though. Lots of crap, lots of 'can't live withouts.' The concept that a PC, using point buy, *has* to have a Headband of Intellect, Cloak of Charisma or Periapt of Wisdom to use his highest level spells is just asinine, IMO. Either allow PCs to get higher attributes through advancement, or lower some of those prerequisites, and then dump a lot of the 'standard items.'
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Eh. Never noticed it being hard. The Turning Undead mechanic, on the other hand, probably has one more roll than is strictly necessary.
Now to threadjack a bit: there's a lack of decent SWSE adventures, so why doesn't Paizo put out an AP for it? I bet they'd do super.
I know its not Paizo...But WotC is puitting out an AP for SWSE.....And its FREE!!!
Its called the Dawn of Defiance adventure path.
Set, based on my reading of the 4e preview material, I think you are dead-on in terms of how spellcasters outshine other classes. It is not strictly damage output per se, because a high-level fighter can dish out lots of damage, but the fact that eventually spells can perform other class roles (especially skill-based ones) better than the designated class.
|
|
As odd as this may sound (coming from me) I'm more optimistic, not by this list necessarily (he does make some good points on that list), but by this he said like 2 posts up:
This might seem a little funny, but I actually disagree with you. I think that D&D *is* your baby, and we're basically its caretakers.This is my attitude towards it. Everything I had heard about 4E about the setting made me believe that they felt quite the opposite. I still may question them, but ... I am more optimistic.
A WotC designer actually said this? Was he struck by lightning afterwards? Just because he said it doesn't make it true. Everything I've seen in their blogs and stuff suggests that the new edition is all about making games fun for them. It's all about their houserules and their campaigns. We just have to go along for the ride, or get off at 3.5. Now, maybe he means it, but he'll have to do a lot more to convince me.
|
|
I know its not Paizo...But WotC is puitting out an AP for SWSE.....And its FREE!!!
Its called the Dawn of Defiance adventure path.
Yeah, I know about that one. Looks okay, but anything WotC can do, Paizogolem can do better. Besides, it's the only game in town right now.
Ok, before I list off the agreements and disagreements, what exactly does "Grognard" mean? I take it to mean someone old and set in their ways, but is that even close? I have no idea!
Stefan