Aren't the benefits trumpeted in the ebook the very things that have been vilified elsewhere in this forum by a variety of people?
combines magic and martial skill without the use of spells
So alternate sources of power are OK now?
more ample healing
So it's OK that PCs are more difficult to kill now?
bring down the barriers -- like casters running out of spells and characters running low on hit points -- that traditionally make parties stop to rest before they really want to
Don't a lot of you think that this "barrier" is actually a good thing because it forces people to tactically manage their resources?
See, my point is that it seems that whenever I hear a criticism of 4e it seems that in the next breath there's a discussion of a problem in 3e--that 4e purports to fix. Reaction? Anger.
If 4e fixes what's broken why the hostility?
I don't get it.
There's already a thread on this ... Linky
|
Aren't the benefits trumpeted in the ebook the very things that have been vilified elsewhere in this forum by a variety of people?
combines magic and martial skill without the use of spells
So alternate sources of power are OK now?more ample healing
So it's OK that PCs are more difficult to kill now?bring down the barriers -- like casters running out of spells and characters running low on hit points -- that traditionally make parties stop to rest before they really want to
Don't a lot of you think that this "barrier" is actually a good thing because it forces people to tactically manage their resources?See, my point is that it seems that whenever I hear a criticism of 4e it seems that in the next breath there's a discussion of a problem in 3e--that 4e purports to fix. Reaction? Anger.
If 4e fixes what's broken why the hostility?
I don't get it.
I hope that there will be something more, as these are variant rules that I won't use (just as I don't use every option from each non-core manual).
I don't get it.
I do and I don't get it.
I do get it, because what I think many people really wanted was a mod to v.3.5 -- a "patch" if you will -- rather than a full-scale rewriting of the game. They're heavily invested in 3e, invested enough to see its flaws and weaknesses but also so invested that they don't want to start over again, even if 4e does fix real problems.
I don't get it, because what it looks like this book is doing is providing v.3.5 players with almost all of the stuff I personally dislike about 4e. My own rejection of 4e is thematic and esthetic more than mechanical and, from what I can tell, Monte's latest product is along the same lines. I say a polite "No thank you" to that.
But gamers are strange creatures, me no less than anyone, so there may be other factors involved.
|
But gamers are strange creatures, me no less than anyone, so there may be other factors involved.
i.e. a whole lot of bad will that now I will be called an irrational hatemongerer for voicing my opinion on.
What I don't get is this: if you're all for 4e, guess what: for better or worse, you won. You got what you want. What the hell do you care one way or another what a bunch of obviously b$~~+y old grognards think? You won.
"There never was much hope, only a fool's hope."
Seriously, I might check it out, if only to see the rune blade class, which I might use for a particular villian race. Then, who knows? I'm against the whole ample healing, never running out of spells thing...but Monte's been really good so far -
It's Monte. And only $9. I'm going 4E, no question, but even though I don't play 3E anymore, I'll probably pick this up to check it out.
And, yeah, it might prove helpful to those who aren't going to make the switch. :)
I may buy it based on the fact that it's cheap ($9 download = the cost of 1 lunch at work) and it's Monte (haven't read anything of his that I didn't like) but I will only use stuff if it's easily inserted into an existing game. Converting spells from a 1-9 level system to a 1-20 level system sounds like too much of an overhaul to me. It might be fine for the SRD spells and any of Monte's own creation that are in the book, but every other supplement I have (including Spell Compendium) would need serious work to make them fit.
Greg
So the problems as identified by WotC R&D are not problems, but when the same problems are pointed out by Monte Cook the they must be problems.
Huh?
Oooh, well put. :)
So the problems as identified by WotC R&D are not problems, but when the same problems are pointed out by Monte Cook the they must be problems.
Huh?
Normally, I tend to be a little more in your corner than not on 4e, but in this case maliszew had a good point. It's not that they aren't problems, it's that this book is a "patch" to 3.5, and a $9 one at that. 4e is a complete re-write of the game and a bit more expensive than $9. At least, that's the way I see it, and that's why I'm considering it.
Greg
(Edit: just re-read my post and realised I was unconsciously repeating almost exactly what maliszew said. My bad.)
I do get it, because what I think many people really wanted was a mod to v.3.5 -- a "patch" if you will -- rather than a full-scale rewriting of the game. They're heavily invested in 3e, invested enough to see its flaws and weaknesses but also so invested that they don't want to start over again, even if 4e does fix real problems.
This.
Now, I do *not* like the idea of a 20-level spell system, and I'm sure there will be a lot of things proposed in this book that I have no interest in. I'm only interested if the changes do not require any changes to preprinted adventures that can't be made "on the fly".
For example, giving PCs an extra feat would be fine. Revamping the spell system to account for 20 levels would NOT be fine.
|
So the problems as identified by WotC R&D are not problems, but when the same problems are pointed out by Monte Cook the they must be problems.
Huh?
Normally, I tend to be a little more in your corner than not on 4e, but in this case maliszew had a good point. It's not that they aren't problems, it's that this book is a "patch" to 3.5, and a $9 one at that. 4e is a complete re-write of the game and a bit more expensive than $9. At least, that's the way I see it, and that's why I'm considering it.
Greg
Oh, I get that. I may even buy it myself because i like his work.
My reaction comes from the level of denial I have seen here. Denial that 3E has some problems. But if Monte says its ok to see them then people see them?
I am trying to come to terms with that.
Until you see how the spell levels actually work then how can you be so sure that you don't like it?
For example, giving PCs an extra feat would be fine. Revamping the spell system to account for 20 levels would NOT be fine.
Well, as I said above, I don't want any changes to require any significant work to use the tons of 3.5 adventures I have. If I have to do any extra work to a stat block that takes, say, longer than 5 seconds, I'm not interested.
|
|
Well, as I said above, I don't want any changes to require any significant work to use the tons of 3.5 adventures I have. If I have to do any extra work to a stat block that takes, say, longer than 5 seconds, I'm not interested.Until you see how the spell levels actually work then how can you be so sure that you don't like it?
For example, giving PCs an extra feat would be fine. Revamping the spell system to account for 20 levels would NOT be fine.
I am sorry that I missed that. That is a solid reason and I can see your point.
|
|
Oh, I get that. I may even buy it myself because i like his work.My reaction comes from the level of denial I have seen here. Denial that 3E has some problems. But if Monte says its ok to see them then people see them?
I am trying to come to terms with that.
Whats to come to terms with?
Its $9 for a patch and I can use all my old books.
Vs.
Throwing all my old books out and spending $100 miniuim......
And if I dont like what he's done? Its $9 and I keep playing vs $100. Or even $30-$35 for just teh players book.
I look at what Monte has put out and what I'm using of his and I have confidence in his work. Most of WotC's design team? Not so much.
FURTHER....I'm not having to listen to constant shilling and such. He's just presented it and thats that. No "this is awesome!!!!!" and other nonsense we've seen. You can take it or leave it.
|
|
Whats to come to terms with?
Its $9 for a patch and I can use all my old books.
Vs.
Throwing all my old books out and spending $100 miniuim......
Maybe on the first and on the second point - not all of your books. People say they still use 1E source material while playing 3E.
The reason I say "maybe" on the first point is that until you apply the "patch" you won't know what 3E material will and will not need to be re-touched. Will Monte's patch require that you make additional patches to other material? Maybe - maybe not.
I look at what Monte has put out and what I'm using of his and I have confidence in his work. Most of WotC's design team? Not so much.
FURTHER....I'm not having to listen to constant shilling and such. He's just presented it and thats that. No "this is awesome!!!!!" and other nonsense we've seen. You can take it or leave it.
And that is the heart of it - its an emotional rejection of WotC. You won't give their product a fair shake because you do not like them, nor do you trust them.
What you are taking or leaving is not the game they produce but the perceived character of WotC as a group of people that you do not like or trust.
So the problems as identified by WotC R&D are not problems, but when the same problems are pointed out by Monte Cook the they must be problems.
Huh?
This, I am not interested in (esp for $9). If it was an alternate PHB that others could rally behind and still be reasonably compatable with existing 3.5 material, I'd be interested in hearing more. But this is just a patch, the basic rules would still be out of print. So no, for what it does. I'm not interested (unless my DM says, we're using these).
Aside from leaning toward a little too powerful in the spells department, I really like Monte's work. I'll scrape the $9 for this together...if nothing else, I'd like to see not only how he fixes things, but what he sets out to fix to begin with.
Despite being generally positive about 4E, I *really like* 3.5. If this can make my D&D better, if even only for a single campaign, it is $9 well spent.
Aren't the benefits trumpeted in the ebook the very things that have been vilified elsewhere in this forum by a variety of people?
Careful Moonlion, not everyone is slavering over this. Some of us don't like these changes anymore than when they were preached as the "Almighty fix to the horror that is 3.5."
And as has already been stated, at $9 it might be worth giving a look. But I can tell you these rules won't be used by me any more than 4th Edition.
|
Hm. I wonder if Monte is in some way trying to beat WotC to the punch because he thinks they stole a lot of his ideas and are now going to sell them as 4e?
Could be. But I am equally uninterested in the things I didn't like that WotC were doing. :) Monte has some good ideas, but that doesn't mean everything he produces is something I'll like.
I agree with Moonlion's point - this sounds an awful lot like the "big things" that 4e says it's going to fix... which leads me to my wonderings above regarding Monte feeling like his ideas are being ripped off.
Either way, for $9 it's worth a look.
And as far as the trust thing goes, guys - yah, I trust Monte WAY more than I trust any of the egos at WotC. Sometimes the merit of an idea is only seen when presented in a way that is appealing and respectful. Notice that Monte never once said that I was playing the game wrong, nor that there were gaping holes in the rules that he was going to save us from like some kind of RPG Messiah.
For the confused and perplexed:
1. It' $9 of optional expansion content, not a rewrite of the game.
2. If I choose to use any of it, it doesn't invalidate the $1000s I've spent on 3.x, d20, and OGL content. (I'm more heavily invested in d20/OGL stuff than D&D.)
3. I can SEE it rather than have my speculations dismissed (I'm not a 4e fan) or being accused of being an irrational "hater" while simultaneously having the pro-4e camp hold their speculations up as fact or (at best) as well-reasoned speculation.
I still don't know if I'll buy it, as it coincides with a lot of what I don't like about 4e and Monte favors a game with much higher magic content than I do. But there's a chance I'll buy. I mean, it's 9 bucks. There's no chance of me switching to 4e. Even if I was on the fence, I couldn't justify it. ($$, lack of players' interest in switching, etc.)
And that is the heart of it - its an emotional rejection of WotC. You won't give their product a fair shake because you do not like them, nor do you trust them.
Well, you are always going to have people that react this way. Some of us are more logic-guided, and some of us are more emotion-guided.
C'est la vie.
Greg
|
|
Maybe on the first and on the second point - not all of your books. People say they still use 1E source material while playing 3E.
The reason I say "maybe" on the first point is that until you apply the "patch" you won't know what 3E material will and will not need to be re-touched. Will Monte's patch require that you make additional patches to other material? Maybe - maybe not.
Again, I think your mistaken.
3.0/3.5 source material is, for the most part, compatible with first edition or even 2nd. Alot of people are using 1st ed modules in their games....but there is no one using the complete series (like complete book of elves) anymore.
But you fail to remember the chainsaw the design team has taken to the game.....and teh changes in background they have done. The great wheel? gone. Divine pantheons? Gone.....Fogoteen releams fast folward 100 years and unpheavels galore.
Alot of the source material isnt valid anymore.
From what I gather, and perhaps I'm mistaken, the complete book is rules touchups...for the most part all the background material isnt touched.
4e? Complete overhaul tha invalidates alot that came before.
And that is the heart of it - its an emotional rejection of WotC. You won't give their product a fair shake because you do not like them, nor do you trust them.
What you are taking or leaving is not the game they produce but the perceived character of WotC as a group of people that you do not like or trust.
No, its not. Its not emotional at all...I can look at what Monte has put out....and say I like it or I think its good.
I've looked at what WotC has shown thus far and dont like it. Emotions have nothing to do with it.
|
And that is the heart of it - its an emotional rejection of WotC. You won't give their product a fair shake because you do not like them, nor do you trust them.Well, you are always going to have people that react this way. Some of us are more logic-guided, and some of us are more emotion-guided.
C'est la vie.
Greg
I am a mathematician and software developer. I am logically driven to a fault. I am also a humanoid (without a subtype) and therefore, emotionally driven.
I despise WotC for how it is going about 4e.
I am a huge fan of Monte Cook. He was talking about his 3.0 + House-rules campaign long before 4e was announced. I am thrilled to get a look-see at his ideas.
Third Edition has tons of problems. I do not see this product as a patch.
These are all separate things. Proximity does not necessitate causality.
Monte Cook, $9? Yeah, I'll check it out.
I am a mathematician and software developer. I am logically driven to a fault. I am also a humanoid (without a subtype) and therefore, emotionally driven.
Disclaimer: my comment was not meant to slight anyone. I do not believe that being "logical" or "emotional" is in any way better than the other. I was simply making an observation.
Now, having said that, there are people who are taking either a "logical" approach to this or an "emotional" one. And you can tell who by reading the boards.
Of course the implication you are making is that those of us who are not emotionally effected by this move by WotC, are not "humanoid." I'll not take that as an insult, ok?
I despise WotC for how it is going about 4e.
And you're entitled to your opinions and emotions. I never said different.
Greg
|
|
Likewise, I was not fussing at you - you just had the post which quoted others I chose to reply to...or something.
I try to always initially assume positive intent...
Dwarves are Humanoid (Dwarf) but Humans are Humanoid without a subtype. I was talking about me. I do not know what your subtype may or may not be.
Aren't the benefits trumpeted in the ebook the very things that have been vilified elsewhere in this forum by a variety of people?
combines magic and martial skill without the use of spells
So alternate sources of power are OK now?more ample healing
So it's OK that PCs are more difficult to kill now?bring down the barriers -- like casters running out of spells and characters running low on hit points -- that traditionally make parties stop to rest before they really want to
Don't a lot of you think that this "barrier" is actually a good thing because it forces people to tactically manage their resources?See, my point is that it seems that whenever I hear a criticism of 4e it seems that in the next breath there's a discussion of a problem in 3e--that 4e purports to fix. Reaction? Anger.
If 4e fixes what's broken why the hostility?
I don't get it.
It's because 4e also "fixes" what's NOT broken. Haven't you been paying attention?
|
|
Maybe on the first and on the second point - not all of your books. People say they still use 1E source material while playing 3E.
The reason I say "maybe" on the first point is that until you apply the "patch" you won't know what 3E material will and will not need to be re-touched. Will Monte's patch require that you make additional patches to other material? Maybe - maybe not.
Again, I think your mistaken.
3.0/3.5 source material is, for the most part, compatible with first edition or even 2nd. Alot of people are using 1st ed modules in their games....but there is no one using the complete series (like complete book of elves) anymore.
Sure - fluff is infinitely adaptable. I was referring to crunch. 3E has a fairly tight system at its foundation. Every splat book or alternate rules set that comes along chips away at that foundations stability. What Monte is presenting is a crunch patch. Who knows how his house rules will interact with all of the feats, skills, spells, abilities, and class features out there.
But you fail to remember the chainsaw the design team has taken to the game.....and teh changes in background they have done. The great wheel? gone. Divine pantheons? Gone.....Fogoteen releams fast folward 100 years and unpheavels galore.
Alot of the source material isnt valid anymore.
Its all fluff. They bent it and shaped it the way they wanted it. The great thing about fluff is that you can bend it right back. Crunch, on the other hand, takes more than just bending and shaping. It's like coding in a language that does not use object oriented programming. If you patch the code you may end up breaking something that was working. Then when you go to fix it you find that you have broken something else.
At this stage in the life cycle of 3E I would rather see an effort for systemic change (of crunch) then to wade through a series of patches to find the golden combination that will fix the problems without creating any new ones.
No, its not. Its not emotional at all...I can look at what Monte has put out....and say I like it or I think its good.
I've looked at what WotC has shown thus far and dont like it. Emotions have nothing to do with it.
Fair enough on the fluff side of the equation, but we have seen so little crunch that I do not know how anyone can truly evaluate it without either exploring its merits and drawbacks based on the scant information provided, or taking a wait and see stance to evaluate 4E once there is something to actually test.
|
|
Removal of core classes(for latter suppliments)/ change in mechanics of existing ones.
Removal of core races (for latter suppliments)/change in mechanics of existing ones.
Addition of extensive condition triggered mechanics (attack foe, if ally 3 squares away, he gets a healing boost, mini teleport opponent, immediate, specific actions triggered by proximity etc.)
Realignment of monster/NPC design from PC design.
Realignment of poison effects.
|
|
So the problems as identified by WotC R&D are not problems, but when the same problems are pointed out by Monte Cook the they must be problems.
Huh?
Well, they ARE problems. Thats not the large issue with 4E. Its the fact that its an overhaul coming too soon for an overhaul.
Its like buying a new home, upgrading it 4 years later to a "zero emission" central air unit due to some law, then having be told to tear down the house and rebuild because the central heating and air isn't working properly four years after that. Yeah, I want my air fixed, but I don't need a new home. And dammit if I didn't just upgrade the air unit and now your telling me its defective! It could run on perpetual energy machine, have zero environmental impact, and spit out chocolate chip cookies on demand and I'd still be pissed.
That where the 4E anger is from. Of course its emotional. Nobody plays D&D without some emotional investment. Well, perhaps a robot could. Humanoid with the construct subtype? I am so confused.
(The preceding message was brought to you by Yogoloth Incorporated. Bringing you Devil's Advocacy since 1996)
|
|
(The preceding message was brought to you by Yogoloth Incorporated. Bringing you Devil's Advocacy since 1996)
Unfortunately there was a hostile take over and Yogoloth are no more...they have been folded in with demons, I think. LINK- 4e strikes again!
|
|
(The preceding message was brought to you by Yogoloth Incorporated. Bringing you Devil's Advocacy since 1996)Unfortunately there was a hostile take over and Yogoloth are no more...they have been folded in with demons, I think. LINK- 4e strikes again!
lol, thats WHY I chose yugoloths. They are now devils...DEVIL LAWYERS! lol
Haven't you been paying attention?
And being snippy like that is supposed to help ... how?