|
Wait...didn't you already imply people who don't agree with you aren't grown-ups? In fact, I got the sense the response was an allusion to your implication, hence the ":P"
Are 4e fans that thinned skinned?
No, it has nothing to do with people who disagreeing arent grownups.
What he IS implying, is the rule set is much simplier, and aimed at a younger crowd.....more simple game.
And he looks to be correct. Akin to the difference of candyland vs say ches or monoploy or something
Doesnt mean an adult is less of an adult for enjoying a kids game, but doesnt make the game any less of a kids one.
Are 4e fans that thinned skinned?
....
Doesnt mean an adult is less of an adult for enjoying a kids game, but doesnt make the game any less of a kids one.
The reason I made my post because his comment unfortunatly resembled a standard insults. It is in fact rarely used as a positive attribute or anything other than an insult on the game. I thought that he might have not have really meant that so I made me joking comment and moved on.
He then took my comment way too seriously.
By the way. Candyland?
The Candyland game appears in popular culture because the game and its characteristics are well known. In particular, since the game has no strategy, most adults, or even older children, find it un-challenging and boring. Furthermore, the backwards moves (and the 'stuck' cards', see game play) make what is already a boring game last even longer, another dis-incentive for adults. In contrast, other well-known children's games such as Battleship do involve strategy and may be enjoyed by adults as well as children.
Come on.
You could have easily went for checkers vs. chess.
the 4E version just has more options available to do it.
Allowing more choices or flexibility is a good game design tenet.Maybe I'm just being thick but how exactly does the 4e rogue have more options? Different options than a 3e rogue I will grant. But I am not seeing more. In fact, I see the 4e rogue as having slightly fewer options when all is said and done.
Powers and Feats seem a 1 to 1 trade off, more or less.
Skills options are fewer.
Weapon options seem fewer.
Armor options seem fewer.
Even in hitpoints there are few options. :p (I kid a little with this one.)
So what am I missing?
Both rogues get feats.
The 3rd Edition rogue has more weapons to choose from, but likely will never use.The 3rd Edition rogue probably at best has the option to wear a chain shirt since I'm assuming that its not part of the Leather class. However, we dont know what types of armor exist in 4E.
Now, from what we know, the skill lists are crunched: the rogue still has access to seemingly every skill there was before with the exception of, say, Persuasion (which is what Diplomacy was rolled into), though we dont know completely how some other Cha skills operate. Actually, with the way skills progress you could argue that the 4E rogue can still function as a face even if she isnt cranking skill points into the skill at every level. I guess the most accurate thing you can say is that the 4E rogue can probably attempt to do what the 3E one can.
Since the skill list was crunched, I'm thinking that the 4E rogue has more skill options.
Moving on to feats, from what we've heard, character get more feats, so the 4E rogue beats out the 3E one easy there.
Really though, none of those things really pertain to what I was talking about. Your typical 3rd Edition rogue, when confronted with a combat challenge, can pretty much attempt a Tumble check to flank the monster, and start stabbing it. If there is someone else on the other side, and the monster is actually vulnerable to it, then the rogue can perform fairly well in battle...until the monster turns its attention to said rogue. Generally, the rogue is screwed at that point.
The 4th Edition rogue, right out of the gate, has what appears to be at least two different attack options: one lets her move, then attack (as a standard action, meaning that the rogue can move, move again, and attack, or move, attack, then move away) and the other lets her target the Ref Defense instead of the full AC value. That right there already adds some variety up and over the old incarnation of rogue. What did the 4E rogue sacrifice for this? Well, I guess Trapfinding, since both have sneak attack still (the 4E rogue gets it better at first, but the 3E outscales pretty quickly). To be fair, Trapfinding is simply a feat that anyone can take now, but the 4E rogue still has a bit more to flaunt on top of that. Ignoring the First Strike class feature, we still get the ability to customize whether your rogue will emphasize strength over dexterity, and you also get some weapon perks with some thematic rogue weapons.
So, the 4E rogue loses a couple weapon proficiencies and possibly one type of armor in exchange for a LOT more customization.
A paladin is a much bigger game mechanic than a weapon proficiency. Thats like saying that some people think that x monster is stupid, so x monster shouldnt be published. Not giving a rogue the default ability to use a weapon without a penalty has a much, MUCH smaller impact.No, it has exactly the same impact. If Player Bob wants to play a Paladin, and they aren't available, Bob is denied his 'fun.' If Player Bob wants to play an Errol Flynn-esque swashbuckling Rogue who draws his initials in the air with his Rapier, or a woodsy sort of scout who plinks people with a Shortbow from the forest canopy, he can't, and, again, Bob is denied his 'fun.'
They are identical 'impacts.' Bob wants to do something that he could have done in 3rd Edition, and the game won't let him.
Doesn't matter if it's an entire race or class or a single class ability. 4E, we have been bludgeoned with over and over, is supposed to be *more fun,* so much so that they've stripped out things that they have told us are 'not fun,' for our own good, to save us from our boring games. Apparently, swashbuckling Rogues (and Druids, and Gnomes) are 'boring' and 'not fun,' and thank heavens they've saved us from playing D&D wrong all of these years!
Actually, its NOT the same impact. If Bob wants to play a paladin and the paladin isnt in the game, thats much harder to create "on the fly" and put into play. If Bob wants to play a rogue using a rapier, its much easier for a DM to waive it and allow it. The rapier exists, its just a simple case of swapping or even adding weapon proficiencies.
The rest of your assertion is also incorrect. Druids were not "removed" from the game, they simply havent been converted over yet. Nothing says you cant play a swashbuckling-style rogue: in fact, some of the powers and styles seem to be more inclined to ALLOW that archetype than 3E would.
I'd like to avoid the whole gnome bit, because that was added like, MONTHS ago.
I agree with this statement. This is the way I see it.
What they said: Combat will be more streamlined. Your characters will have plenty of options. It will be easier to DM. It will be easier to learn how to play.What has been presented so far: Everyone has loads of powers and abilites to keep track of. Damage equations seem overly complicated (2d6 sneak attack + 2W + Dex) for example. I see nothing that lets the rogue be anything more than the guy who comes in and stabs you for gobs of damage. They seem awfully straightjacketed into a very specific combat (and maybe out of combat) role. It might be easier to DM, but I will probably have to hand the player of the rogue a pocket calculator to calculate damage, and a series of cards describing all of their PC's powers. Trying to make sense of this write-up made my head hurt. It might be easier once you've had a few weeks of access to the PHB to digest the new system, but they haven't exactly inspired me with the "easy to learn" aspect of the game, so far. I know we don't have the rules yet, but what they've shown us so far hasn't given me any confidence that they have achieved their goals of making the game easier and more fun.
Nothing really came across as overtly complicated, especially not any more so than spells.
Deft Strike can be summed up as, move 10 ft., attack. Positioning Strike as make attack, move creature 5 ft.Rogues were pretty much always relegated to a specific combat role: flank with your allies and hope the monster is affected by SA damage.
Both rogues get feats.
The 3rd Edition rogue has more weapons to choose from, but likely will never use.
So, because people may not choose them, they shouldn't be there? I'm sorry, you're saying "Take away options because there's a chance people won't use them." Why does McDonalds carry a chicken sandwich, when most people just get a double cheeseburger? ...because there's still people who want a chicken sandwich.
Now, from what we know, the skill lists are crunched: the rogue still has access to seemingly every skill there was before with the exception of, say, Persuasion (which is what Diplomacy was rolled into), though we dont know completely how some other Cha skills operate. Actually, with the way skills progress you could argue that the 4E rogue can still function as a face even if she isnt cranking skill points into the skill at every level. I guess the most accurate thing you can say is that the 4E rogue can probably attempt to do what the 3E one can.
Since the skill list was crunched, I'm thinking that the 4E rogue has more skill options.
Key point: We don't know. SAGA was a preview of parts of fourth edition, so parts in it won't be in fourth. Jedi are one of the things that won't, hopefully. The big thing is WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS. Saying "I'm going to assume this to be true, even though I have no solid proof, so my choice wins." doesn't carry a point to convince people, it's saying "I'm right because I say I am."
Moving on to feats, from what we've heard, character get more feats, so the 4E rogue beats out the 3E one easy there.
What are the feats? For all we know feats could be reduced to Acrobatic and Skill Focus. With powers seeming to get all the big combat options, there's a good chance feats will become a random +1 to something. It's unfair to say the 4E Rogue beats the 3E Rogue because he gets more of something that for all we know is less important.
The 4th Edition rogue, right out of the gate, has what appears to be at least two different attack options:
First power: Spring Attack. Well, Spring Attack-ish. Second power: Easily a feat by 3rd edition standards, as it's an at-will ability.
Ignoring the First Strike class feature, we still get the ability to customize whether your rogue will emphasize strength over dexterity, and you also get some weapon perks with some thematic rogue weapons.
Customize whether you emphasize Strength or Dexterity? ...I thought that was what placing your ability scores was for. If I play a rogue that I want to be nimble, I put the high score in Dex. If I want a tough guy, I put it in Str. Oh, you're talking about Rogue Tactics. Heh. Sorry, my bad, I misunderstood. Let me rephrase my argument:
They're feats. At first level, the fourth edition rogue gets to pick between a modified Mobility or a modified Weapon Specialization. Oh, and another modified Weapon Specialization with "rogue" weapons.
So, the 4E rogue loses a couple weapon proficiencies and possibly one type of armor in exchange for a LOT more customization.
So, the fourth edition rogue loses customization for slightly modified third edition feat options, which is described as customization. The main part of which is bonuses to certain rolls if you do a certain thing in combat. Yay. I'm now stupid enough to not understand how to use a pointy stick, but I can stick this knife in a guy's butt better. Yay.
End Note, Not Directed at Anyone in Particular: I am trying to be an optimist for Fourth Edition. The arguments for why it's obviously better at this point simply astound me because they downplay any aspect of loss from Third Edition to 'Well it was never used anyway' and make a giant deal out of 'Hey, powers mean options and customization, which is better than Third!'
No. It's not better. From what we've seen so far, Fourth Edition is not a step ahead. It's a step to the left. We lose certain things it seems fairly obvious a certain group of people enjoy to gain things another group of people enjoys. Please, stop telling me that losing the one option isn't a big deal. Sometimes it is. Saying rogues no longer get to use spears is a sore spot for me. I played rogues who used spears. I enjoyed it. I can't take someone seriously when they tell me 'Well, there will probably be a feat so you can still do that, so it's not a problem.' When more feats are a selling point of the new system, it is a problem. I have to give up something that's supposed to make the system more fun to have the same fun I had with the system before. Saying powers make the system better doesn't work, because my group doesn't care about them. I've introduced Tome of Battle, nobody cared. I've introduced variants to Tome of Battle, nobody cared. They were happy with what they had, it was fun for them.
We get told that things we liked are being taken out because "We didn't like the story reason, so we ditched it" while they change story reasons on other things into things they do like. We get told things we liked are being taken out because "Nobody picked them" while options are added in that realistically, there's a good chance nobody will pick unless the rules are so streamlined that you have to to have a character any different from the first from a mechanical standpoint. I'm tired of being told what I'm going to have fun with. I'm tired of being told what's better. Show me what I'm going to have fun with, and show me why it's better. That will happen starting at the D&D Experience. I'm not impatient, I can wait an eternity for it. I just get sick of being told I'm wrong for having reservations about something I don't understand. When you dismiss the reservations of people who don't see how something is better, that's what you do. You tell us we're wrong, and I get tired of it.
Fourth Edition is not better. Fourth Edition is not worse. Fourth Edition is, and nothing I can do or say will change that. Regardless of whether or not I like it, Fourth Edition will become D&D the second it's released. Please, when you try and tell 4E critics(Not haters, critics) that we're wrong and Fourth Edition is better, try to remember that. We see the end of the game system we came to love coming. It's not even buried yet and people are spitting on the grave. That's what it feels like. And then we're told we're wrong.
Fourth Edition is not better. Fourth Edition is not worse. Fourth Edition just is.
Saga Edition is a significant preview for 4th Edition D&D. It is not “far out” to assume that Acrobatics in Saga Edition will function in a way to somehow make it less useful than individual skills were in 3rd Edition.
We’ve seen a preview of many feats thus far. They appear to serve the same purpose as feats in 3rd Edition, and there are going to be a LOT more since the core rules will also support racial feats right from the get go, so I’m not buying your defense of “feats could just be reduced to random +1 things”.
The ability to select a style is still an option that the 3rd Edition rogue doesn’t get, and you didn’t have to burn one of your seven feats to get it, either. Please direct me to a feat, or a feat tree, that branches out and also effects many other class features that you later get.
Since we don’t have any solid proof according to you, I stand by my stance that the 4th Edition rogue has more options by deferring to the list of powers: a rogue picks skills, feats, a style, AND powers. A 3rd Edition rogue simply selects skills and feats.
You lose a very small amount of…anything, and get a LOT more in exchange. My stance is that the 4th Edition rogue is not kiddified, directed for “stupid” people, or somehow more restrictive than before.
Very bland over all.
Are 4e fans that thinned skinned?
Some seem to be. I have seen it several times: You criticise the game or its creators, and some 4e fans consider it a personal insult.
Both rogues get feats.
The 3rd Edition rogue has more weapons to choose from, but likely will never use.
I know I had plenty of rogues who used a lot more than those weapons:
Rapier. That weapon alone shows that wizards isn't paying attention. When I imagine a rogue even vaguely melee oriented, most of the time he'll have a rapier. And I have the creeping suspicion that a great big bunch of people think the same.
Bows. Whenever I imagine a wilderness rogue type (doesn't have to be the UA class variant even), and especially when she's an elf, I see them using bows.
Sap/Blackjack. If you want to knock someone out (which I'd say isn't that rare for an urban rogue), the blackjack is your best friend.
And this doesn't take into account fighter/rogues and the like using larger weapons for sneak attacks. I'm just not buying that "you can't sneak attack with a spear or longsword" nonsense.
Some seem to be. I have seen it several times: You criticise the game or its creators, and some 4e fans consider it a personal insult.
It reminds me of religion in that respect. A sense of threat if the believe system is challenged. An inability to just have faith in what you believe.
|
Sorry, mind is still boggling over a rogue that can't use a club...
Yeah, ...the more I think about it the more I am left scratching my head with the removal of this option. Rapiers I figure fall under either short sword or light blade but there's no room in that weapon list for clubs and it just seems so wrong.
It's just so intuitive to have the club as a basic rogue weapon.
Hmm. I'm interested in taking a further look. I'm also not a big fan of having a tighter list of weapons for rogues. I thought it was an improvement over second edition when the backstab class feature, which required a weapon like a short sword, was replaced with sneak attack, which could be used in conjunction with any weapon. I can understand the limitation, to a degree, but I still don't like it that much. And besides, bows are a tradition among rogues. Drawing back a bowstring seems a lot more quiet and stealthy than cranking a crossbow. And I'm kind of left wondering just how multi-classing will work in this system. It looks like they really expect you to pick a certain track and stay with it. I like that it looks like a more streamlined skill system, though.
A thought behind Rogue Tactics:
So just a small thought, but perhaps the reason we've seen the two very simple tactics so far (Artful Dodger and Brawny Thug) is to allow DMs to easily facilitate their own Tactics? I'm sure this can easily be spun into "To sell more books" as well, but with this mechanic in place, I imagine a DM can pretty easily create "The Master Spy" Tactics which would grant more Intelligence based options and modify a few Powers, or "The Vigilante Archer" and have the build grant access to Bows, allow for Bow sneak attack and give a bonus to a few powers.
Just a thought I had which I wanted to toss out there and see what people thought.
|
|
Are 4e fans that thinned skinned?....
Doesnt mean an adult is less of an adult for enjoying a kids game, but doesnt make the game any less of a kids one.
The reason I made my post because his comment unfortunatly resembled a standard insults. It is in fact rarely used as a positive attribute or anything other than an insult on the game. I thought that he might have not have really meant that so I made me joking comment and moved on.
He then took my comment way too seriously.
By the way. Candyland?
Come on.
You could have easily went for checkers vs. chess.
Jeez you are thin skinned folks, arent you.
I just used candylad because thats what I just played with my daughter. First example that popped into my head.
I say thinned skinned because I see WAY too many threads or posts floating around from 4e fans that can be boiled down to "if you dont like it get lost."
|
The rest of your assertion is also incorrect. Druids were not "removed" from the game, they simply havent been converted over yet. Nothing says you can’t play a swashbuckling-style rogue: in fact, some of the powers and styles seem to be more inclined to ALLOW that archetype than 3E would.
I'd like to avoid the whole gnome bit, because that was added like, MONTHS ago.
The players handbook is what the players are expected to have. Can a player play a gnome or a druid or a bard from the players handbook? No. I would love to be able to tell those at my table to go get a subscription to DDI to play the half orc, to wait however long until they come out with PHBII, III or IV, or to go buy a monster manual. Unfortunately that’s not really something that I would expect of those that play with me; and I would never tell them they have to buy “expansion packs” to play what they had been playing from the beginning.
So, unfortunately, it is not as simple as is stated by you and an additional investment of XXX dollars or for that matter having to refer to 3-4 books just to play what was core is not the “same” as before.
For that matter, if I were to start over, what do I do with the bard or the druid in my campaign setting? Do they magically take a vacation for XXX months? Then do they come back from the vacation whenever WOTC comes out with the books?
Are 4e fans that thinned skinned?Some seem to be. I have seen it several times: You criticise the game or its creators, and some 4e fans consider it a personal insult.
Both rogues get feats.
The 3rd Edition rogue has more weapons to choose from, but likely will never use.I know I had plenty of rogues who used a lot more than those weapons:
Rapier. That weapon alone shows that wizards isn't paying attention. When I imagine a rogue even vaguely melee oriented, most of the time he'll have a rapier. And I have the creeping suspicion that a great big bunch of people think the same.
Bows. Whenever I imagine a wilderness rogue type (doesn't have to be the UA class variant even), and especially when she's an elf, I see them using bows.
Sap/Blackjack. If you want to knock someone out (which I'd say isn't that rare for an urban rogue), the blackjack is your best friend.
And this doesn't take into account fighter/rogues and the like using larger weapons for sneak attacks. I'm just not buying that "you can't sneak attack with a spear or longsword" nonsense.
The difference between a rapier and a short sword is cost, especially in 4th Edition where it seems all rogue attacks are based off of Dexterity (no need for a Weapon Finesse feat), and crits are max damage. Therefore, I see no reason to print two weapons that have identical stats.
Of course, I never really considered the shortbow to be a real rogue-ish type weapon. The sap on the other hand is a logical choice, so I'll concede that point.
The only weapon that I may miss is the light crossbow, which did seem like a thematic rogue weapon.
However if I really want more weapons (or if I will even need more in the case of the rapier = shortsword example), I dont think its a big deal to take a training feat, or even multiclass (as a ranged warrior seems to be the venue of the ranger now).
Again, my stance is that the new rogue has more options overall than the previous rogue.
So just a small thought, but perhaps the reason we've seen the two very simple tactics so far (Artful Dodger and Brawny Thug) is to allow DMs to easily facilitate their own Tactics? I'm sure this can easily be spun into "To sell more books" as well, but with this mechanic in place, I imagine a DM can pretty easily create "The Master Spy" Tactics which would grant more Intelligence based options and modify a few Powers, or "The Vigilante Archer" and have the build grant access to Bows, allow for Bow sneak attack and give a bonus to a few powers.
So now I have to make my own powers as well? Why not make a more open game where usual options are possible without tinkering with the system?
But not rolling for hit points anymore?
You DO realize that "rolling" for hit points was pretty much optional in 3e (and non-existant in the Living Campaigns since late 2e), right?
Not really. IN 3e, rolling for HP and ability scores was standard. Not rolling for them was an optional rule. But some prospective player just picking up the PHB (since the DMG and MM aren't for him) will only see those methods.
I've seen 3e (and older) players taking the mere existence of (or ANY postitive feedback on) 4e as a direct insult too - it's probably the biggest thing keeping me from utterly hating 4e; when people get that bitter over something that doesn't exist yet... well, I just don't want to be one of THEM...
You can't glorify an extreme by pointing out the shortcomings of the opposite extreme.
The rest of your assertion is also incorrect. Druids were not "removed" from the game, they simply havent been converted over yet. Nothing says you can’t play a swashbuckling-style rogue: in fact, some of the powers and styles seem to be more inclined to ALLOW that archetype than 3E would.
I'd like to avoid the whole gnome bit, because that was added like, MONTHS ago.The players handbook is what the players are expected to have. Can a player play a gnome or a druid or a bard from the players handbook? No. I would love to be able to tell those at my table to go get a subscription to DDI to play the half orc, to wait however long until they come out with PHBII, III or IV, or to go buy a monster manual. Unfortunately that’s not really something that I would expect of those that play with me; and I would never tell them they have to buy “expansion packs” to play what they had been playing from the beginning.
So, unfortunately, it is not as simple as is stated by you and an additional investment of XXX dollars or for that matter having to refer to 3-4 books just to play what was core is not the “same” as before.
For that matter, if I were to start over, what do I do with the bard or the druid in my campaign setting? Do they magically take a vacation for XXX months? Then do they come back from the vacation whenever WOTC comes out with the books?
I could not have said this better. All existing campaigns explode. Convert or take 6 months off while the DM does the work.
The rest of your assertion is also incorrect. Druids were not "removed" from the game, they simply havent been converted over yet. Nothing says you can’t play a swashbuckling-style rogue: in fact, some of the powers and styles seem to be more inclined to ALLOW that archetype than 3E would.
I'd like to avoid the whole gnome bit, because that was added like, MONTHS ago.The players handbook is what the players are expected to have. Can a player play a gnome or a druid or a bard from the players handbook? No. I would love to be able to tell those at my table to go get a subscription to DDI to play the half orc, to wait however long until they come out with PHBII, III or IV, or to go buy a monster manual. Unfortunately that’s not really something that I would expect of those that play with me; and I would never tell them they have to buy “expansion packs” to play what they had been playing from the beginning.
So, unfortunately, it is not as simple as is stated by you and an additional investment of XXX dollars or for that matter having to refer to 3-4 books just to play what was core is not the “same” as before.
For that matter, if I were to start over, what do I do with the bard or the druid in my campaign setting? Do they magically take a vacation for XXX months? Then do they come back from the vacation whenever WOTC comes out with the books?
I dont know how many times this needs to be said: you can play gnomes in 4th Edition, so trying to maintain a stance by saying that you cant isnt going to hold up.
To address the actual points about the classes, they werent taken out of the game. They are not available, yet, and thats not the same thing. If they were removed from the game you'd never get to play them.
Of course, I'm not arguing whats core. I want to play psionic characters, but there are other things I can play until the next book comes out. If you cant, or wont, or need to play a druid or whatever happens to not be coming out, fine.
My argument is against Razz and his statement that the new rogue is simplistic and primitive.
Antioch,
4e combat has more options to it. Rogues benefit from that. Great.
That doesn't change the fact that the character class is more narrow. Unless there are major things we aren't being shown, there are far fewer character concepts that can be made out of this rogue than the 3e one.
More kinds of attacks is nice, but the 3e blurb "Rogues have little in common with each other. Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver tongued tricksters. Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs." shows the range of concepts supported.
Maybe there is some source of options for the con artist or the noble rake or the information gatherer that isn't in this preview. But with the information we are given... its not there. Every single rogue must have thievery as a skill set? That's certainly different and not in good way, imho.
And the weapons are not "things no one used". Rapiers, shortbows, clubs... these are staple rogue weapons. Hand crossbows and shuriken? I've never had a player using either of these in 30 years of gaming outside of an Oriental Adventures campaign. It might be easy and inexpensive to customize the weapons list, but we don't know. Taking a non class weapon in 3e was ridiculously expensive (a full feat selection).
Sorry, mind is still boggling over a rogue that can't use a club...
With what has been shown, every rogue "type" you mention above can be supported with the possible exception of the diplomat, since it seems that Persuasion isnt on their skill list. Now, I say perhaps because characters get a +1 to all skills every 2 levels, so its entirely possible that they still can do those things.
Now, IF there is no simple method to pick up new weapon types, or if the weapons arent groups or somesuch, my only thought is that the designer's discovered that most people DIDNT use the above weapons, or perhaps there is a group of weapons that anyone can use (after all, virtually every class in the PH has Simple Weapon Proficiency except for the monk and wizard).
Rather than saying that in every class, repeating the data, they are all lumped in a category that requires no proficiency at all.
I could not have said this better. All existing campaigns explode. Convert or take 6 months off while the DM does the work.The rest of your assertion is also incorrect. Druids were not "removed" from the game, they simply havent been converted over yet. Nothing says you can’t play a swashbuckling-style rogue: in fact, some of the powers and styles seem to be more inclined to ALLOW that archetype than 3E would.
I'd like to avoid the whole gnome bit, because that was added like, MONTHS ago.The players handbook is what the players are expected to have. Can a player play a gnome or a druid or a bard from the players handbook? No. I would love to be able to tell those at my table to go get a subscription to DDI to play the half orc, to wait however long until they come out with PHBII, III or IV, or to go buy a monster manual. Unfortunately that’s not really something that I would expect of those that play with me; and I would never tell them they have to buy “expansion packs” to play what they had been playing from the beginning.
So, unfortunately, it is not as simple as is stated by you and an additional investment of XXX dollars or for that matter having to refer to 3-4 books just to play what was core is not the “same” as before.
For that matter, if I were to start over, what do I do with the bard or the druid in my campaign setting? Do they magically take a vacation for XXX months? Then do they come back from the vacation whenever WOTC comes out with the books?
Wrong. My group is still in Age of Worms and consists of a cleric/divine mind/psychic theurge, bard/seeker of the song, warblade/heir of Siberys, sorcerer (emphasizing Conjuration), and a truenamer.
This campaign isnt going to explode at all. In fact, since I have a lot of fun playing 3rd Edition I'm going to continue it in 3rd Edition until we finish it.Of course, I'll be running a 4E campaign on the alternate days, but the other game isnt going anywhere.
One of the biggest complaints about 4th edition is the WotC marketing tactic of suggesting that there might be problems with the 3.5 system, which some 3.5 fans seem to consider to be a personal insult. Hmmm. Are all the anti4e fans so thin skinned?
Just sayin
So... How does taking a company to task for consistently poor marketing that runs contrary to their very own claims (of trying to keep current customers) begin to compare to people communicating over the internet taking comments personally in a debate (used loosely) that they choose to be in?
I don't see the parallels at all.
Has anyone here ever played a gnome? In 25 years of gaming in 3 continents, I've never seen or even heard of someone even contemplating playing a gnome.
I do. I'm glad they are in 4th Edition and I can play one right from the start.
Has anyone here ever played a gnome? In 25 years of gaming in 3 continents, I've never seen or even heard of someone even contemplating playing a gnome.
I have. At least five in as many long running (2+ years, real time) campaigns.
And?
Because you're taking my statement way out of context. Which pretty much sums up most posts about 4th edition.
Really?
Let me see if I get your context:
KaeYoss claims that criticizing 4th Edition or the designers (and I have seen very little of the latter) tends to be interpreted as a personal attack against those that are anticipating 4th Edition
You "counter," so to speak, with the claim that 3.5 fans take it as a personal insult* when WotC "points out flaws" with 3.5.
Does that about sum it up?
My post still stands as written.
So if that isn't the correct context, you'll have to take the time to enlighten me further.
*Which I haven't noticed. Myself, and those that tend to react like me, are calling WotC on their marketing (from the ones I read). While I can't speak for the others, for myself I don't take it personally. I could care less - they already lost my support. But I no less continue to call them on it, in the hopes of opening others eyes to the fact that is lazy and shoddy marketing. Not to mention flawed.
|
|
or perhaps there is a group of weapons that anyone can use (after all, virtually every class in the PH has Simple Weapon Proficiency except for the monk and wizard).
Rather than saying that in every class, repeating the data, they are all lumped in a category that requires no proficiency at all.
I thought about this and that could be the answer.
Still, as presented the rules seem to say that a rogue can not use his primary class combat ability (i.e. sneak attack) with a bow, a spear, a sap or a club... all of which seems strange to me. Sneaking up on someone from behind and thunking them on the skull with a very heavy piece of wood seems a staple of all sorts of stories. As does the stealthy archer who takes out his foes with a single shot.
or perhaps there is a group of weapons that anyone can use (after all, virtually every class in the PH has Simple Weapon Proficiency except for the monk and wizard).
Rather than saying that in every class, repeating the data, they are all lumped in a category that requires no proficiency at all.
I thought about this and that could be the answer.
Still, as presented the rules seem to say that a rogue can not use his primary class combat ability (i.e. sneak attack) with a bow, a spear, a sap or a club... all of which seems strange to me. Sneaking up on someone from behind and thunking them on the skull with a very heavy piece of wood seems a staple of all sorts of stories. As does the stealthy archer who takes out his foes with a single shot.
Hmm, and here I thought it was allowed against anything that had combat advantage, it looks like it only applies with a "light blade", crossbow, or sling.
This is something that I'm certain the designers DID take into consideration when making the game. Remember, these rules arent entirely in context, which is a concern that I have when the throw out some crunch.For example, we know that the ranger is the martial striker who uses ranged weapons. If you want to play a "bow character", then ranger is for you. I can understand the reasoning why, and the basic summary is to avoid having redundant class features or "bleeding" into another class's territory.
Now, that might sound like a really stupid idea. After all, the 3rd Edition fighter can either be really good with melee weapons OR really good with ranged weapons depending on how you build it. The new fighter seems to be much more concentrated on melee prowess.
Why its not a bad thing is because of the new multiclassing rules and training feats. If you want to play a rogue whose got some awesome ranged tricks, you can always multiclass into ranger or just take Ranger Training, or whatever its called. Since the designers have said, "any level, any combination, always works".
Normally in 3rd Edition, I would despair at a system patch that requires the expenditure of an already few amount of feats. However since 4th Edition gives you more, I dont take issues with this kind of theoretical method.
If you want to play a rogue that can branch out into a more defender-like manner (say, as a kind of bodyguard), you can take Fighter Training or just take a few fighter levels.
Of course, feats might just unlock other things as well. You take this feat, you can now use a larger array of weapons with sneak attack. You take a feat called like, Sniper or something, and can now use more ranged weapons with it.
So thats two methods to address this concern of limited options: multiclassing and feats, whether Training feats or feats that make your existing stuff better (we know that paladins get quite an array of feats that make their smites do other things).
Oh yeah, since the ranger is the martial ranged guy now, if you want to do the super-deadly snipe thing, you may very well need to go into ranger or take a Training feat to do it. It wouldnt bother me much, however, since a power that does lots of damage with a ranged attack and a sneak attack with a ranged weapon isnt really different at all, but really semantics.
Has anyone here ever played a gnome? In 25 years of gaming in 3 continents, I've never seen or even heard of someone even contemplating playing a gnome.
I have. If I had to draw up a list of the most awesome D&D characters I've seen, there'd be several gnomes in it - one would be a serious contender for the gold medal.
I dont know how many times this needs to be said: you can play gnomes in 4th Edition, so trying to maintain a stance by saying that you cant isnt going to hold up.
Sure, you can play one. But you need more than the PHB for that, since they're not in the PHB at all.
It probably also means that they'll be mostly neglected. While eladrin and dragonborn will get a lot of spotlight, gnomes will be supernumeraries at best.
To address the actual points about the classes, they werent taken out of the game. They are not available, yet, and thats not the same thing. If they were removed from the game you'd never get to play them.
That's very helpful for those who want to convert their campaign immediately only to find that several parts that used to be core options are "not available yet".
What's your suggestion to those with campaigns where bards, druids and half-orcs (not to mention generalist wizards) are important parts of the setting? Are they supposed to wait a couple of years until they can play there again? Or do the work themselves? Or subscribe to the "you-do-not-need-to-subscribe" DDI?
What may or even will become available in the future doesn't help me right now.
Jeez you are thin skinned folks, arent you.
I just used candylad because thats what I just played with my daughter. First example that popped into my head.
I say thinned skinned because I see WAY too many threads or posts floating around from 4e fans that can be boiled down to "if you dont like it get lost."
1. I am not folks. I am a single person and I speak for only myself.
2. So that is just the first thing that popped into your head. And? Does that matter why you chose that when it is insulting to have the complexity of a game to be described analogous to Candyland?
3. That's why you call me thinned-skinned? Really? That's funny since I don't remember saying anything like that. Ever. My posts are mostly about not throwing around insults at editions, designers, or people (I mostly don't comment on the people insulting 3.5 or such because by the time I get there other people have already complained about it).
|
The rest of your assertion is also incorrect. Druids were not "removed" from the game, they simply havent been converted over yet. Nothing says you can’t play a swashbuckling-style rogue: in fact, some of the powers and styles seem to be more inclined to ALLOW that archetype than 3E would.
I'd like to avoid the whole gnome bit, because that was added like, MONTHS ago.The players handbook is what the players are expected to have. Can a player play a gnome or a druid or a bard from the players handbook? No. I would love to be able to tell those at my table to go get a subscription to DDI to play the half orc, to wait however long until they come out with PHBII, III or IV, or to go buy a monster manual. Unfortunately that’s not really something that I would expect of those that play with me; and I would never tell them they have to buy “expansion packs” to play what they had been playing from the beginning.
So, unfortunately, it is not as simple as is stated by you and an additional investment of XXX dollars or for that matter having to refer to 3-4 books just to play what was core is not the “same” as before.
For that matter, if I were to start over, what do I do with the bard or the druid in my campaign setting? Do they magically take a vacation for XXX months? Then do they come back from the vacation whenever WOTC comes out with the books?
I dont know how many times this needs to be said: you can play gnomes in 4th Edition, so trying to maintain a stance by saying that you cant isnt going to hold up.
To address the actual points about the classes, they werent taken out of the game. They are not available, yet, and thats not the same thing. If they were removed from the game you'd never get to play them.
Of course, I'm not arguing whats core. I want to play psionic characters, but there are other things I can play until the next book comes out. If you cant, or wont, or need to play a druid or whatever happens to not be coming...
Yea, but Antioch, the thing is that MANY people (myself not included) do not want to spend money on something they should already have. It is a little silly on Wizards' part. I don't mind, because I set a portion of my monthly expenses away for D&D, but many just cannot buy "unnecessary" books, even though they need a class from it to continue their campaign if they plan on converting. It is my least favorite part of 4e, and it is really a stupid move by Wizards.
|
|
Actually, its NOT the same impact. If Bob wants to play a paladin and the paladin isnt in the game, thats much harder to create "on the fly" and put into play. If Bob wants to play a rogue using a rapier, its much easier for a DM to waive it and allow it. The rapier exists, its just a simple case of swapping or even adding weapon proficiencies.
So I should pay a couple of hundred books to get books full of rules that I'm just gonna have to waive to play the game I already own?
I think I found a less expensive solution...
Yea, but Antioch, the thing is that MANY people (myself not included) do not want to spend money on something they should already have. It is a little silly on Wizards' part. I don't mind, because I set a portion of my monthly expenses away for D&D, but many just cannot buy "unnecessary" books, even though they need a class from it to continue their campaign if they plan on converting. It is my least favorite part of 4e, and it is really a stupid move by Wizards.
You will have to spend money to legally acquire many elements of D&D. What is and isnt core is entirely up to the designers, and what you think should be core is entirely a matter of perspective. The changes were probably made for a reason (diversity comes to mind, and also majority rule).
I'm a psionics fan. Its not unreasonable for me to assume that I will need to shell out some amount of money to get the official rules on psionics in a 4th Edition game. Some people think that half-orcs are for some reason a "core" race and should be in there to the exclusion of other, more popular races (tieflings and dragonborn, for example).
Again, you dont have to convert the entirety of your campaign once 4th Edition comes out, and Wizards has recommended that you dont. I'm sure that most people will be able to keep having fun when 4th Edition comes out, whether or not they get the new game. I myself am going to wrap up Age of Worms using 3rd Edition rules, though I might try to funnel in some 4E changes. I MIGHT. It depends on how complicated its going to be. Really, I could probably change the warblade into a fighter, the cleric/divine mind into a wizard who uses Wisdom instead of Int, and the bard could maybe go warlord/wizard. The truenamer...wizard, perhaps? The sorcerer...eh, maybe wizard with Cha instead of Int.
I could, but probably wont. I might do that with Savage Tide, however.
I guess you could say that I kind of sympathize. I think that many of the people complaining about the half-orc were either just looking for ammunition, or maybe just only like to ever play half-orcs. I'm not the designers, so I'm not going to tell you WHY they did the things they did, but I understand why they probably did based on what I've heard. If the gnome wasnt going to be in 4th Edition at the start, and if I DID play the druid a lot, then I'd STILL be okay with things (I was okay with the alleged loss of gnomes back in September, or whenever it was) because there are plenty of other things that I want to play aside from that.
Actually, its NOT the same impact. If Bob wants to play a paladin and the paladin isnt in the game, thats much harder to create "on the fly" and put into play. If Bob wants to play a rogue using a rapier, its much easier for a DM to waive it and allow it. The rapier exists, its just a simple case of swapping or even adding weapon proficiencies.So I should pay a couple of hundred books to get books full of rules that I'm just gonna have to waive to play the game I already own?
I think I found a less expensive solution...
Yes, my statement that "houseruling a weapon proficiency is easier than houseruling an entire class" means exactly that. I guess. But, whatever helps you justify your conclusion in your own head.
|
|
Has anyone here ever played a gnome? In 25 years of gaming in 3 continents, I've never seen or even heard of someone even contemplating playing a gnome.
Several. They're really fun, and they make kick-ass spellcasters (+2 dex and con rocks, plus the size modifier to hit and ac). And whisper gnomes are insanely good.
By the way, druid has been my favorite class since 1st edition.
I'm pretty curious as to what they are going to do with the 4E version of the druid, as its supposed to be more geared around wildshaping as its primary shtick.
Mainly, I'd like it to avoid all the balance issues you get with the 3E one.
I'm pretty curious as to what they are going to do with the 4E version of the druid, as its supposed to be more geared around wildshaping as its primary shtick.
Mainly, I'd like it to avoid all the balance issues you get with the 3E one.
Is a wildshape focused Druid a ... striker? a defender? Could go lots of different ways (maybe a defender-striker hybrid)
Thats what I'm not sure about. It sounds like it would be either a defender or a striker. I'm guessing it will be released with the barbarian, whom also has some striker-ish sounding powers, so I have no idea which is going to be which.
This is part of the reason I can see for using the classes that go into the book: focus on a few power sources at first, and make sure there are plenty of options spread out for every role. The next PH will likely open up three new power sources (I know Shadow is one, and both Psionic and Primal have been tossed around).
Its been said that some classes have a focused role, but also lean into other roles as well. On top of that, feat selection and builds can push you further into another role, so its not all set in stone.
|
I'm disappointed.
Since I didn't plan to switch to 4th edition, that isn't surprising, I suppose. But, for a sneak preview, it seems like providing the context would be good. Answering the unanswered questions would be good.
I really don't know about what options there will be to avoid 'strait-jacketing' players, but I do know that there are already a lot of options in 3rd edition. And while I certainly admit that there are things that can be improved in 3.x, I don't see the need for a new edition to do so. What really concerns me is that while some of the 'problems' are addressed, it just looks like there are new ones.
I like minatures, and I always use a battlemat. But I do feel that it sometimes takes out the roleplaying aspects that were more prevalent in earlier editions of the game. Defining abilities by 'squares' is silly. It is silly in 3rd edition (where two people can't fight in a typical bathroom without resort to grappling) and it isn't any less silly in 4th edition.
I haven't seen 4th edition in action, but it doesn't seem easier to keep track of everything. I don't believe, for a minute, that we're seeing anything like an exhaustive list of abilities and powers. If 4th edition does well, they'll certainly release more books of these types of abilities. And while it may allow some flexibility, I think this system will have less than 3rd currently has. I like the fact that I can be a bow specialist in 3.x with a variety of different builds (even wizard!), but in 4th, it looks like I'll have to play a ranger....
I just don't like accepting fewer options. And even if 4th edition is going to mean more options later, I don't like buying books over and over to gain access to stuff I already have. Further coupled with the transparency of the rules and the open gaming license and I have a situation where anything that isn't to my personal satisfaction can be adjusted, and I can even sell it to others.
There are so many things that I find lacking in the 4th edition, but I'm surprised that this article didn't try to reassure me about any of them. Good thing I'm still having fun with my 'boring 3rd edition rogues'.