Of all places, Ain't It Cool News has the first part of a 3 part(?) play tester review of 4e.
For all those 4e haters, be prepared for disappointment, this guy loves it and it shows.
It is rules lite because the author wants to give his impressions of the game and he figures a lot of crunch stuff will be out on the web anyway.
Enjoy,
~~Saracenus
if he is a playtester then no he can only say good things
For all those 4e haters, be prepared for disappointment, this guy loves it and it shows.
We've already been over this. The playtesters are under a Non Disclosure Agreement. They get released from that agreement on a case by case basis partially or completely on the advisement of marketing. We've all heard about "the email."
So yeah, it's entirely possible that his opinions are genuine and he loves 4e. But it's not a sample of any size. It's a man hand-picked to be released from the NDA on the grounds that they felt from a marketing standpoint that having him talking was better than having him silent.
It's like handing the guy the entire deck of cards, having him look at all of them, and then he decides which cards to show you. And of course, they are all aces. Does that mean that the entire deck is composed of aces? Maybe. But more likely the guy who is physically looking at all the cards before deciding whether to show them or not is choosing to show you just the aces in the deck. You have no way to know how many of the cards are not aces, and even speculating is pointless.
---
Because the WotC staff already got their hands caught in the cookie jar accepting or rejecting specific playtesters for NDA release and instructing them to keep their statements "positive," testimonials like Massawyrm's are almost completely worthless.
It means that at least one person likes 4e. It does not mean that many people like 4e, it does not mean that few people like 4e. It just means that the system is not universally reviled. Which just about everyone could have told you without stuff like this.
-Frank
if he is a playtester then no he can only say good things
Not True they can say what they want once they are out from under the NDA
If he liked it, it's because he's only allowed to say good things and was told not to speak of the things he hated. It obviously makes everything he says worthless.
If he DID have some really bad things to say, then he would obviously be telling the truth and giving the finger to the cruel hand of authority and we'd finally know the truth.
If he liked it, it's because he's only allowed to say good things and was told not to speak of the things he hated. It obviously makes everything he says worthless.
If he DID have some really bad things to say, then he would obviously be telling the truth and giving the finger to the cruel hand of authority and we'd finally know the truth.
Are you sure you know what "obviously" means?
If he liked it, it's because he's only allowed to say good things and was told not to speak of the things he hated. It obviously makes everything he says worthless.
If he DID have some really bad things to say, then he would obviously be telling the truth and giving the finger to the cruel hand of authority and we'd finally know the truth.
All sarcasm aside, they are screening these guys. Only people who they believe will say nice things are being allowed to speak and those people who are allowed to speak are coached on what to say and how.
The fact that this guy likes it is meaningless to us. If he didn't like it, he would not have been allowed to talk. As long as at least one person on the playtester crew is wildly enthusiastic, someone would have written that piece.
To the puddle it is quite amazing how perfectly the depression was made to fit it.
-Frank
Being told that they are free to submit positive comments but not negative ones does not render the guy's statements invalid. Maybe he didn't speak about things he didn't like (though he DID say what he didn't like in the article) but he did make a lot of comments regarding the things he did like. There's no reason to believe that he's lying. Or that he was "coached". I mean, coached? Come on, now. That's going way too far, IMO.
And this guy in particular has mentioned some things that he didn't like and hinted that he would into further detail in another part of his 3 part article. He might not even be bound by the same stipulation as the infamous "share your positives, let us know your negatives" email.
Or, maybe that was just Mearls using the guy's password and screen name. I hear that the DDI is part keylogger.
Whether he was lying or not the article made me feel like I was at the car lot. I know he just wants to sell the new version but it just felt really forced.
Disappointed? Nope. It is exactly the dumbed down, made for ADHD racked 13-year old WoW addicts game I have been expecting for months now. Insulted? Good, maybe you will be a little more cognizant of being on the receiving end of scorn from "4E haters".
I am more convinced than ever that 4E is a steaming pile of (inseret appropriate animal, fish, or reptile) droppings. The excited fanboy opinion of someone I don't even know that may or may no be under the terms of an NDA OR being payed by the originators of the subject material is worthless to me. I can easily find a used car lot where a just as excited person would LOVE to sell me the best car I've ever owned. No thanks, WotC pulled that one already, pardon me if I refuse to play the sucker again.
I can't help but wonder what Erik Mona is thinking about the announcement of annual hardcover Dungeon and Dragon compilations. Considering all the work they put into the 3.5 chapter of both of those fine magazines, My a** would be pretty chapped, but he is probably a much kinder and gentler soul than I am.
So, a great big pass on Dragonball 4.0 - with Tieflings! And overpriced minis! And minimum $120 dollars a year pricing for content we could easily have included in the original releases! If the announced release schedule continues apace, you can expect the splatbook parade to drain your wallets nicely, so at least THAT part will work out nicely for them.
They have lost my trust and my faith. Not that any of the soulless yes men over there will care in the slightest anyway - I'm not the target demographic.
Just in case anyone was still under the impression that "you only need three books to play our really kewl new game."
This was lifted from the linked page. I didn't count the draconomicon or the campaign specific books OR the mini boosters OR the adventure modules.
I won't assume what you do or do not need, so do your own stinkin math. How many of you REALLY feel the core three will be enough. Next spring you can add the PHBII, DMGII, and MMII to the list.
Soooo...wasn't there a mention of rules bloat and too many splatbooks somewhere along the line? oh well. I'll return to my corner now and be bitter.
Player’s Handbook
Dungeon Master’s Guide
Monster Manual
Tome of Treasures
Martial Power
D&D Insider
Arcane Power in 2009
Later Player’s Handbooks
Dragon Magzine. Be able to purchase as non-subscriber. About half of what the print versions cost… $3.
No physical reciprocation… if you buy the analogue, you don’t get the digital
Virtual minis- purchase individual and groups
I really don't get you guys. Why is it so unreasonable for a company that publishes games and books to publish games and books? Of course they are going to keep releasing material for their game. That is what publishers do. However, I am positive that the three core books will include everything you need to play and enjoy the game for as long as you want. If you feel the need to get sucked into buying more and more upgrades go for it, but there is no way you need to buy beyond the core books to play the game.
I agree about not necessarily giving some random play testers testimony a lot of value, but I think when June comes around it will be worth my while to look at the new game and decide for myself how i feel about it. There is way too much out of context scraps floating around right now for any of us to make a truly informed decision about how good or bad the game is going to be. It doesn't really matter to me how anyone on these boards chooses to spend their money, but I am surprised to see how many people are opiniated about the quality or lack of quality of the game when they haven't actually seen the product or tried it out. I think you may be missing out on the chance to have a better gaming experience because of your close mindedness.
Bear in mind I'm not saying you should run out and buy 4E books, but I for one am eager to try it out and then decide for myself whether I like it or not. If I don't, no big deal I'll keep playing 3.5. However, if I decide it really is a more fun game to play then I'll be glad I gave it a chance.
Just in case anyone was still under the impression that "you only need three books to play our really kewl new game."
This was lifted from the linked page. I didn't count the draconomicon or the campaign specific books OR the mini boosters OR the adventure modules.
I won't assume what you do or do not need, so do your own stinkin math. How many of you REALLY feel the core three will be enough. Next spring you can add the PHBII, DMGII, and MMII to the list.
Soooo...wasn't there a mention of rules bloat and too many splatbooks somewhere along the line? oh well. I'll return to my corner now and be bitter.
Player’s Handbook
Dungeon Master’s Guide
Monster Manual
Tome of Treasures
Martial Power
D&D Insider
Arcane Power in 2009
Later Player’s Handbooks
Dragon Magzine. Be able to purchase as non-subscriber. About half of what the print versions cost… $3.
No physical reciprocation… if you buy the analogue, you don’t get the digital
Virtual minis- purchase individual and groups
However, I am positive that the three core books will include everything you need to play and enjoy the game for as long as you want. If you feel the need to get sucked into buying more and more upgrades go for it, but there is no way you need to buy beyond the core books to play the game.
While I do agree with your attitude on trying it before you buy it I kind of disagree with your statement about everything you need being include. While doubtlessly you will be able to play the game with just the three books it does not include everything a lot of people need. As we already know the monk, bard, sorcerer and barbarian will not be appearing in the players handbook. They are slated (not confirmed at this time) for appearance in the PHII that will be released in 2009. While the game weill be playable to many third edition players these classes constitute 'core D&D' and wether or not you agree with that for them if they want to be able to play 'core' D&D they are going to have to buy more than just the initial three books.
Similiar situations occour with the gnome and the half orc, also with Illusion and necromancy all of which don't appear in the first three books but are believed to be appearing later. While the game will be playable to get these elements that many believe are core to D&D people will have to buy more than just PH, DMG and MM.
This whole difference comes down to the fact that there seems to be a big gap between what WotC have put into their core three books and what many D&D fans onsider to be the 'core of D&D'.
4th edition, to me at least seems to show the biggest discrepancy in this than any other edition.
Disappointed? Nope. It is exactly the dumbed down, made for ADHD racked 13-year old WoW addicts game I have been expecting for months now. Insulted? Good, maybe you will be a little more cognizant of being on the receiving end of scorn from "4E haters".
I am more convinced than ever that 4E is a steaming pile of (inseret appropriate animal, fish, or reptile) droppings. The excited fanboy opinion of someone I don't even know that may or may no be under the terms of an NDA OR being payed by the originators of the subject material is worthless to me. I can easily find a used car lot where a just as excited person would LOVE to sell me the best car I've ever owned. No thanks, WotC pulled that one already, pardon me if I refuse to play the sucker again.
I can't help but wonder what Erik Mona is thinking about the announcement of annual hardcover Dungeon and Dragon compilations. Considering all the work they put into the 3.5 chapter of both of those fine magazines, My a** would be pretty chapped, but he is probably a much kinder and gentler soul than I am.
So, a great big pass on Dragonball 4.0 - with Tieflings! And overpriced minis! And minimum $120 dollars a year pricing for content we could easily have included in the original releases! If the announced release schedule continues apace, you can expect the splatbook parade to drain your wallets nicely, so at least THAT part will work out nicely for them.
They have lost my trust and my faith. Not that any of the soulless yes men over there will care in the slightest anyway - I'm not the target demographic.
Are you the guy in that other thread that wanted to spit on someone? Just asking. I mean, I understand that you don't like what you've seen so far but you seem especially vehement and emotional about it all.
If you have your 3.5 books and get a clear sense of the rules for 4E, good dms and players could design a solid house rules 4E monk class or half orc race to play in the game without needing to buy more rule books. It's just a matter of how much work you want to put in. I have a feeling that with levels per class, and getting new special abilties on a regular basis, it would be very hard to fit all the races and classes into the first phb. For me the core rules have always given good bang for buck, so I think that despite certain classes missing from the 4E core rules they will continue to be a good value if you decide you like the new system.
I'm personally interested in some of the new races classes they have decided to make core, and I haven't been a big fan of the ones they left out, so the choices they've made don't bother me.
By the way 2e phb didn't have barbarians, monks or sorcerers either, and I can't remember if it had half orcs (I haven't looked at it in a long time).
However, I am positive that the three core books will include everything you need to play and enjoy the game for as long as you want. If you feel the need to get sucked into buying more and more upgrades go for it, but there is no way you need to buy beyond the core books to play the game.
While I do agree with your attitude on trying it before you buy it I kind of disagree with your statement about everything you need being include. While doubtlessly you will be able to play the game with just the three books it does not include everything a lot of people need. As we already know the monk, bard, sorcerer and barbarian will not be appearing in the players handbook. They are slated (not confirmed at this time) for appearance in the PHII that will be released in 2009. While the game weill be playable to many third edition players these classes constitute 'core D&D' and wether or not you agree with that for them if they want to be able to play 'core' D&D they are going to have to buy more than just the initial three books.
Similiar situations occour with the gnome and the half orc, also with Illusion and necromancy all of which don't appear in the first three books but are believed to be appearing later. While the game will be playable to get these elements that many believe are core to D&D people will have to buy more than just PH, DMG and MM.
This whole difference comes down to the fact that there seems to be a big gap between what WotC have put into their core three books and what many D&D fans onsider to be the 'core of D&D'.
4th edition, to me at least seems to show the biggest discrepancy in this than any other edition.
My take on this review. First off, I read it, top to bottom. And I am glad that he enjoys 4E so much. I hope he has a long and fulling game experience with it. But here's what I see:
I don’t care what you’re playing, whether the party’s wizard, its cleric, the fighter or its rogue, you will always have the option of doing something useful. You will never be forced (as long as you’re conscious) to simply sit and watch everyone else play because you’ve run out of spells or don’t have a high enough Spell Penetration or lack a weapon property to get through DR.
You see, I like that part of 3.5. I like the fact that my character is not always useful. WHY?!? Because I am not always useful. IMO, what we do when we are not useful says more about who we are as opposed to when we are doing stuff. Besides, knowing that my character isn't Mr Perfect, Mr Always there with something to contribute, Mr Complete Winner, makes me like him more. I like a character as much of a loser as I am.
Everyone moves and counts and there’s never a hint of second guessing.
You, dude, play with an entirely different group of people then I do. I play with people that second guess which fast food restaurant they goto. No rules innovations will change that about them. I'm sorry, but either he's playing with the ideal gaming group, or he's writing a puff piece. Sixteen session and not a single person even had a single hint of second guessing. I cry, "Bulls***!" Innane statements like that make me wonder just how much of the rest of the piece is puffed up. So I can't believe any of it.
ya know this is the frist editon to take races and classes out of the phb instad of adding them. sure we get new races and classes but they took out something that WAS apart of the game. now i could have lived with the new classes if u didnt take out the classics so u could sell more books..i think i'll pass on 4e the collectors editon.
oh and some ones gonna bring up hey i recall when drawf was a class they took it out..no they moved it to the races where it belonged.
Yeah, I don't really get it either. Has wizards' staff been coming by people's houses to drag them out and make them buy all the new books they put out? Why do people get angry about them adding new books to support their prodcut? If you like it enough you buy it, if you don't you keep your money in your wallet; what's hard about that?
Are you the guy in that other thread that wanted to spit on someone? Just asking. I mean, I understand that you don't like what you've seen so far but you seem especially vehement and emotional about it all.Disappointed? Nope. It is exactly the dumbed down, made for ADHD racked 13-year old WoW addicts game I have been expecting for months now. Insulted? Good, maybe you will be a little more cognizant of being on the receiving end of scorn from "4E haters".
I am more convinced than ever that 4E is a steaming pile of (inseret appropriate animal, fish, or reptile) droppings. The excited fanboy opinion of someone I don't even know that may or may no be under the terms of an NDA OR being payed by the originators of the subject material is worthless to me. I can easily find a used car lot where a just as excited person would LOVE to sell me the best car I've ever owned. No thanks, WotC pulled that one already, pardon me if I refuse to play the sucker again.
I can't help but wonder what Erik Mona is thinking about the announcement of annual hardcover Dungeon and Dragon compilations. Considering all the work they put into the 3.5 chapter of both of those fine magazines, My a** would be pretty chapped, but he is probably a much kinder and gentler soul than I am.
So, a great big pass on Dragonball 4.0 - with Tieflings! And overpriced minis! And minimum $120 dollars a year pricing for content we could easily have included in the original releases! If the announced release schedule continues apace, you can expect the splatbook parade to drain your wallets nicely, so at least THAT part will work out nicely for them.
They have lost my trust and my faith. Not that any of the soulless yes men over there will care in the slightest anyway - I'm not the target demographic.
i'll say it one more time. 2E took out classes that had become core in 1E. 3E put them back in again. 4E seems to be taking some out, but adding others back in, who knows people might actually end up liking them.
ya know this is the frist editon to take races and classes out of the phb instad of adding them. sure we get new races and classes but they took out something that WAS apart of the game. now i could have lived with the new classes if u didnt take out the classics so u could sell more books..i think i'll pass on 4e the collectors editon.
oh and some ones gonna bring up hey i recall when drawf was a class they took it out..no they moved it to the races where it belonged.
2E took out classes that had become core in 1E. 3E put them back in again. 4E seems to be taking some out
And with any luck, 5E will put them back in, also the traditional classes, and reverting the power level down to something resembling 1-3E.
It sounds like the power level of the 1st 15 or so levels will be pretty decent, and won't get too crazy until higher up, since characters are now on a 30 level spectrum instead of a 20 level one. In 3E with all the splat books characters can start to get real nasty round 8th level. I think a 10th level 4E character will be less powerful than a 10th level 3E character (I'm not sure on this, but it's the impression I get). Therefore, if you want to run lower powered game you have more levels to toy with before things get crazy. All you need to do is reduce the xp and treasure you give out, so that players don't advance too quickly. It also sounds like 4E characters won't be as reliant on magic items, so hopefully some of the ridiculous magic item economy that has developed in 3E will disappear.
2E took out classes that had become core in 1E. 3E put them back in again. 4E seems to be taking some outAnd with any luck, 5E will put them back in, also the traditional classes, and reverting the power level down to something resembling 1-3E.
never played 1e so i keep forgetting about that one..but druids come on
druids and bards are part of dn to me i dont know what this warlord is sept yaknow the orc warlord i keep killing and the human warlord s that keep haveing to be over thrown.
It sounds like the power level of the 1st 15 or so levels will be pretty decent, and won't get too crazy until higher up, since characters are now on a 30 level spectrum instead of a 20 level one. In 3E with all the splat books characters can start to get real nasty round 8th level. I think a 10th level 4E character will be less powerful than a 10th level 3E character (I'm not sure on this, but it's the impression I get). Therefore, if you want to run lower powered game you have more levels to toy with before things get crazy. All you need to do is reduce the xp and treasure you give out, so that players don't advance too quickly. It also sounds like 4E characters won't be as reliant on magic items, so hopefully some of the ridiculous magic item economy that has developed in 3E will disappear.
seems to me the power creep is well in hand with 1st level 4e chars seeming like 5th level 3e ones maybe its just me but i really dislike lose of low level play
I think the warlord is a bit like the marshal or the dragon shaman, in that they have various aura type powers that help buff up themselves and their allies.
never played 1e so i keep forgetting about that one..but druids come on
druids and bards are part of dn to me i dont know what this warlord is sept yaknow the orc warlord i keep killing and the human warlord s that keep haveing to be over thrown.
It sounds like the power level of the 1st 15 or so levels will be pretty decent, and won't get too crazy until higher up,
You have your opinion, I have mine. Agree to disagree.
I think a 10th level 4E character will be less powerful than a 10th level 3E character
Based on what they're calling a 1st level character, I seriously doubt that. Sounds to me like what 4E calls a 1st level character is around a 4-5 level 3.5 character.
1st level 4e chars seeming like 5th level 3e ones
Sounds to me like what 4E calls a 1st level character is around a 4-5 level 3.5 character.
Sweet. So the rough power conversion is not just my own opinion.
Well it sounds like low level PCs will be a bit heartier, in that they will have more hp to start the game with (in that respect they will be more powerful), so they won't always be at risk from a single attack when they are pretty much at full health. Let's face it 1st level isn't all that fun when you have 5-10hp and can only handle a couple of wounds before dropping- maybe you guys like it, but all my players seem to be real eager to get up to around 3rd level, so they are a bit meatier. I hope that the average goblin will now have a few extra hp as well, which would draw out low levels fights into something a little more interesting than a couple of quick swings and it's done.
Again I look forward to actually seeing the books and giving them a test run, so I can make my own choice, as opposed to deciding I hate it without even giving it a chance. I guess I just don't feel ripped off by WotC like so many others. I've liked a lot of the books they put out, and the cancellation of the mags didn't bug me. Now I have pathfinder, which I like just as much as dungeon, and I never liked dragon that much anyhow.
The only thing that pisses me off is the random minis. I want some affordable large and huge single monsters that I can just grab off the shelf. I want to be able to go to the store, drop a few bucks and pick up a pit fiend or storm giant. This whole collectible crap is annoying. Still at least there are plenty available, and I can get a lot of them pretty cheap from miniaturemarket.
seems to me the power creep is well in hand with 1st level 4e chars seeming like 5th level 3e ones maybe its just me but i really dislike lose of low level playIt sounds like the power level of the 1st 15 or so levels will be pretty decent, and won't get too crazy until higher up, since characters are now on a 30 level spectrum instead of a 20 level one. In 3E with all the splat books characters can start to get real nasty round 8th level. I think a 10th level 4E character will be less powerful than a 10th level 3E character (I'm not sure on this, but it's the impression I get). Therefore, if you want to run lower powered game you have more levels to toy with before things get crazy. All you need to do is reduce the xp and treasure you give out, so that players don't advance too quickly. It also sounds like 4E characters won't be as reliant on magic items, so hopefully some of the ridiculous magic item economy that has developed in 3E will disappear.
1st level 4e chars seeming like 5th level 3e onesSounds to me like what 4E calls a 1st level character is around a 4-5 level 3.5 character.Sweet. So the rough power conversion is not just my own opinion.
not at all . i find it just wrong is my group the only one that likes starting out as mer mortals.
2E took out classes that had become core in 1E. 3E put them back in again. 4E seems to be taking some outAnd with any luck, 5E will put them back in, also the traditional classes, and reverting the power level down to something resembling 1-3E.
I don't really agree that one can compare 1st and 2nd edition (well early 2nd edition anyway) to the power level in 3rd. One of the reasons Castles and Crusades is a pretty popular rule set is becuase its a lot closer to the power level one saw in 1st and 2nd edition. When Gygax says that 3rd edition is a super heros game he is not really lying. It is a super heros game, just a really good one IMO.
|
Coached? Hardly. Just the normal "I'm excited about this so I only tell you the cool stuff cause I want you to be excited too!" that you get when an NDA releases. Same thing happens with beta testers.
I'm glad he's excited. Maybe the sky really isn't falling.
What's amusing is that there will be this same gushing by posters on these boards after they've had 4 months exposure to the new rules.
(Oct-Feb for this fellow is 4 months)
Pete
'power level' stuff may be a bit misleading. My kid preferred yu-gi oh over MTG because the monsters in Yu-gi oh had attacks of 3000 instead of 3 and creatures had life force of 4,500 instead of 4.
It is all relative: At 1st level if you have 25 hp and damage is 5/blow it is the same as having 5 hp and damage being 1 per blow.
<SNIPPAGE>
You see, I like that part of 3.5. I like the fact that my character is not always useful. WHY?!? Because I am not always useful. IMO, what we do when we are not useful says more about who we are as opposed to when we are doing stuff. Besides, knowing that my character isn't Mr Perfect, Mr Always there with something to contribute, Mr Complete Winner, makes me like him more. I like a character as much of a loser as I am.
</SNIPPAGE>
DMcCoy1693,
I just sat down last Saturday with my group of 7 players. Some are playing min/maxed combat monsters, some are optimal builds, and others are sub-optimal. The party is all 4th level. I would say that my wife's PC is an optimal Paladin build. However, even if she Min/Maxed her PC would not reach the optimum builds of some of the other PCs and certainly not the Min/Max builds (I am looking at you Grey Elf Warmage and Catfolk Barbarian/Fighter).
For the past 3 sessions her PC has contributed about zilch to the combat (partly due to die rolls but mostly because Paladins don't really come into their own until 5th or 6th level, depending on build). She basically stands in the way of monsters and takes damage. Wow, that's fun. Oh, she can detect evil at will. And she heals a bit but we got a Favored Soul (healer build) and a cleric...
All around her are PCs taking dramatic actions, hewing down foes, and are excited about the next game. My wife is not. She loves playing paladins, but this has made her reconsider it. She is not happy and you well know, when the wife is not happy, I am not happy.
So, while playing a "loser" may be the hight of fun for you, it is choking the fun out of the game for my wife.
I want all my players to be engaged and having fun. I want my wife to be able to play any character she wants and still be able to contribute to the party and feel a part of the fun.
If 4e delivers on that, I am fine. More than fine. If 4e makes my prep time less and my encounters more fun, I am fine. More than fine. If 4e allows people to make sub-optimal builds is that is there shtick, but only if they really, really want too, I am fine. More than fine.
I am getting sick of people that make a virtue out of penalizing players like its some sort of badge of honor. That its a truer RPG experience. I call bulls**t on that.
Get over it. I hated it when it was introduced in 1e, I gagged on 2e, 3e started to move where I wanted the game to go, but still has some bumps. If 4e delivers on its promises (and the jury is still out on that until I see the full rules in June) I am fine. More than fine.
In (Fine, More Than Fine) Service,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Yeah, I don't really get it either. Has wizards' staff been coming by people's houses to drag them out and make them buy all the new books they put out? Why do people get angry about them adding new books to support their prodcut? If you like it enough you buy it, if you don't you keep your money in your wallet; what's hard about that?
Well considering that some folks who are pro-4th have been complaining that there are too many books in 3.x, those arguments seem pretty shallow considering how many books are going to contain updated material of core aspects.
Therefore, if you want to run lower powered game you have more levels to toy with before things get crazy. All you need to do is reduce the xp and treasure you give out, so that players don't advance too quickly. It also sounds like 4E characters won't be as reliant on magic items, so hopefully some of the ridiculous magic item economy that has developed in 3E will disappear.
And you can't slow down advancement in 3E? And run a low magic campaign?
<SNIPPAGE>
You see, I like that part of 3.5. I like the fact that my character is not always useful. WHY?!? Because I am not always useful. IMO, what we do when we are not useful says more about who we are as opposed to when we are doing stuff. Besides, knowing that my character isn't Mr Perfect, Mr Always there with something to contribute, Mr Complete Winner, makes me like him more. I like a character as much of a loser as I am.
</SNIPPAGE>
DMcCoy1693,
I just sat down last Saturday with my group of 7 players. Some are playing min/maxed combat monsters, some are optimal builds, and others are sub-optimal. The party is all 4th level. I would say that my wife's PC is an optimal Paladin build. However, even if she Min/Maxed her PC would not reach the optimum builds of some of the other PCs and certainly not the Min/Max builds (I am looking at you Grey Elf Warmage and Catfolk Barbarian/Fighter).
For the past 3 sessions her PC has contributed about zilch to the combat (partly due to die rolls but mostly because Paladins don't really come into their own until 5th or 6th level, depending on build). She basically stands in the way of monsters and takes damage. Wow, that's fun. Oh, she can detect evil at will. And she heals a bit but we got a Favored Soul (healer build) and a cleric...
All around her are PCs taking dramatic actions, hewing down foes, and are excited about the next game. My wife is not. She loves playing paladins, but this has made her reconsider it. She is not happy and you well know, when the wife is not happy, I am not happy.
So, while playing a "loser" may be the hight of fun for you, it is choking the fun out of the game for my wife.
I want all my players to be engaged and having fun. I want my wife to be able to play any character she wants and still be able to contribute to the party and feel a part of the fun.
If 4e delivers on that, I am fine. More than fine. If 4e makes my prep time less and my encounters more fun, I...
Not to step into the middle of an argument, but isn't the problem here less your wife's character (and 3.x by association) and more the other characters/players in the party? If you're the only one (or are in the minority) in the party NOT min maxing, building, or whatever PC term we're using for twinking out your character today, then yes, you are going to end up playing second fiddle. I'm not saying this to disparage your game, but it happens, hell, I'm dealing with it right now in my game because I decided to roll dice and not use point buy to create a character with 7 wisdom and 39 strength(no kidding). And you know what? I have fun anyway! It's not because my character is a loser, per se, but because he has to think his way around problems sometimes- and actually SUCCEED on a Will save every now and again. Finally, you admitted towards the beginning of your post that part of the problem was poor die rolling- how well are the other players rolling? Does your wife set up attacks of opportunity often(if you play with those)? Does she grapple? Force concentration checks on opposing spellcasters? And what about life outside of combat? There's more to combat that dealing damage, and more to the game than fighting, but of course we've all heard that already.
|
<SNIPPAGE>
You see, I like that part of 3.5. I like the fact that my character is not always useful. WHY?!? Because I am not always useful. IMO, what we do when we are not useful says more about who we are as opposed to when we are doing stuff. Besides, knowing that my character isn't Mr Perfect, Mr Always there with something to contribute, Mr Complete Winner, makes me like him more. I like a character as much of a loser as I am.
</SNIPPAGE>
DMcCoy1693,
I just sat down last Saturday with my group of 7 players. Some are playing min/maxed combat monsters, some are optimal builds, and others are sub-optimal. The party is all 4th level. I would say that my wife's PC is an optimal Paladin build. However, even if she Min/Maxed her PC would not reach the optimum builds of some of the other PCs and certainly not the Min/Max builds (I am looking at you Grey Elf Warmage and Catfolk Barbarian/Fighter).
For the past 3 sessions her PC has contributed about zilch to the combat (partly due to die rolls but mostly because Paladins don't really come into their own until 5th or 6th level, depending on build). She basically stands in the way of monsters and takes damage. Wow, that's fun. Oh, she can detect evil at will. And she heals a bit but we got a Favored Soul (healer build) and a cleric...
All around her are PCs taking dramatic actions, hewing down foes, and are excited about the next game. My wife is not. She loves playing paladins, but this has made her reconsider it. She is not happy and you well know, when the wife is not happy, I am not happy.
So, while playing a "loser" may be the hight of fun for you, it is choking the fun out of the game for my wife.
I want all my players to be engaged and having fun. I want my wife to be able to play any character she wants and still be able to contribute to the party and feel a part of the fun.
Then cut out the splat books. That will help even the playing field.
I don't doubt that 4E will seem perfectly balanced for the first year.....Then the splat books will come into effect and ruin the balance and you will be right back where you are now. Couple years later WOTC will tell you that the game you play isn't fun and that the only way to have fun is to play 5E where they fix all the problems that 4E had (because they made the problems, just like in 3.5). And the sheep will baa merrily while the farmer shears them again.Eventually people will be able to taste the sh*t through the chocolate coating and realize what they've been fed. Or not, sheep aren't really known for their brains....
Then cut out the splat books. That will help even the playing field.
I don't doubt that 4E will seem perfectly balanced for the first year.....Then the splat books will come into effect and ruin the balance and you will be right back where you are now. Couple years later WOTC will tell you that the game you play isn't fun and that the only way to have fun is to play 5E where they fix all the problems that 4E had (because they made the problems, just like in 3.5). And the sheep will baa merrily while the farmer shears them again.
Eventually people will be able to taste the sh*t through the chocolate coating and realize what they've been fed. Or not, sheep aren't really known for their brains....
MMmmm...Chocolate.
For the past 3 sessions her PC has contributed about zilch to the combat (partly due to die rolls but mostly because Paladins don't really come into their own until 5th or 6th level, depending on build). She basically stands in the way of monsters and takes damage. Wow, that's fun.
[snip]
So, while playing a "loser" may be the hight of fun for you, it is choking the fun out of the game for my wife.
[snip]
If 4e delivers on its promises (and the jury is still out on that until I see the full rules in June) I am fine. More than fine.
I'm just curious, but have you looked at other games? If D&D doesn't cut it for you and your wife, have you looked at other games to see if they might be more to your liking? One thing I never got are people that play D&D and will never consider playing any other game (regardless of the reason).
I hope 4E is all you want it to be and more. I won't be joining you. Please quit telling me that I am wrong for liking my game the way it is and mocking what I call fun. I was very clear in my statement that it was my opinion and my opinion alone. I wasn't telling anyone why they shouldn't give full credibility to the article, merely pointing out my own reason. So please, if you don't like my opinion, don't read it or simply ignore it.
EDIT: I highly recommend (for both you and your wife) giving Freehold DM's post a thorough read. He made many good points.
|
|
Disappointed? Nope. It is exactly the dumbed down, made for ADHD racked 13-year old WoW addicts game I have been expecting for months now. Insulted? Good, maybe you will be a little more cognizant of being on the receiving end of scorn from "4E haters".
Uh, what the heck dude.
What happened to keep it civil?
Did you even read the sticky post at the top of the forum?
I really don't get you guys. Why is it so unreasonable for a company that publishes games and books to publish games and books? Of course they are going to keep releasing material for their game. That is what publishers do. However, I am positive that the three core books will include everything you need to play and enjoy the game for as long as you want. If you feel the need to get sucked into buying more and more upgrades go for it, but there is no way you need to buy beyond the core books to play the game.
I agree about not necessarily giving some random play testers testimony a lot of value, but I think when June comes around it will be worth my while to look at the new game and decide for myself how i feel about it. There is way too much out of context scraps floating around right now for any of us to make a truly informed decision about how good or bad the game is going to be. It doesn't really matter to me how anyone on these boards chooses to spend their money, but I am surprised to see how many people are opiniated about the quality or lack of quality of the game when they haven't actually seen the product or tried it out. I think you may be missing out on the chance to have a better gaming experience because of your close mindedness.
Bear in mind I'm not saying you should run out and buy 4E books, but I for one am eager to try it out and then decide for myself whether I like it or not. If I don't, no big deal I'll keep playing 3.5. However, if I decide it really is a more fun game to play then I'll be glad I gave it a chance.
Just in case anyone was still under the impression that "you only need three books to play our really kewl new game."
This was lifted from the linked page. I didn't count the draconomicon or the campaign specific books OR the mini boosters OR the adventure modules.
I won't assume what you do or do not need, so do your own stinkin math. How many of you REALLY feel the core three will be enough. Next spring you can add the PHBII, DMGII, and...
No, I read that post too. I would never resort to physical violence...unless WotC DID send jackbooted thugs to my home in the middle of the night. However, were I in that gaming store when their reps showed up, I would definitely give them a piece of my mind.
the only outlet I have these days is being taken away from me before it's time and being replaced with an inferior product.
I need only look at my 2nd ed. collection in all of it's duct taped glory to see the eventual fate of my favorite pastime EVER. So it's silly to get worked up over a game...sue me. To me it is more than a game. It's practically a way of life.
I guess that's just how people feel when they get left behind.
Holy jeebus does Massawyrm need a valium or something...
I won't dice up his review... But I had to stop here:
It’s like complaining that switching from DOS to Windows was stupid because now anyone could use a computer.
That is when I realized I could never take anything he said seriously.
|
It's elegantly simple. Uh,.....isn't that what they said about 3.5, like, right up to when they decided to replace it? When it overnight became fraught with peril to attempt to play the game, like driving at night with no headlights?
And....every "10" years or so D&D gets a major overhaul? How long ago did 3.5 come out? In 1998?
I'm just curious, but have you looked at other games? If D&D doesn't cut it for you and your wife, have you looked at other games to see if they might be more to your liking?
Fair question. Both my wife and I have been gaming since the late 70's. So here is just a partial list of RPGs we have played or run, by no means complete:
* All Version of D&D starting with OD&D
* Chivalry & Sorcerery
* Traveller Classic, Mega, and the GDW/Twillite 2000 inspired abomination.
* Space Opera
* Boot Hill
* Champions/Fantasy Hero
* Villains & Vigilantes
* Vampire (and all the rest of White Wolfs Catalog)
* Middle Earth Roleplaying
* Gamma World
* Cyberpunk 2020
* Shadowrun
* Briefly flirted with GURPS
* Paranoia
* Bushido
* Harn (the roleplaying rules, not just the game world)
* Metamorphis Alpha
Have I established my RPG pedigree for you now?
One thing I never got are people that play D&D and will never consider playing any other game (regardless of the reason).
Well you were doing fine until this point. You asked me a question, but then went straight to the assumption that I or my wife haven't tried something else.
Further, your underlying assumption is that your version of D&D is, well D&D and what I and others are looking for is not. Bullsh**t. D&D has been evolving whether it was from the source TSR/WotC or just some regular Joe house ruling something that didn't fit his campaign.
Most of my friends play D&D and that's the touchstone that we gather round the table for. Its not that we cannot be bothered with other games, we just didn't get what we wanted with them. Even so we will try something if the mood strikes, but with limited time we play what we know best and have the most fun with.
Don't get me wrong I have championed 3.0 and 3.5 from the get go. I have had me some damn fine times at the table behind the screen and before it. However, what was shiny and new back when I sat down at GenCon 2000 to play Living Greyhawk has shown me its warts over time.
I have delved deep into the rules and found stuff that lacks, finesse (and some that is just down right ugly). Do I hate 3e, no. In fact I have a lot of fun judging it today. I might continue for the rest of the year at 3.5, but I want something better because I am not satisfied.
I hope 4E is all you want it to be and more. I won't be joining you.
I get it. You don't like what you see so far. I am good with that.
Please quit telling me that I am wrong for liking my game the way it is and mocking what I call fun.
Um, I never said you were wrong. I was pointing out that what you consider fun isn't a virtue in my book. I consider it a design flaw. And while its great you can find the lemonade in the lemons, it should be a choice, not a requirement.
Basically your statement is, suck it up and play the loser or play something else (either a different class or a different game). To me that is insulting.
Because when it comes right down to it, fun trumps sacred cows every time. If its not fun, then the game goes into the dust bin with all the rest that failed that fundamental test.
My Two Coppers,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
|
I won't dice up his review... But I had to stop here:
It’s like complaining that switching from DOS to Windows was stupid because now anyone could use a computer.That is when I realized I could never take anything he said seriously.
Yeah that quote leapt out at me too. As a person that worked with systems from the pre-DOS days to Windows and beyond, I had to chuckle at that. I had to put it down to the author's complete lack of computer knowledge. He can't be faulted for the view though, as he is into game design, not computer design. Still, it made me laugh when I read it.
As to the game not being dangerous enough, one of the first actual player reports from the con (I'm sure more will be coming soon) mentions the player (a Ranger) going unconscious 3 times. So, it's hardly super hero play with no danger involved. IF they manage to keep that "sweet" spot going for most of a character's lifespan, I'll be very happy. The jury is, of course, still out.
Eventually people will be able to taste the sh*t through the chocolate coating and realize what they've been fed. Or not, sheep aren't really known for their brains....
It is exactly the dumbed down, made for ADHD racked 13-year old WoW addicts game I have been expecting for months now.
Oh, come on. You know, I've always been pro-4E, because my players are very much so, but I don't go around insulting people who don't like what they've seen. I've been cautious and haven't liked all I've read, but I find myself posting in its defense more than I would have thought possible because of posts like these.
So, if I like 4E I have ADHD and am a 13-year old WoW addict? I'm a sheep, not known for my brains?
Go screw your fleshlight. Dramaqueens.
You don't have to insult anyone who likes what they're seeing just because YOU don't like it. I've posted numerous times on these boards that I sympathize for those people who love 3E and don't like the game as has been revealed so far but this kind of tripe is ridiculous. Grow up and explore the world of post adolescence.
And this wasn't directed to others, like DMcCoy1693 and Disenchanter, who have honest complaints about the game and yet manage to be civil about it.
And this wasn't directed to others, like DMcCoy1693 and Disenchanter, who have honest complaints about the game and yet manage to be civil about it.
Just a point of interest: When I'm considered civil in comparison, you have gone too far. :-) I am, and can be, a real a-hole.
For the past 3 sessions her PC has contributed about zilch to the combat (partly due to die rolls but mostly because Paladins don't really come into their own until 5th or 6th level, depending on build). She basically stands in the way of monsters and takes damage. Wow, that's fun. Oh, she can detect evil at will. And she heals a bit but we got a Favored Soul (healer build) and a cleric...
All around her are PCs taking dramatic actions, hewing down foes, and are excited about the next game. My wife is not. She loves playing paladins, but this has made her reconsider it. She is not happy and you well know, when the wife is not happy, I am not happy.
I get that you are looking to 4th Edition to alter this trend. But I'm gonna toss out some thoughts that leaped into my head as I read this as an alternative/emergency kit if you need it.
Have you considered relinquishing the multi class restrictions for Paladins? No, not the best way to solve the situation. And it opens up potential abuse from others...
Maybe allow your wife to play a gestalt character? If the other characters are so much more effective, then the players shouldn't mind a little "balanced unbalancing" to improve overall play. If you have jealous types, this might not work...
All in all, talk about these thoughts in front of all players. You don't want to fuel the "playing favorites" fire.
I get that you are looking to 4th Edition to alter this trend. But I'm gonna toss out some thoughts that leaped into my head as I read this as an alternative/emergency kit if you need it.
Have you considered relinquishing the multi class restrictions for Paladins? No, not the best way to solve the situation. And it opens up potential abuse from others...
Maybe allow your wife to play a gestalt character? If the other characters are so much more effective, then the players shouldn't mind a little "balanced unbalancing" to improve overall play. If you have jealous types, this might not work...
All in all, talk about these thoughts in front of all players. You don't want to fuel the "playing favorites" fire.
Actually, I have been looking at ways to make the experience more fun for all my players, not just my wife. Her experience the last three sessions has been the most extreme.
Some rules house rules I am using...
Rogues can sneak attack undead.
Scouts can skirmish plants.
Spell Thieves can skirmish constructs.
I have feats in place to grant the ability to sneak attack the other types that are not covered. I am not sure what to do with ninjas yet, but since no one is playing one I am not feeling pressured.
Paladin's smite is a once a combat ability. I have seen that Paladins hoard this ability and don't take a chance and swing away with it. I felt it was stupid to have it once a day.
I am testing the new death and dying rules.
I have opened up substitution levels, but I see this as robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I am not open to gestalt. I don't love it.
Making Paladins open to multi-classing leads to problems down the line. For the short term gain of say 2 levels of fighter, now the Paladin spell abilities get pushed out, making the higher level play more problematic.
I might make Paladin a prestige class like in UA(?) but I don't know yet. Or I might just alter core class itself. I don't know.
I have some other house rules but they are minor.
Fact is, I think the Paladin got screwed in the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion. Yes it was too front loaded but they really didn't re-balance its initial levels after spreading the abilities farther out.
In my opinion, Paladins should receive mounted combat as a class ability. Maybe design in a combat feat tree for the paladin, like the one that the ranger has for two-weapon fighting or archery. Something like Foot or Calvary. One makes use of Mounted feats, the other gives you Combat Expertise or Power Attack? Again, I don't know.
I have given her the option of rebuild or new PC. I know if this continues she will opt to suicide by monster to be done with it.
Yes, I hope that 4e is all that and a bag of chips. Mechanically I think it might be what I am looking for. I am not sure about the fluff, but then fluff can be re-written. I won't know until I see the whole thing because I just don't have enough to make a judgment.
I figure at best it does the job I want. At worst I can cannibalize 4e for design ideas for my 3.5 (or does that make it 3.75) campaign.
Right now I want something that will make grapples less of a nightmare. Thank the Greyhawk gods I don't have a grapple monkey in the party.
My Two-Coppers,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Play-testers released from the NDA, from what I'd heard, were allowed to convey only the positive aspects of the game. This is not the same as saying that they are told to say only good things, or that their arent problems with the game: they would rather hear about the bad themselves so they can fix it.
Anyway, I have to stress that D&D isnt a reality simulator: its a game. Generally, the fun part of the game is getting to make meaningful choices and participate, not to sit on the wayside doing nothing because, "thats how real-life can be, sometimes."
|
|
The review is interesting, and while it is clearly a puff piece it still has a lot of information, at a high level, about how the new game will work. I doubt the guy is lying. I'm still on the fence and will remain so until I get the books in my hot little hands and can read, and maybe play, for myself.