So, check this out, which I am sure many of you have seen already.
Monster write-ups from the 4E Monster Manual: 4E Monster Stats
Is it just me, because my friend pointed this out when we looked at it too and I said it almost at the same time he did but---
They look like they simply took miniature cards and plugged them on paper.
I always said 4E is nothing but a "glorified" D&D Minis game and this proves it.
Again, just another huge reason I am pointing out why I am so anti-4E. 4E is great for kids and really lazy Tabletop Gamers, and me and my friends will have a blast with it when we're wasted, but all in all this is not D&D. At least not the RPG.
You know, I've come to realize one thing. I like more "complexity" to my D&D games. 3rd Edition offers that if I so choose to go beyond the core books (which, of course, I have). Anyone else agree?
I always said 4E is nothing but a "glorified" D&D Minis game and this proves it.
It proves nothing of the sort. Compare it to the bodak entry in the SRD or the 3e Monster Manual.
Both MMs spend approximately the same amount of space, a quarter page, on stats.
The difference is that there's lore and backstory in the 4e Monster Manual whereas the 3e MM and SRD just have stats. (Plus you also get two flavors of bodak in the 4e MM).
So, I guess I don't understand what you're referring to when you say 4e is a glorified minis game--yet 3e isn't--when 4e gives you more lore.
I think the more accurate term is that D&D combat appears to be more mini-oriented than it was in prior editions (before 3E). 3rd Edition has always had some kind of emphasis on using minis, or some kind of token to track locations, ranges, etc.
Nothing in 4E seems to suggest that you cant do what you could do in 3E, or editions before that. It just seems to be streamlined.
Nothing in 4E seems to suggest that you cant do what you could do in 3E, or editions before that. It just seems to be streamlined.
I take it you didn't read the "trap room" description yet?
Second encounter was a room with tombs and pressure-plate traps. This room was a paragon of bad design. The person triggering the trap would be immobilized, and if anyone else set off a trap, any character on a pressure plate would take additional damage. So right away, one of the players set off a trap, took some decent damage, and was stuck until they made a save *at the end of their next turn*. And if you're still on a plate, you're still triggering the trap, so you're guaranteed to take at least a second round of damage. And when the second person moved around to engage the kobolds that were closing with us and stepped on a second plate, the first person took still more damage.
I'll start off by saying that this could also have been done in previous editions. But I have never seen it done in such a way that you needed a "minefield map" and some sort of minis to track who was suffering the fun new trap mechanics.
I think the more accurate term is that D&D combat appears to be more mini-oriented than it was in prior editions (before 3E). 3rd Edition has always had some kind of emphasis on using minis, or some kind of token to track locations, ranges, etc.
Nothing in 4E seems to suggest that you cant do what you could do in 3E, or editions before that. It just seems to be streamlined.
Well, for one, Rangers CAN'T cast spells anymore. DMs can't use their favorite monster for their campaigns. Rogues HAVE to start with Stealth and Thievery, forget about playing a non-thief Rogue. Wizards lose a lot of utility spells, forced to use illusion/evocation type magic all the time. Magic items, well, suck. Look at what they did to Gauntlets of Ogre Power. You can't Tumble at all unless you use up a precious feat slot to do it. If your elf character was 400 years old, he just died suddenly.
There's a lot you can't do in 4E at all, or not with at least some sort of hindering restriction.
They look like they simply took miniature cards and plugged them on paper.
I said this when I saw the pit fiends stats. I dismissed it then. Now that's pretty much all I'm hearing.
4E is nothing but a "glorified" D&D Minis game
I wouldn't go that far. I'm sticking with, "It's a minis game with role playing built around it."
Razz - is it any wonder people dismiss your opinions regardless of their merit?
In truth Razz, I have to agree with crosswired on this one. Its all in the presentation man. Don't be like WotC's marketting campaign where they say the equivilent of, "Water sucks, Gatorade's better." In Waterboy, the fonz said that to make sandler mad. That's what WotC did for quite a while (and still does, to a lesser degree). Don't follow in their foot steps.
I think the more accurate term is that D&D combat appears to be more mini-oriented than it was in prior editions (before 3E). 3rd Edition has always had some kind of emphasis on using minis, or some kind of token to track locations, ranges, etc.
Nothing in 4E seems to suggest that you cant do what you could do in 3E, or editions before that. It just seems to be streamlined.Well, for one, Rangers CAN'T cast spells anymore. DMs can't use their favorite monster for their campaigns. Rogues HAVE to start with Stealth and Thievery, forget about playing a non-thief Rogue. Wizards lose a lot of utility spells, forced to use illusion/evocation type magic all the time. Magic items, well, suck. Look at what they did to Gauntlets of Ogre Power. You can't Tumble at all unless you use up a precious feat slot to do it. If your elf character was 400 years old, he just died suddenly.
There's a lot you can't do in 4E at all, or not with at least some sort of hindering restriction.
Woah woah, hold up there. I was referring to combat. I already knew that rangers didnt get spells, and if you really want to play a "non-thief" rogue, then its really just as easy as swapping out the skills for OTHER skills, or just not using them (though I have to say, even if you want to play a scout-type rogue you're gonna want Stealth).
Also, checking the sample wizard sheet, they still have utility spells like light and mage hand, at the least.Your interpretation of whether gauntlets of ogre power suck or not is probably based on the fact that 4th Edition doesnt really use the same "math" as 3E.
Finally, Tumble is a power, not a feat.
I can kind of see what Razz means about the minature game thing though I think he could have worded it a little less aggresively.
When I looked at the picture I noticed the encounter group section. It seemed as if the encounter groups were just a collection of monster put together because their abilities complimented each other. Fair enough but the way I play D&D (and always have done) is that it is primarily a story filled with monster and villain. This new edition seems to have more of a focus on over coming random groups of bad guys whose only thematic link is that there abilities synergise well. This approach seems to be more problem solving than role playing. It seems as if the emphasise is more on overcoming the problems than creating and playing a character.
I know overcoming monster is a huge part of 3.5 but it is not the focus of it. I feel with 4th edition (from what I have seen/heard) it is the focus. It's more like a mini game in that (it seems) you will have to use your problem solving abilities to overcome combat scenarios rather than your imagination to role play a meaningful character. Also the way the monster are grouped together (with good ability synergy rather than with good roleplaying reasons) reminds me of how you have to create a warband in DDM, which is not the way I've ever created an encounter in regular D&D.
Also on a bit of a tangent if they are this far into final production/printing with all of the book how the hell come they haven't sent out all the OGL stuff?
Well, for one, Rangers CAN'T cast spells anymore. DMs can't use their favorite monster for their campaigns. Rogues HAVE to start with Stealth and Thievery, forget about playing a non-thief Rogue. Wizards lose a lot of utility spells, forced to use illusion/evocation type magic all the time. Magic items, well, suck. Look at what they did to Gauntlets of Ogre Power. You can't Tumble at all unless you use up a precious feat slot to do it. If your elf character was 400 years old, he just died suddenly.
I love how when the rubber hits the road, none of your problems with the game seem to come from it being dumbed down. Not one of these.
Rangers not casting spells anymore certainly is a change, but I'd argue the idea of rangers being locked into a clerical/druidy route of casting nature spells didn't particularly scream ranger. I always felt it was like they just looked at the rangers of lore, Aragorn and Robin Hood, and were at a loss of how to make that something different from a fighter. It was the 70's so they didn't have the fine tuning we've come up with over the next 30 years to make a fun fighter who feels different enough to be his own class--so they gave him spells. That's how you fixed a class back then. And so it got grandfathered in as a ranger thing for every edition since. Personally I've always disliked it. If I want my sneaky hunter guy to cast spells I'll multiclass him.
Likewise rogues. They'd become a junk drawer class. That was sad. You want to make a character who's not magicy? Well your two options were really only fighter or rogue. If your guy wasn't a fighter either well then by default I guess he's a rogue. That doesn't sound like sophistication. That sounds like desperation. More classes that are more tightly defined, with more avenues for development over time is sounding to me like more detail, not less.
Wizards sound like they're getting nailed down to a specific kind of magic, rather than being magical swiss army knives. Warlocks, being another kind of "wizard" are having something different, as will all the others that will doubtless be released in the next few years.
Magic items are finally going to be ranked as far as how much they change a character or creature so you can actually track it. If you run a goblin with a necklace of fireballs you can suddenly nail a CR onto it, rather than have to go with the standard list of equipment or just guess. Awesome.
What they're doing with skills is great. They're cutting out junk that overlaps--like the often maligned character with high spot and low search who can only see things if he's *not* looking for them. Okay, so maybe you can't tumble without a feat, but as it was you couldn't dodge without a feat. Did that make 3rd edition too simplistic?
Don't even get me started on how awesome it is that they made elves reasonable. I'm a bajillion years old, but only 4th level. Go figure. I'm fine with an age cap in the centuries.
It ain't simplistic, it's a different take on the game. For one I dig it like crazy. It takes guts. Yeah, a lot of the changes turned left when I would have gone right, but hey--at least they turned. Whatever comes of it, it should be a fun game.
4E is great for kids and really lazy Tabletop Gamers, and me and my friends will have a blast with it when we're wasted,
Thanks for the big heap of insults. So if I enjoy 4E I am either a kid, lazy, or high.
Razz - is it any wonder people dismiss your opinions regardless of their merit?
I never indicated YOU were any of those three. I simply indicated that this is the "target audience" they're going for. Also, let's face it, I'm sure out of the 9 million on WoW, a decent chunk of them do get high or drunk off their ass on occassion (possibly while in play). Heck, I would, and I hardly drink.
Again, it comes down to there's a group of D&D gamers that enjoy more complexity to their games and enjoy being creative without WotC telling them how to do it or forcing creativity down their throats and there's a group of gamers that need to be spoonfed, need faster play because they just want a "quickie" D&D game, and need to only know about one thing in the game. And that is "What cool powers are there I can use?".
Unfortunately, the world is made up mostly of the latter sort. The sort WotC wants to cater to because there's so many and that means all the more money. D&D used to be a niche game, and many of us actually wanted it to stay that way. WotC is trying not to make it a niche game, and I really believe it's simply going to backfire. Tabletop RPGs simply cannot compete with mega-corporations like Blizzard.
I remember bringing up a long time ago on the Wizards boards why WotC won't commericalize D&D more? I was met with heaping amounts of replies stating that would only ruin D&D if you brought too much people into the fold. Because you end up bringing too much of the wrong types of people you want in your games. WotC, now, has decided to embrace that change.
Change happens, sure. I can accept that. But poo on anyone who states that ALL change is good. Because that is not true. And it's usually said by people who're simply deluding themselves to harsh realities.
Again, I am not trying to insult people. I'm just saying if it quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.
Razz - is it any wonder people dismiss your opinions regardless of their merit?In truth Razz, I have to agree with crosswired on this one. Its all in the presentation man. Don't be like WotC's marketting campaign where they say the equivilent of, "Water sucks, Gatorade's better." In Waterboy, the fonz said that to make sandler mad. That's what WotC did for quite a while (and still does, to a lesser degree). Don't follow in their foot steps.
I try not to be, really, but it's damned hard sometimes. Such blind faith in a corporate venue is just something that makes no sense to me. It's something that just irks me deep inside a lot. Like religious fanatics or super-patriots. What I am saying is, not being skeptic is alien to me. So, I do apologize if I cannot relate with those that are never skeptical or cherry pick those things they're skeptical with.
Just like it's so hard for WotC to get so many D&D grognards to get into 4E without insulting them in the process over and over, through their marketing, rules changes, and worst of all, the story and "fluff" changes.
Heck, their first video promo had so many people riled up alone from being insulted by WotC that all editions prior to 4E sucked. I am curious to how the marketing for 5E will turn out,"4E? What was that!? I don't remember, do you guys? It's 5E now and always will be!"
I can kind of see what Razz means about the minature game thing though I think he could have worded it a little less aggresively.
When I looked at the picture I noticed the encounter group section. It seemed as if the encounter groups were just a collection of monster put together because their abilities complimented each other. Fair enough but the way I play D&D (and always have done) is that it is primarily a story filled with monster and villain. This new edition seems to have more of a focus on over coming random groups of bad guys whose only thematic link is that there abilities synergise well. This approach seems to be more problem solving than role playing. It seems as if the emphasise is more on overcoming the problems than creating and playing a character.
I know overcoming monster is a huge part of 3.5 but it is not the focus of it. I feel with 4th edition (from what I have seen/heard) it is the focus. It's more like a mini game in that (it seems) you will have to use your problem solving abilities to overcome combat scenarios rather than your imagination to role play a meaningful character. Also the way the monster are grouped together (with good ability synergy rather than with good roleplaying reasons) reminds me of how you have to create a warband in DDM, which is not the way I've ever created an encounter in regular D&D.
Also on a bit of a tangent if they are this far into final production/printing with all of the book how the hell come they haven't sent out all the OGL stuff?
Overcoming combat encounters has always been a big part of D&D. Making encounters more interesting by giving the bad guys other things to do aside from attacking over and over again is much more dynamic and interesting: many encounters are typically "themed" already.
I never indicated YOU were any of those three. I simply indicated that this is the "target audience" they're going for. Also, let's face it, I'm sure out of the 9 million on WoW, a decent chunk of them do get high or drunk off their ass on occassion (possibly while in play). Heck, I would, and I hardly drink.
Again, it comes down to there's a group of D&D gamers that enjoy more complexity to their games and enjoy being creative without WotC telling them how to do it or forcing creativity down their throats and there's a group of gamers that need to be spoonfed, need faster play because they just want a "quickie" D&D game, and need to only know about one thing in the game. And that is "What cool powers are there I can use?".
Unfortunately, the world is made up mostly of the latter sort. The sort WotC wants to cater to because there's so many and that means all the more money. D&D used to be a niche game, and many of us actually wanted it to stay that way. WotC is trying not to make it a niche game, and I really believe it's simply going to backfire. Tabletop RPGs simply cannot compete with mega-corporations like Blizzard.
I remember bringing up a long time ago on the Wizards boards why WotC won't commericalize D&D more? I was met with heaping amounts of replies stating that would only ruin D&D if you brought too much people into the fold. Because you end up bringing too much of the wrong types of people you want in your games. WotC, now, has decided to embrace that change.
Change happens, sure. I can accept that. But poo on anyone who states that ALL change is good. Because that is not true. And it's usually said by people who're simply...
Whoa whoa whoa buddy. The wrong types of people? I rarely really read your posts, but come on now. Some people aren't allowed to play because of who they are/other interests we have? Our already niche hobby must become even more insular and segregated, shrinking overtime as its existing members die off and new members are shunned as "the wrong type of people"? You can't tell me you actually buy this can you?
DMs can't use their favorite monster for their campaigns.
What in the world are you talking about?
Wizards lose a lot of utility spells, forced to use illusion/evocation type magic all the time.
All the time? So ... you know what spells and powers wizards have to choose from?
Can you share with the rest of the class or are you making this point up?
You can't Tumble at all unless you use up a precious feat slot to do it.
Aren't feats supposed to be more plentiful in 4, so won't spending a feat be not as "precious" as 3e?
If your elf character was 400 years old, he just died suddenly.
Because it's literally impossible to say he doesn't?
There's a lot you can't do in 4E at all, or not with at least some sort of hindering restriction.
And this differs from 3e how?
Whoa whoa whoa buddy. The wrong types of people? I rarely really read your posts, but come on now. Some people aren't allowed to play because of who they are/other interests we have? Our already niche hobby must become even more insular and segregated, shrinking overtime as its existing members die off and new members are shunned as "the...
Again, people take what I say out of context and then exaggerate it to make me look really bad.
It's no wonder my reputation on some forums surprises me. It's because many people just take what I say and love to twist me into some D&D Villain to the point where I would be solidly convinced it was someone else they were talking about if my screen name was never mentioned.
I'll make myself more clear. You have, say, sports fans. We'll use football as an example. Lots of people love football, for all different reasons, but they love it and share it with others that enjoy the sport.
However, not everyone likes sports. It's a niche group, like any other hobby. Some may like sports, but not like football. The NFL decides to try and get EVERYONE to love football, but try to keep the original fan base somewhat intact. So they begin changing the game's rules to better suit a wider audience. To those that hate the violence involved, they change the rules to make the sport less violent. To make the game's rules more easy to understand for a larger majority of people, they simplify the rules of football so more people can follow what's going on. And etcetera.
What do you think would happen if this was actually attempted? You would definitely lose most, if not all, the original football fans. You might or might not have riots, but you would definitely have many voices openly against it. In essence, you're gambling with your die hard loyal fans on the basis that you might attract twice as much more football fans that you lost. You also, pridefully, believe you can get about half the naysayers on your side eventually because they still love football and will follow football no matter what incarnation it takes.
That's the analogy I can come up with to explain why D&D is a niche game and why it's just not a game meant for everyone. Personally, I don't like football. Personally, I would still not like football even if they did all of the above. And, personally, I would be appalled that they wrenched apart the "football nation", so-to-speak, for the sake of pure capitalism and not for a love of the sport.
To put it even simpler, we'll use High School cliques. The geeks obviously play the game, the goths can play too because the two can appreciate how the game is played and what to do to keep its spirit intact. But trying to get the jocks, preps, cool kids, and cheerleaders to play? First of all, good luck. If you do, you have to make it so they can appreciate and have fun with it the way they would want to have fun with it, not the way the geeks and goths would. So, you're going to have to rip apart the game in order to get some of each to play, while possibly losing out almost all the geeks and goths from playing anymore.
I can't come up with anything else to get my meaning across. If anyone is offended by this, it's just one guy's mere opinion on the matter. If you take it too much to heart, then it most likely hit home with you.
To everyone here in general, seriously, let's not turn Paizo into another Wizards forums and ENWorld forums. I am gone from both because both involved so many sensitive 4E-pros that literally pounced on people like a pack of rabid monkeys at the mere mention of someone disliking 4E even slightly. Heck, I originally got banned from ENWorld and ~almost~ from Wizards forums just because I didn't stay tucked away in my "little anti-4E corner" where they plug everyone else. I think it's downright shameful for WotC and ENWorld to succumb to such degrading tactics like shove all the naysayers into one thread, but let the pro-4E threads cover up the entire monitor screen because it makes 4E look and sell better. Anyone else who is vehemently opposed simply gets banned just to shut them up.
It's actually turning very political, it seems, with the coming of 4th Edition.
I came to Paizo's forums because it was the only place of solace for those of us that really want to criticize negatively about 4E without being warned by WotC Lackeys to stay in your corner and stay quiet or else. And for 4E-pros to pounce on us is just asinine. I don't go on pro-4E threads to bash the hell out of every positive criticism made about 4E. I do the smart thing and don't even bother entering the thread. I think others should do the same if they can't accept the fact that there are folks like me who despise 4E with a passion as much as there're passionate about liking 4E. It's a hobby I heavily invested in and I have every right to voice whatever opinion I want about why I can't stand what they're doing to it.
I have said some positive things about 4E, but in the light that it could've easily been implemented in 3rd Edition and did not need to warrant a whole new edition to plug in.
And, I never target anyone specifically. Ever. If someone takes one of my criticisms to heart and is so sensitive about it, then you simply point yourself as the obvious victim to such statements and only make my point more valid.
there are folks like me who despise 4E with a passion
That's fine--what erodes credulity is when that passion isn't based on fact--like the things you've posted in this very thread that seem entirely made up.
Overcoming combat encounters has always been a big part of D&D. Making encounters more interesting by giving the bad guys other things to do aside from attacking over and over again is much more dynamic and interesting: many encounters are typically "themed" already.
I was worried this may get misinterpreted. I never meant to imply that combat wasn't an exential part of D&D I just meant that it generally (with the exception of wandering monsters) helped further the story of the adventure and generally fitted the theme of the adventure. The new encounter structure seems to me to no longer focus so much on the story aspect as the tactical challenge of the combat itself.
Again I am only going on pre release info but it seems this is the design mentality.
Having said this 4e is not the only thing I could level this complaint against. The shattered gates of slaughterguarde in my opinion suffered from this except that every encounter seemed designed around mini releases at the time.
I do hope 4e leads to more interesting dynamic combats but I don't want it to be at the expense of plot. At the moment I feel it is. Also with the exception of high level number crunching I've never had a massive problem with 3.5e combat being dull or undynamic but suppose everyone has different experience when it comes to their games.
Wow Razz. I think this is the first post I've read from you where I could picture an actual person typing it out and not, well as you put it, a DnD villain. Thanks for explaining. I see, perhaps, part of the source of the difference in our viewpoints. I play with a very, very diverse group of players. To file them into High School cliques, we have jocks, preps, geeks AND goths all around my table. And not only does this please me, but it makes me want to bring in even more cliques. We're getting a skater soon, maybe I should try to recruit some teachers too! :P
Again, I'm glad you responded, and toned down the anger some. I have to say I think we have some pretty diametrically opposed ideas on the direction DnD is going though. I just don't see the limitations you seem to. Hopefully when 4E comes out, it won't be as bad as you believe it will (and it'll be as good as I believe it will be!) Like I told another anti-4E person in a thread here, maybe I'll host a PbP 4E game on here for all the naysayers so you guys can get a taste. :)
I was worried this may get misinterpreted. I never meant to imply that combat wasn't an exential part of D&D I just meant that it generally (with the exception of wandering monsters) helped further the story of the adventure and generally fitted the theme of the adventure. The new encounter structure seems to me to no longer focus so much on the story aspect as the tactical challenge of the combat itself.
Again I am only going on pre release info but it seems this is the design mentality.
** spoiler omitted **
Having said this 4e is not the only thing I could level this complaint against. The shattered gates of slaughterguarde in my opinion suffered from this except that every encounter seemed designed around mini releases at the time.
I do hope 4e leads to more interesting dynamic combats but I don't want it to be...
Cheddar, if 3E has taught me anything about DMing (and honestly, it has taught me quite a lot) it's that the ... themantics (for lack of a better adjective) of a monster are a lot less meaningful than the stats. Its easy to describe a monster as whatever you want it to be than it is to give it balanced and fair abilities to do what you want it to do.
So firstly, even if I couldn't build a fully balanced, themantically linked encounter with monsters straight out of the MM, like you fear, I would just build a fully balanced encounter and then create the common theme. (A great example, and the idea that really started me doing this, is from ENWorld where a DM used a hag's stats for that of a "twisted dryad" that had been corrupted by some spooky magic. Use stats that fit and call it what you will, works great and keeps the players guessing!)
Secondly, I believe the MM is going to contain several versions of most monsters, in a few different roles. For example, I've seen two versions of a Bodak from the 4E MM, one a lurker (I think) and one a soldier. So its possible you might not even have to change themantics around! Cheers! :)
Cheddar, if 3E has taught me anything about DMing (and honestly, it has taught me quite a lot) it's that the ... themantics (for lack of a better adjective) of a monster are a lot less meaningful than the stats. Its easy to describe a monster as whatever you want it to be than it is to give it balanced and fair abilities to do what you want it to do.So firstly, even if I couldn't build a fully balanced, themantically linked encounter with monsters straight out of the MM, like you fear, I would just build a fully balanced encounter and then create the common theme. (A great example, and the idea that really started me doing this, is from ENWorld where a DM used a hag's stats for that of a "twisted dryad" that had been corrupted by some spooky magic. Use stats that fit and call it what you will, works great and keeps the players guessing!)
Secondly, I believe the MM is going to contain several versions of most monsters, in a few different roles. For example, I've seen two versions of a Bodak from the 4E MM, one a lurker (I think) and one a soldier. So its possible you might not even have to change themantics around! Cheers! :)
Ahh true that is a pretty good way around it but I'm just not so keen on the whole file of the serial number approach to creating thematically linked monsters. I personally prefer to go from the opposite direction of having my theme and trying to work with what I have to make an interesting and intesnse encounter. Also with the example I used above I think I'd have more trouble creating a themantic way to link all of those different creatures together than I would creating a challenging encounter with already thematically linked monsters. Again it probably all down to personal preferances and DMing style. Your example about the twisted dryad does sound pretty awesome though.
The different types of monster looks pretty cool but to a certain extent I can already do that in 3.5e with character levels, advancing hit dice, careful feat selection etc etc. I mean again falling back to FotSG it contained a mellee machine of a Kobold that was done just with class levels. And stuff like templates adds a whole extra dimension to it. I guess I just meant why try to fix it if it aint broke.
Having said this I am really interested to see how WotC deal with monster advancement. They said no more class levels and we see in that page clear examples of monsters customised to fit different roles. I'm just curious how easily we will be able to do that ourselves.
Ohh and cheers for the response. I always find it interesting to see how many different styles and forms of DMing are created from the same game.
|
After much trolling around on 4E threads silently for fear of flames, I've decided to throw my hat in the ring. In support of Razz. Much discussion has been had in my group over the merits or lack of same that 4E has. And although I've only seen what Wizards and other sites put out in previews, constituting by default of only the tiniest part of this new edition, I frankly have to say I will not be purchasing 4E for some time, if at all.
An opinion is meaningless without a reason behind it, so I've thought about why my gut reaction to 4E is to say no. Although it may be a view skewed by having only seen a small part of the rules, that will be justified when we see the books, I really dislike the way that Wizards seem to be homogenizing the classes. To me the reason for classes being is to allow a different style of play mechanics-wise between characters, as well as providing some roleplaying guide-rails for those less confident about how to play their character. But beyond that, base classes are completely disconnected from the way a character is roleplayed. I really don't see why a rogue has to be roleplayed as a particular stereotype. If I want to play a zealous paladin-type holy warrior, but I feel like playing a rogue in combat, I can just roll with that. I'd definitely have to come up with a reason for why my abilities and personality seem to conflict, and I might have been "better off" playing a paladin or cleric. But the important thing is that, like most other things in 3.5, if I really want to, and it doesn't spoil the game, I can. Now, roleplaying is seperate from editions, and if I wanted to not much can really stop me from "inserting" roleplay into my 4E campaign, even if it really is the horrible virtua-min mega battle that is touted as the worst case scenario. But the important thing is the mechanics. Sorcerors and wizards are about as close as I want my classes to be to each other, and even then I'd probably be fine if they merged the two, because of how similar they are in function. I can still roleplay a sorceror very differently from a wizard, but the mechanics are so similar that I'd probably wind up just picking one of the two at random if I wanted an arcane caster. That I can't find measurable difference between the two when I'm choosing a class shows that for me, they're probably too similar in function. Now I'm not about to advocate the game with a single "Omni-class" that every character is built on, but some of the greatest successes at my table have been the classes from Book of Nine Swords and Tome of Magic, because they are so different from the standard classes in the way they play. With the amount of material involved in 3.5, every class can do almost anything with the right build, so it's not whether a shadowcaster can cast Fireball that's important to me, but how he does it, and why I should take up that path instead of just rolling a wizard and roleplaying him with a love of shadows. But in these same games with their crusaders, binders, and warlocks, we had one player who owns only the PHB and rolled up a druid and barbarian straight from that source. And because he used mechanics and roleplay to distinguish himself as seperate to the other characters, he was just as useful as the other "more broken" classes. So I'm fine with a fighter-like class who gets his power from spell-like "maneuvers", as long as
A) He plays differently to a wizard (almost certain)
and B) There is still a fighter-class, or even several classes, that get their power just from attack rolls and feats, sunders, rages, etc. rather than spell-like abilities. 4E doesn't look like providing this. Not only does every class I've seen use abilities, but their all cast the same way, classified and gained the same way, and look exactly the same. Not really what I want at all.
Secondly, although this point is old and tired by now, I don't like the focus on minis. Although I use the internet as a big resource and I play with a battlemat and minis wherever I can, some of the most memorable games I've had in recent times have been sessions where we've all sat around on armchairs with a platter of food and a d20 each and just done the whole minimalist thing. I'd like to still be able to do that easily without having to keep a virtual battlemat in my head.
Thirdly, I just don't think 3.5 is done yet. I don't necessarily want it to drag out as long as 2E, but I've just gotten started on ideas for campaigns that spring up from reading new content. Had 4E been announced 6 months earlier I probably would've been all for it. I was getting the sense after recent purchases that the game was drying up mechanically and there couldn't possibly be another new feat, monster or class that somebody else hadn't done. But I started to really investigate 3rd party publishers, like Necromancer, Green Ronin, and Paizo and I let one of my players take over for a bit as DM and just really enjoyed the fruits of someone else's imagination. And that was all it took. Not a new edition, not huge arguments on forums and in my gaming group, not even switching to another system like C&C or True20. And now I'm back to loving the game.
Frankly, I'm not gonna go stick my head on the chopping block and say that 4E will bring down fire from the sky and stop me from playing the game I love. I'm sure I'll be able to adapt to the new rules, buy some new books, and houserule the parts I don't like, and I'll probably wind up enjoying it a bit too. But when I could keep on doing the same thing in 3.5, and more easily to boot, I'd have to ask if we really needed 4E yet.
[/rant], TWB out.
Frankly, I'm not gonna go stick my head on the chopping block and say that 4E will bring down fire from the sky and stop me from playing the game I love. I'm sure I'll be able to adapt to the new rules, buy some new books, and houserule the parts I don't like, and I'll probably wind up enjoying it a bit too. But when I could keep on doing the same thing in 3.5, and more easily to boot, I'd have to ask if we really needed 4E yet.
That has to be the best way to word my sentiments that I have read.
I almost wish the Paizo boards allowed signature so that I could copy that into mine.
|
|
I have to agree. The more we find out about 4th edition, the more it seems like D&D minis with slightly more complexity and a few RPG rules thrown in for good measure. The new encounter design is a prime example of this. Instead of having an encounter of thematically linked creatures, you make a "warband" of disparate creatures that are only included because they each fill a different combat role. Why will you fight a unicorn, a grey render, a werewolf, and spined devil at the same time? It's not because they have any reason or inclination to work together or even be found in the same location. It's because one is a soldier, one is a brute, one is controller, and one is a skirmisher. It doesn't get much lamer than that. I don't even see the need for separate minis and RPG games since they seem to be basically the same thing. If you just had a separate manual for adding RPG rules to the minis game, you'd pretty much have 95% of 4e right there.
|
I have to agree. The more we find out about 4th edition, the more it seems like D&D minis with slightly more complexity and a few RPG rules thrown in for good measure. The new encounter design is a prime example of this. Instead of having an encounter of thematically linked creatures, you make a "warband" of disparate creatures that are only included because they each fill a different combat role. Why will you fight a unicorn, a grey render, a werewolf, and spined devil at the same time? It's not because they have any reason or inclination to work together or even be found in the same location. It's because one is a soldier, one is a brute, one is controller, and one is a skirmisher. It doesn't get much lamer than that. I don't even see the need for separate minis and RPG games since they seem to be basically the same thing. If you just had a separate manual for adding RPG rules to the minis game, you'd pretty much have 95% of 4e right there.
My understanding is that encounter building is not that random. The encounters will make sense based on the nature of the relationship between the critters. Not sure if it's based on alignment and "cultural" factors - goblinoids work together well, evil cleric + undead, etc.
Nothing I have seen would create the kind of encounter you suggest.
|
|
Tell that to the designers. When James Wyatt was giving some examples of encounters at various levels during their Monster Manual podcast, some were almost as ridiculous as what I described. Add in the comments in Races and Classes about not knowing what to do with creatures that aren't evil PC fodder, and it seemed that they were headed down this road. Hopefully, pre-written adventures won't be as random and unbelievable as that.
My recollection of that podcast was that James Wyatt was making those examples up on the fly and that they were not quite as random and nonsensical as you state. Also, the LFR adventures seemed to have thematic groupings of monsters varied by role.
If you listen to the podcast, you'd know that it was simply random examples. Of course, even if the designers deliberately picked those out as "serious" suggestions, there is nothing forcing you to construct the same kind of bizarre encounters.
So, check this out, which I am sure many of you have seen already.
Monster write-ups from the 4E Monster Manual: 4E Monster Stats
Is it just me, because my friend pointed this out when we looked at it too and I said it almost at the same time he did but---
They look like they simply took miniature cards and plugged them on paper.
I always said 4E is nothing but a "glorified" D&D Minis game and this proves it.
Again, just another huge reason I am pointing out why I am so anti-4E. 4E is great for kids and really lazy Tabletop Gamers, and me and my friends will have a blast with it when we're wasted, but all in all this is not D&D. At least not the RPG.
You know, I've come to realize one thing. I like more "complexity" to my D&D games. 3rd Edition offers that if I so choose to go beyond the core books (which, of course, I have). Anyone else agree?
I honestly see the differences between 4th edition and the updated miniatures game as being not a huge deal different than Basic D&D versus Advanced Dungeons & Dragons... okay, its some different, but the old lines between D&D and D&D Miniatures have been quite blurred now.
I honestly see the differences between 4th edition and the updated miniatures game as being not a huge deal different than Basic D&D versus Advanced Dungeons & Dragons... okay, its some different, but the old lines between D&D and D&D Miniatures have been quite blurred now.
Is this a bad thing? I never really liked that DnD Minis followed different rules from DnD. I'm glad the Minis game was changed to be more like DnD, and dropped all the silly rules from the original version. Although, as my DnD Mini oriented friend tells me, I'm not sure all the Mini players are as happy (but as a casual player who prefers DnD, it seems great to me!)
Cheers! :)
|
|
I don't mind them making the miniatures game more like the RPG, but they did the opposite. They made the RPG more like the minis game. Actually, they built the RPG game around the minis game. Minis and a battlemat should not be necessary to play the RPG. They should be good optional tools, not a requirement to play the game. I don't see how you could play 4E without them. You can easily see why they did this and upped the amount of creatures you fight per encounter. They did it to force you to use even more minis than you were using in 3.5. The RPG seems to have suffered greatly for this, but the minis make more money, so the game was made hopelessly minis-centric. 4E is just the "DM" or "player 1" pitting warbands in different "scenarios" against players 2-6 (with each mini controlled by a different person). The only difference is that the minis controlled by the players change with time as they gain levels.
|
|
I don't mind them making the miniatures game more like the RPG, but they did the opposite. They made the RPG more like the minis game. Actually, they built the RPG game around the minis game. Minis and a battlemat should not be necessary to play the RPG. They should be good optional tools, not a requirement to play the game. I don't see how you could play 4E without them. You can easily see why they did this and upped the amount of creatures you fight per encounter. They did it to force you to use even more minis than you were using in 3.5. The RPG seems to have suffered greatly for this, but the minis make more money, so the game was made hopelessly minis-centric. 4E is just the "DM" or "player 1" pitting warbands in different "scenarios" against players 2-6 (with each mini controlled by a different person). The only difference is that the minis controlled by the players change with time as they gain levels.
If 3.5 can be played without minis then 4E can to. I just don't see how 4E is any more minis dependent.
My post might not have been as blunt as CWM's, but it would have said the same. If you managed to do it in 3E (even though I don't know how!) you can do it in 4E.
I don't mind them making the miniatures game more like the RPG, but they did the opposite. They made the RPG more like the minis game.
More like the miniatures game... yes, this is the point I was trying to make. Granted, I'm probably one of the very few (most likely less than 1%) that will argue that craft and profession checks did have very nice, valid places at the gaming table... okay, my ranger had a good habit of field dressing anything with worthy meat or a hide in need of taxidermy... ever gut out a huge green dragon? If you figure in the average meat ratio of 50% to total carcass weight, multiply the value of the meat as being worth around 5 times the normal value of normal, standard chunks of meat since it is, after all, the flesh of a dragon... and how often does a normal citizen get the chance to dine on that... and figure that if you can use a good Profession: Butcher check to get the meat properly cut, preserved, and packed into the back of the wagon for a very quick one way trip back into town... the local inns, taverns, and butcheries will be going nuts... not to mention the traveling merchants and meat salters....
Okay, where was I again... oh, yes...
well, my issue is this... I'm a miniatures gamer... I not only have tons and tons of the D&D minis, I have bunches from Mega minis, a few from Reaper, and an estimate of over 400 home cast miniatures that I made from lead molds... I keep two or three grid boards around that I use dry erase markers on (they are in picture/poster frames)... I'm a strong advocate of using minis in my D&D gaming... so why should I be one to complain? Simple.
If all I cared about was streamlined, combat heavy action, I'd put the dice away and load up Diablo 2 or be another one to log into the WoW culture. Why? Because, without the ROLE playing aspect of role playing, D&D is nothing more to me than a slow, tedious alternative to a real time action video game. I'm 34 years old, I'm into the flavor, the storytelling, the thinking outside the box, and its these reasons alone that I've not entirely given up D&D for a greater pursuit in another hobby of interest... such as hunting, hiking, or gardening. Granted, I do hunt, hike, etc.... I just divide expenses and time between that and role playing. Likewise, I could easily just get me a kayak with what I invest every several months in D&D.
I'm about the role playing, I don't need this new adolescent market perspective that WOTC is openly admittingly that they are trying to take to bring in new converts... we've seen the truth now, the Hasbro purchase was a terrible, terrible thing because now it seems that D&D must show market figures like that of GI Joe or some other Hasbro interest.
Myself, like many other long time D&D players, want role playing... and when everything is stripped out and stripped down, it kills the interest.
But, am I totally bitter.... well, of course not. With each addition there are plenty of people willing to sell off their older stuff used in order to finance the early books for a new game edition... I did so myself when 3rd edition came out.... and this time I'll be the wolf there ready to snatch up as many cheap 3.5 books on Half.com, Amazon.com, Abebooks, and perhaps ebay that I care to grab. Clean those shelves out to make way for the new era... I'll be waiting on your books. ;)
The size of the new stat blocks reminds me of the old school 1st ed. monster manual. I like the idea I can actually play straight out of the monster manual. I miss that in dming a dnd game. I might be able to free style dm again, something I have not done since the out set of 3rd edition.
Non-thief Rogue? Non. Thief. Rogue.
NON-THIEF ROGUE!
...
My post might not have been as blunt as CWM's, but it would have said the same. If you managed to do it in 3E (even though I don't know how!) you can do it in 4E.
I am not yet convinced of this. We need to see more of the higher level "succeed at action - buff/heal ally powers." In previous editions, it wasn't too difficult to rule distance from character to enemy. But if 4th Edition has "stuff" that requires tracking of multiple ranges at the same time, it will seriously increase the need for maps.