WotC's Nightmare and CNB,
Why don't you two start your own thread about 4e vs 3.5e and how much each one sucks. Anytime you feel like writing something that has nothing to contribute to the post stick it in there instead of messing up a perfectly good one?
actually, I find WOTC'sNightmare's post to be quite interesting on this. With the importance of movement based attacks, which I have never found to be that relevant in 3.5 beyond the occasional bull rush or charge(hurrah for cometary collision), this IS sounding a lot more like chess or a console fantasy turn based strategy game. While I admit that 3.0 has a lot in common with Final Fantasy Tactics(or vice versa) in a good way, so far 4.0 seems to be similar to it in a bad way.
CNB's remarks, however, seem more insulting than anything else. 3.5 is not for those who lack mental acuity any more than 4.0 is for ADD-addled WOW addicts.
I seem to recall a justification for iterative attacks (I do not remember whether it was in rule books for 3E, 3.5, or previous editions). It went something like: in a round of 6 seconds, each combattant makes a series of feints and bluffs, starts some manoeuvers then gives up on it when it seems that it won't work ... and sometimes, in all those faked or failed attacks, some actually have a chance to hit. And the higher level you are, the more often some of those attacks would hit.
Similarly, I guess we can see combat scenes as some sort of complex choreography where all combattants perform moves, attempt manoeuvres, ... and often are forced to give up on them because of their enemies' reactions or because it just is not the right time to do it. That's why 4E characters would be limited to 1 standard action and 1 move action and 1 minor action per round in 4E, even though they would attempt to do more each round.
I guess this can be the key to interpreting most of the warlord's powers: the warlord helps his allies get more out of the 6 second round, the warlord helps them pursue more moves/manoeuvres till completion. Instead of seeing the "you charge when I do" power as a power that gives an extra charge for free to an ally and thus breaks the fundamental rule that says that you can only do so much in a round, I guess this power works if it is seen as the warlord helping their ally make one more attempted move/manoeuvre count (in this case, a charge).
Now, I have to wonder - and that's where I being to find the 4E developpers faulty - if the warlord would have such a negative reaction ("too gamist", "these powers do not make sense", ...) if those powers had been introduced with a solid concrete interpretation (like - I hope - the one I give above).
With a small additionnal effort at actually describing how powers work concretely, I would think that 4E rules would be much better accepted. I can but regret that they do not seem to have made a bigger effort on those descriptions (as shown by the one-liner power, spell, magic item descriptions shown at D&D Experience).
(And before I get the smartass answer "Well, duh, you just have to come up with your explanations/descriptions", I would say that I think valid explanations should be included in any game called "roleplaying game". Roleplaying games should be more than just a set of abstract rules, no matter how "fun" they are.)
|
A player of mine will love this class (at least the concept). He always plays characters who guide or leads the other party members, using his abilities to aid or boost theirs as appropriate. The marshall rapidly became one of his famous trio (Marshall/Cleric/Bard) and this appears like a logical evolution from that class.
As the DM I like what I see but as always defer final judgement till I see the whole rules package.
Freehold DM,
Both WotC's Nightmare and CNB are capable of writing intelligent posts and making good points, that's why it is disappointing and tiresome to see them say (essentially) the same thing over and over and over. If the line "A class for those who want to play Fantasy Chess instead of a role-playing game" wasn't a dig at players who want to play 4 because 4e sucks statement, he can tell me and I will apologize.
...and in an attempt to get the thread back on track...
Dalvyn,
That's a great solution for those who don't like the video-gamey feel. I would like to have seen more powers described as you have done. The full write-ups in the rulebooks may have that type of description, you and I can only hope. However, it does seem their marketing department has decided to go a different route. If that's true, hopefully I can get some more write-ups from you.
The warlord. A class for those that want to play Fantasy Chess instead of a role-playing game. Knight (I mean martial defender 1) shifts 1 square. Checkmate!Sadly, it's true. Those without the mental capacity to handle anything more complex than "I roll to hit. I roll damage." are advised to stick to 3.5.
Poor show old sport.
This class doesn't appeal to my group not because it's to "complex", far from it. We use the battlemat off and on. I do see my players going warlord? hmmm no thanks. It seems odd to have a class based around movement of enemies and allies. I've heard the same statments on these boards and others when people create new melee classes, and it's "Why make a whole class around X when you could make a fighter that does the same thing?"
Yes the movement is a cool idea, but not a great 100% useful idea. Complex maybe, but no more than the rest of 3.5; that's what 4e is all about right "streamline"? If this is too complex for 3.5 users then shouldn't 4e do away with the warlord because it's more complex?
Fizz
|
The warlord. A class for those that want to play Fantasy Chess instead of a role-playing game. Knight (I mean martial defender 1) shifts 1 square. Checkmate!Sadly, it's true. Those without the mental capacity to handle anything more complex than "I roll to hit. I roll damage." are advised to stick to 3.5.Poor show old sport.
This class doesn't appeal to my group not because it's to "complex", far from it. We use the battlemat off and on. I do see my players going warlord? hmmm no thanks. It seems odd to have a class based around movement of enemies and allies. I've heard the same statments on these boards and others when people create new melee classes, and it's "Why make a whole class around X when you could make a fighter that does the same thing?"
Yes the movement is a cool idea, but not a great 100% useful idea. Complex maybe, but no more than the rest of 3.5; that's what 4e is all about right "streamline"? If this is too complex for 3.5 users then shouldn't 4e do away with the warlord because it's more complex?
Fizz
It wasn't a dig at 4E players. I was just showing my distaste about every single thing in 4E being about shfting this many squares, he moves this many squares. X does this and Y can't move any squares. Can't they at least pretend that you are playing characters in a world instead of minis on a battlegrid?
hmm
I tend to find the battlemat rather restrictive to fun in games. A large part of that is due to lack of a large table or comfortable place to sit around said nonexistant table for a game. Most times we sit around on couches. Miniatures and severe strategy aren't easily accomplished.
|
It wasn't a dig at 4E players. I was just showing my distaste about every single thing in 4E being about shfting this many squares, he moves this many squares. X does this and Y can't move any squares. Can't they at least pretend that you are playing characters in a world instead of minis on a battlegrid?
4E is as much about the grid as 3E. Furthermore the rules of D&D have always been written for complex combat interactions. For those folks that do not use miniatures a level of abstraction has always been imposed on the rules that refer to inches, feet, or squares.
Games that focus on just the character's role in the world over how well the characters perform in an encounter tend use very few rules to adjudicate combat or they use a system designed to be abstract like the range bands of Classic Traveller. In both cases narrative is used to fill the void left by detailed movement and positioning like that on a battle mat.
If a GM and a group of players can do that with 3E then they can do it with 4E.
CNB's remarks, however, seem more insulting than anything else. 3.5 is not for those who lack mental acuity any more than 4.0 is for ADD-addled WOW addicts.
You misread my statement. If X then Y does not imply if Y then X.
More to the point, I was responding to Cory's drive-by insult about 4e being "Fantasy Chess instead of a role-playing game". I assume he means "too complicated" or at least "more complicated than 3e".
That's vaguely true, for some classes. Fighters are more complicated in 4e, for example. Ditto rogues. Wizards and clerics, however, are a lot easier. And by and large, all the classes are easier to play. All your options are laid out in front of you. There are fewer obscure things to look up and remember (Does reading a scroll provoke an AoO? Using a wand? And, yes, I know the answer to both of these, but that didn't stop us from having a 5 minute argument about it at the last gaming session, while someone looked up the rule).
But the number of tactical choices available to every player is vastly improved in 4e. In 3.5, the optimal choice for a fighter was pretty much identical at every level: charge, then next round full attack. Or, better, get charged, then full attack. That's it. Occasionally 5-foot step to get a cleave or provide flanking. Then full attack.
Here's a scenario--dead end in a 20' wide corridor. A wizard and fighter are trapped by a fire giant. The fighter valiantly steps in front of the wizard to protect them. Guess what? The giant simply 5-foot-steps around the fighter and attacks the wizard anyway. The fighter is completely unable to do what the class is supposed to do.
In 4e? The fighter can actually stop the giant from getting around them, or at a minimum gets a free swing against it. The fighter is actually capable of defending their allies.
So, yeah, you've actually got to pay attention if you're playing a 4e fighter. It is tactically more interesting. I'm having trouble seeing that as a bad thing.
|
|
Giving it some thought and having read my AD&D 2nd edition books over the weekend my one area of concern with 4th edition (and I feel this way about 3rd a bit) is that the players are getting so many cool (couldn't resist, sorry) powers that it's getting more an more about the flash and less about the story.
Just throwing the thought out there but some of the most memorable games I've ran, and frequently brought up by my players are the 2nd edition ones...
|
|
Giving it some thought and having read my AD&D 2nd edition books over the weekend my one area of concern with 4th edition (and I feel this way about 3rd a bit) is that the players are getting so many cool (couldn't resist, sorry) powers that it's getting more an more about the flash and less about the story.
Just throwing the thought out there but some of the most memorable games I've ran, and frequently brought up by my players are the 2nd edition ones...
But was that the rules or the people in the game? For me it comes down to group chemistry and a solid GM. If you get that right then the game itself becomes secondary. I do admit that a bad set of mechanics can get in the way but that is very different than games that have lots of cool powers and options.
|
|
It wasn't a dig at 4E players. I was just showing my distaste about every single thing in 4E being about shfting this many squares, he moves this many squares. X does this and Y can't move any squares. Can't they at least pretend that you are playing characters in a world instead of minis on a battlegrid?
4E is as much about the grid as 3E. Furthermore the rules of D&D have always been written for complex combat interactions. For those folks that do not use miniatures a level of abstraction has always been imposed on the rules that refer to inches, feet, or squares.
Games that focus on just the character's role in the world over how well the characters perform in an encounter tend use very few rules to adjudicate combat or they use a system designed to be abstract like the range bands of Classic Traveller. In both cases narrative is used to fill the void left by detailed movement and positioning like that on a battle mat.
If a GM and a group of players can do that with 3E then they can do it with 4E.
I was just showing my distaste about every single thing in 4E being about shfting this many squares, he moves this many squares. X does this and Y can't move any squares. Can't they at least pretend that you are playing characters in a world instead of minis on a battlegrid?
See, any time they make a rule that says "Using their superior understanding of battlefield tactics, the warlord can start barking orders and drill commands. At first level, this improved tactical understanding allows any adjacent ally to take a 5-foot step once per round" it immediately engenders dozens of nitpicky debates: once per warlord round, or player round? Does it work in silence? Does this happen on the warlord's turn, or the player's turn? Does "any ally" mean "all allies"? And the inevitable "this ability does nothing, you can already take a 5-foot step once per round".
Precise terminology doesn't hurt the game in the least. You're assumed to understand the warlord is a tactical genius who is constantly barking orders (or gesticulating wildly) and so, when opportunity presents itself, they can spur their allies to amazing feats of teamwork. Notice how it only allows you to slide adjacent allies? On a successful attack? That's because the warlord's tactical acumen allows allies to attack in such a way that they provide cover to an ally next to them.
Is "Grok, you big oaf! Hit it in the eyes so Allegra can retreat!" so difficult to imagine?
|
|
But was that the rules or the people in the game? For me it comes down to group chemistry and a solid GM. If you get that right then the game itself becomes secondary. I do admit that a bad set of mechanics can get in the way but that is very different than games that have lots of cool powers and options.Giving it some thought and having read my AD&D 2nd edition books over the weekend my one area of concern with 4th edition (and I feel this way about 3rd a bit) is that the players are getting so many cool (couldn't resist, sorry) powers that it's getting more an more about the flash and less about the story.
Just throwing the thought out there but some of the most memorable games I've ran, and frequently brought up by my players are the 2nd edition ones...
Thing is same group and same quality roleplay from them all.
Don't get me wrong we have a fantastic time in all our games, I just find it interesting that the ones they remember best are essentially from the edition where they had the least character/class options.
|
|
In addition to the warlord's "shifting" powers:
Cause Fear for the Cleric,
Tide of Iron for the Fighter,
Nimble Strike and Fox's Cunning for the Ranger,
Fey Step for the Eladrin,
and Curse of the Dark Dream for the Warlock
are all 1st level powers that move people around the battlemat.
It seems that 4e will not suffer for movement during battles.
Wow... that reads like a list of powers from Exalted.
(Sebastian will not be pleased...) ;)
Whilst an interesting concept, I can't say it screams "Core class" to me.
I think it does from the 4e perspective of increased movement, teamwork, and positioning during combat.
I think it does from the 4e perspective of increased movement, teamwork, and positioning during combat.
This is a really good point. I was trying to figure out why they'd include something like the warlord over the bard, when both could fill the "leader" role. It's clearly because the combat system is so much faster and flexible, and the warlord is perfectly designed for that. Add in the focus on martial classes for the initial release and first expansion, and it makes sense.
I still think it's the wrong choice, but it's not inexplicable.
Here's a scenario--dead end in a 20' wide corridor. A wizard and fighter are trapped by a fire giant. The fighter valiantly steps in front of the wizard to protect them. Guess what? The giant simply 5-foot-steps around the fighter and attacks the wizard anyway. The fighter is completely unable to do what the class is supposed to do.
In 4e? The fighter can actually stop the giant from getting around them, or at a minimum gets a free swing against it. The fighter is actually capable of defending their allies.
Gotta jump in on this, CNB. This depends a lot on what you think a fighter is "supposed to do". If you agree, as the 4E designers do, that a fighter is supposed to "tank" (that is, stand in the front lines with an incredible AC and hit points and take damage so that other party members do not), then the 4E fighter is just the thing for you.
Remember, though, that the 3.5E fighter can do a lot of other things. He can have the high AC, he can dish out incredible damage with a two-handed power attack, or he can dash in and out of a fight from behind the rest of the party with the Spring Attack suite. Fighter also make great archers in 3.5, and archers don't want to be anywhere near the enemy. Splat books only increased the fighter options with crazy specializing feats like Einhander.
Fighters seem to have a lot more variety in 3.5 than the role they're pigeonholed into in 4E. But I think you're comparing apples and oranges. If you are looking for a "tank" in 3.5 that controls the terrain around him and can protect his friends in the back, look at the knight, not the fighter.
I think this Class will appeal very strongly to a certain type of player. I, for instance, think it's a nice idea but now that I see more of it don't think I'd like to play it.
On the other hand, the other DM of my group is really into complex tactics and he's eating this stuff up. He will really get a lot of joy from playing the Class.
So, I don't think it's for everyone, but some people are really, really going to like this guy.
I think it does from the 4e perspective of increased movement, teamwork, and positioning during combat.This is a really good point. I was trying to figure out why they'd include something like the warlord over the bard, when both could fill the "leader" role. It's clearly because the combat system is so much faster and flexible, and the warlord is perfectly designed for that. Add in the focus on martial classes for the initial release and first expansion, and it makes sense.
I still think it's the wrong choice, but it's not inexplicable.
It's also an internally consistent choice. Of the Leader who is centered on speaking, skills and magical trickery (the bard) or the Leader who moves minis around on a grid (the warlord), the latter is much more in line with the 4E game.
Hey, Paizo moderators! Note the not-at-all personal attacks in this somewhat reasonable discussion between a pro-4E poster and an anti-4E poster! Heck, we practically *agree* on something!
I think this Class will appeal very strongly to a certain type of player. I, for instance, think it's a nice idea but now that I see more of it don't think I'd like to play it.
On the other hand, the other DM of my group is really into complex tactics and he's eating this stuff up. He will really get a lot of joy from playing the Class.
So, I don't think it's for everyone, but some people are really, really going to like this guy.
It's probably fair to say that every class is something that not everyone would want to play, but it suits some players very, very well. The question is whether it appeals to a wide enough group to warrant inclusion as one of the "base 8" classes. I personally think the answer is no, but I'm interested to see how much play the warlord gets.
Giving it some thought and having read my AD&D 2nd edition books over the weekend my one area of concern with 4th edition (and I feel this way about 3rd a bit) is that the players are getting so many cool (couldn't resist, sorry) powers that it's getting more an more about the flash and less about the story.
Just throwing the thought out there but some of the most memorable games I've ran, and frequently brought up by my players are the 2nd edition ones...
Well, speaking as a player who prefers the wizard, I see this as a much-needed "share the wealth" strategy. Ever since D&D began wizards and other casters had the ability to do all sorts of whiz-bang neato tricks and effects, while the melee classes got to swing a weapon more effectively than the wizard, but nothing (or nearly nothing) else. Now melee classes have the ability to do things with a weapon that a wizards can't possibly hope to do, which is a good thing considering how many sword-swinging protagonists there are out there. I really dont' see any more "flash" than previous editions, I just see it spread around a bit more evenly.
Remember, though, that the 3.5E fighter can do a lot of other things. He can have the high AC, he can dish out incredible damage with a two-handed power attack, or he can dash in and out of a fight from behind the rest of the party with the Spring Attack suite. Fighter also make great archers in 3.5, and archers don't want to be anywhere near the enemy ... If you are looking for a "tank" in 3.5 that controls the terrain around him and can protect his friends in the back, look at the knight, not the fighter.
The knight's not a core class, which somewhat restricts its flexibility.
But the broader point is that 4e is more tactically interesting than 3.5. A fighter with a high AC dealing massive 2-handed damage is going to be standing still and full attacking. A two-weapon fighter is going to be standing still and full attacking. An archer is going to be standing still and full attacking. Anyone hasted is going to be standing still and full attacking. Granted, a spring attacker is going to be moving in, single attacking, and retreating, but because everyone else on the battlefield is standing still that doesn't really help matters--especially since you can't pack a battle with a lot of low-level monsters to maneuver around without mucking up the CR.
Because they've removed iterative attacks, all of a sudden everyone has a free move action every round, so there's more tactical movement from that change alone. Add in racial and class abilities that scoot people around the battlefield, and half again as many enemies on the field, and you've suddenly got a dynamic combat with tactical opportunities opening and closing all the time.
|
|
CNB's remarks, however, seem more insulting than anything else. 3.5 is not for those who lack mental acuity any more than 4.0 is for ADD-addled WOW addicts.You misread my statement. If X then Y does not imply if Y then X.
More to the point, I was responding to Cory's drive-by insult about 4e being "Fantasy Chess instead of a role-playing game". I assume he means "too complicated" or at least "more complicated than 3e".
That's vaguely true, for some classes. Fighters are more complicated in 4e, for example. Ditto rogues. Wizards and clerics, however, are a lot easier. And by and large, all the classes are easier to play. All your options are laid out in front of you. There are fewer obscure things to look up and remember (Does reading a scroll provoke an AoO? Using a wand? And, yes, I know the answer to both of these, but that didn't stop us from having a 5 minute argument about it at the last gaming session, while someone looked up the rule).
But the number of tactical choices available to every player is vastly improved in 4e. In 3.5, the optimal choice for a fighter was pretty much identical at every level: charge, then next round full attack. Or, better, get charged, then full attack. That's it. Occasionally 5-foot step to get a cleave or provide flanking. Then full attack.
Here's a scenario--dead end in a 20' wide corridor. A wizard and fighter are trapped by a fire giant. The fighter valiantly steps in front of the wizard to protect them. Guess what? The giant simply 5-foot-steps around the fighter and attacks the wizard anyway. The fighter is completely unable to do what the class is supposed to do.
In 4e? The fighter can actually stop the giant from getting around them, or at a minimum gets a free swing against it. The fighter is actually capable of defending their allies.
So, yeah, you've actually got to pay attention if you're playing a 4e fighter. It is tactically...
The fighter has only really been a "defender" and have protecting others as his main goal since it was called a defender at last year's GenCon. Traditionally the fighter was the go to guy for non-magical damage dealing who could go toe to toe with enemies. He would be on the front lines most of the time. His goal was to kill enemies. Protecting others was a secondary concern. You could make a fighter that was built to protect others, especially with the customization in 3.0 and 3.5, but most gamers I know didn't think of him as a "defender". That concept came directly from MMO's.
CNB's remarks, however, seem more insulting than anything else. 3.5 is not for those who lack mental acuity any more than 4.0 is for ADD-addled WOW addicts.You misread my statement. If X then Y does not imply if Y then X.
No, but there IS a correlation between them, even if it isn't 1 to 1 or works in both directions. You can't tell me that the statement cannot be found mildly insulting at the very least- no matter what value x or y may have, it implies that any edition beyond 3.5 requires a degree of forethought that may or may not be the result of a higher level of intelligence. If you don't buy that, then look at it this way- if I misread it, anyone can.
To your example. Let's take out the fighter and put...well, anyone else there. Since the giant took a 5 foot step, he would be able to attack the wizard regardless. That sounds like a problem with five foot steps and/or the way attacks of opportunity work moreso than the fighter itself. This can be resolved in 3.5 by houseruling attacks of opportunity or perhaps by giving the fighter a feat that may provide options that deal with just this situation.
You could make a fighter that was built to protect others, especially with the customization in 3.0 and 3.5, but most gamers I know didn't think of him as a "defender".
All right. How about this:
The "stalwart companion" is a very common fantasy trope. You know, the beefy bodyguard who accompanies the fragile wizard or the beautiful princess. The first to throw themselves in front of any danger, willing to give their life to fulfill their pledge.
Using the 3.5 core rules, how would you build this character?
You can't tell me that the statement cannot be found mildly insulting at the very least
I don't believe my statement was any more insulting than the post I was replying to. I'll gladly grant it wasn't any less, either, but that was a large part of the point.
That sounds like a problem with five foot steps and/or the way attacks of opportunity work moreso than the fighter itself. This can be resolved in 3.5 by houseruling attacks of opportunity or perhaps by giving the fighter a feat that may provide options that deal with just this situation.
Yes, but I'd rather have a system that gets it right, instead of adding house rules and home-brewed feats to patch it.
You'd probably make him one of the martial classes with a reach weapon and combat reflexes.
A reach weapon does not help the problem illustrated above.
Actually from the description, he'd be a hireling or cohort who was made to be a PC's or NPC's bodyguard.
That doesn't especially matter, does it? You use the same build rules for both.
The debate about the battlemat interests me. As a DM sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't. It honestly just depends on the situation of a given battle. There are times when I'll use mini's to get basic positioning, but no actual mat, there are other times, where I'll have things drawn out in detail on a mat, and still others where there are no mini's or mat in site. 4th edition is, i think, obviously intended to use a battlemat and mini's (just as is third). I think it's geared in that direction much more so than previous editions. I don't however think it will be completely required, and nor do I completely seeing it as a bad thing.
The use of the mat is a nice visual for players, especially new players both young and old. It's fun to move a mini around, and use it as a representation for your character. I think WotC intends it to be so simply for that reason (attracting new players). It doesn't even have to do with attracting a new younger crowd, most people both young and old will be more interested in playing with that visual representation and having cool abilities that utilize that representation.
I'm not switching to 4th, but I do think the heavier emphasis on the battlemat might be a good idea in a way, just to attract folks to the game.
|
|
You could make a fighter that was built to protect others, especially with the customization in 3.0 and 3.5, but most gamers I know didn't think of him as a "defender".All right. How about this:
The "stalwart companion" is a very common fantasy trope. You know, the beefy bodyguard who accompanies the fragile wizard or the beautiful princess. The first to throw themselves in front of any danger, willing to give their life to fulfill their pledge.
Using the 3.5 core rules, how would you build this character?
3.0 prestige class whose name I forgot and ready actions ?
3.0 prestige class whose name I forgot and ready actions ?
3.5 core rules. Ready actions don't help, all you do is trade a standard action now for a standard action later.
Because they've removed iterative attacks, all of a sudden everyone has a free move action every round, so there's more tactical movement from that change alone. Add in racial and class abilities that scoot people around the battlefield, and half again as many enemies on the field, and you've suddenly got a dynamic combat with tactical opportunities opening and closing all the time.
I'm not sure where you're going here: you say that 3.5 is bad because the frost giant can just move around the fighter to attack the wizard, but then laud 4.0 because everyone gets to move more? Is 4.0 more fun because you can stop people from moving around you, when you can't in 3.5? Giving a benefit to everyone and then taking it away seems a little strange, but that's exception-based game design for you.
Tactical miniatures games are fun, no doubt about it. But do they feel like D&D? We'll see, I guess.
I just learned to play RoboRally this weekend. It's quite fun. That's a game with a lot of tactical opportunities opening and closing, and a crazy amount of shifting of yourself and others going on during the game. Plus lasers. Each of the robots has a paragraph presented about its personality (which was longer, I noticed, than the roleplaying hooks we got for the pregenerated DDXP 4.0 characters). Being die-hard roleplayers, we all were describing all sorts of supplemental actions and motivations for our robot characters based on their personalities, and by the time we were done, we had played a zany, tactical-based game with plenty of roleplaying. But it certainly wasn't D&D.
It wasn't a dig at 4E players. I was just showing my distaste about every single thing in 4E being about shfting this many squares, he moves this many squares. X does this and Y can't move any squares. Can't they at least pretend that you are playing characters in a world instead of minis on a battlegrid?
No I was making a comment to CNB and his roll to hit complex remark that was a dig at 3.5. I didn't mind yours sorry for the confusion.
I agree with you this is all very minis wargame to me to.
Fizz
I'm not sure where you're going here: you say that 3.5 is bad because the frost giant can just move around the fighter to attack the wizard, but then laud 4.0 because everyone gets to move more? Is 4.0 more fun because you can stop people from moving around you, when you can't in 3.5? Giving a benefit to everyone and then taking it away seems a little strange, but that's exception-based game design for you.
It's giving a bucketload of advantages to everyone, then selectively giving players ways to negate specific advantages.
The problem I have with 3.5 is that, by and large, I know exactly what my character is going to do in 90% of combats. With my dervish, I either 1) stand in one place, preferably with flanking, and full attack; 2) spring attack against a single foe; or 3) dervish dance, once per day. What my allies are going to do is more-or-less irrelevant to my decision--there's virtually nothing else useful I can do.
With 4e combat, it seems there's a lot more options and a lot more teamwork. Fighters can stay behind and try to pull the monsters off the artillery, or rush forward and try and bottle them up before they get through. Rogues can move freely around the battlefield, focusing on specific foes, or trying to open up charge lanes or knock creatures into fireball formations. Clerics have to pay attention to everything, and figure out whether they need to throw a save over here or some additional protection over there, or if someone's winding up for a particularly powerful maneuver maybe they should help ensure it connects.
Now, does 4e actually do all that? Maybe. I mean, I understand the potential, but without seeing all the classes and all the abilities it's difficult to know how everything fits together.
Tactical miniatures games are fun, no doubt about it. But do they feel like D&D? We'll see, I guess.
Well, that's the $64,000 question. I think as long as you have some real flexibility in how you build your character, and the out of combat stuff works and works well (meaning rituals, and skill challenges, and the like) everything will fall into place.
If they don't get that right, though, I think the game will be D.O.A. And not in the fun '50s film noir way, either.
|
|
The distressing thing is that "everything" seems to revolve around squares on a battlemat. The base assumption is that everyone will play the game with minis and a battlemat. The minis-centric stuff should be in side-bars or it's own paragraph. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the social interaction skills resulted in enemies and allies shifting all over the place. The game should be written from the point of view that you are playing "realistic" characters in a fantasy setting, not that you are playing a warband of one working in concert with other players against the DM's opposing warbands.
I think that here WotC has been trying to more clearly define its niche in the rpg world. I think they figure that if people want to play games that have loosely defined combat mechanics and don't use minis, then they will go to other rpgs like White Wolf Story Telling games or CoC. If a gamer is looking for an rpg that combines qualities of war/strategy gaming along with role playing, then dnd is a good option. I do think that playing either 3E or 4E without a battlemat is rather tricky. I've never tried to play a 3E game without at least grid paper to keep track of location and movement, and I wonder how people resolve combat effectively in 3E without those tools. Personally, I think I'd find it frustrating. I think the base assumption of 3E is that players will use minis and battlemats. Therefore, if 4E does this its not a big deal to me- 3E has already pushed me to using a battlemat and buying minis (luckily I like the game better with the minis and battlemat, so I'm not resentful).
QUOTE="WotC's Nightmare"] The distressing thing is that "everything" seems to revolve around squares on a battlemat. The base assumption is that everyone will play the game with minis and a battlemat. The minis-centric stuff should be in side-bars or it's own paragraph. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the social interaction skills resulted in enemies and allies shifting all over the place. The game should be written from the point of view that you are playing "realistic" characters in a fantasy setting, not that you are playing a warband of one working in concert with other players against the DM's opposing warbands.
Well I've been running games for about 16 years, and it is only in the last 2 that I've started using minis and battlemats. This has mostly been at the encouragment of a couple of my players, who found it much more easy to utilize the tactical nature of 3E combat with a battlemat to help, and yes it has been made clear by the designers at WotC that the default assumption of 3E, 4E and possibly even 1E is that you are playing with minis/token and a battlemat.
I'm concerned about the last couple of things you mentioned. Well specifically the second last one. I don't think the classes will be nearly as narrow as some people think. I am cofident that like in 3E there will still be tons of options for customizing your character to be what you want it to, especially as new books are released. So this fear is one that I think will prove to be unfounded.
My biggest frustration running a 3E game is play balance. There is so much material for 3E that isn't balanced and throws the game out of whack especially at higher levels. This material runs a huge gamut- races, feats, prestige classes, spells, magic items etc... I want this cleaned up in 4E. I am hoping for the best here.
One thing I notice over and over when I listen to 4E designers talk about the game design is their concern for maintaining workable play balance throughout the levels, races, classes spells etc... In this respect I think/pray the 4E rules will be very successful. However, whether they are able to maintain the balance over the course of all the splat books that will be added is still a big concern for me. Still I'm sure it can't get worse than 3E (stupid abjurant champion, stupid bolt of glory spell, stupid cube of force etc...)
Huh. I've never had minis be a mainstream element of game play in the 26 years I've been involved with D&D and other RPGs. Once in a while a fight got really complicated and we'd toss some coins down on the table or borrow some of our wargaming figures to mark things. But otherwise, not at all. Never saw minis used at any of the gaming conventions I went to back in the 80s, either, so I don't think it was just my group that is wierd.
I'll grant you that minis seem a lot more popular now than before, what with WotC selling them hand over fist apparently.
Still, I reckon I could run these rules without a battlemat (never actually seen one...). Its not the combat aspects of the game that are concerning to me. Its whether these low level powers we get to see stay reasonable when we get to lvl 11+ (couldn't care less about lvl 20+, never played high level in 3.5 either) or do they turn superheroish. And, far more importantly, are the classes really as narrow as the preview material suggests?
just that so far 4E has the appearance of being more tabletop wargame than RPG. ...
They've been saying that about 3e for years. I think it depends on the Dm. I for one see no problem developing narrative for in depth story telling in what I have seen of 4e. With the powers description my players will have more to work with when describing the actions their characters are taking.
Whilst an interesting concept, I can't say it screams "Core class" to me.
I think that is the thing to me. I would guess they feel that to sell the new edition they need to give something new and since the fighter/healer/blaster archetypes are very well trodden it was hard for them to come up with something truly original or as iconic as the old classes.
I don't think this new one will be all that terrible and if I had to chose between this and a 'new' class that is a clone of an existing class with different fluff I'd rather have the warlord, half baked for 'core' though it may be.