|
Is it me or is 4th edition a WOW tabletop game. Epic creatures, heroic monsters, warlocks, Feat tiers, random healing, buffs, minions, immediate powers, recharge (cool down), etc? I love WOW like the next, but I am part excited/depressed all in one. Depressed in that my collection of 3rd edition stuff will possibly be retired with the countless basic, 1st, 2nd, 2.5 ed, and 3.0 stuff (been DMing along time). Excited because the way it makes the players take a roll, gives players a countless amount of power, and will be a new experience for all. I believe that the move by WOTC is to cater to the new young players (WOW generation) and leave us old-school ,tomb of horrors loving, DM;s and plyers alike in the dust. I am part torn to do Paizo's new RPG (already incorporateed a few things to our campaign) or make a big change and go 4th edition. Probably will buy both, mix and match, and see what works and what does not. Thoughts?
In before the Razz!
Complaining about 4E in the Paizo 4E forums now just seems like were piling on.
I mean, we'll have Pathfinder, so it's all good. :)
While I'm probably going to not play WOTC4.0, I have been reading the preview books.
WOTC4.0Cosmology
HTML Code
<a href="http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/GothGuru/?action=view&curr ent=WOTC40Cosmology.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/GothGuru/WOTC40Cosmology.jpg" border="0" alt="WOTC4.0Cosmology"></a>
Worlds and Monsters pretty much reduces the multiverse to 6 planes of existance. I don't know where Loth's demiplane of The Demonweb Pit went. The Astral Sea, or the Elemental Caos?
While I'm probably going to not play WOTC4.0, I have been reading the preview books.
WOTC4.0Cosmology
HTML Code
<a href="http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/GothGuru/?action=view&curr ent=WOTC40Cosmology.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/GothGuru/WOTC40Cosmology.jpg" border="0" alt="WOTC4.0Cosmology"></a>
Worlds and Monsters pretty much reduces the multiverse to 6 planes of existance. I don't know where Loth's demiplane of The Demonweb Pit went. The Astral Sea, or the Elemental Caos?
If you as DM find a good reason to have Lolth or her demiplane for your game, go ahead and create it. It's DnD...you can do whatever you want. Your drawing seems to indicate that you could put it off of Elemental Caos (sic).
Is it me or is 4th edition a WOW tabletop game. Epic creatures, heroic monsters, warlocks, Feat tiers, random healing, buffs, minions, immediate powers, recharge (cool down), etc? I love WOW like the next, but I am part excited/depressed all in one. Depressed in that my collection of 3rd edition stuff will possibly be retired with the countless basic, 1st, 2nd, 2.5 ed, and 3.0 stuff (been DMing along time). Excited because the way it makes the players take a roll, gives players a countless amount of power, and will be a new experience for all. I believe that the move by WOTC is to cater to the new young players (WOW generation) and leave us old-school ,tomb of horrors loving, DM;s and plyers alike in the dust. I am part torn to do Paizo's new RPG (already incorporateed a few things to our campaign) or make a big change and go 4th edition. Probably will buy both, mix and match, and see what works and what does not. Thoughts?
I've never played WoW so I can't compare 4e to that game. I've played AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5 D&D, and a couple of preview adventures of 4e at DnDExp. 4e feels like DnD to me. Sure there are some rule changes, simplifications, and so forth, but the game still plays like DnD. WoTC freely admits that they are using some concepts from MMORPGs in this update. It appears to me that Pathfinder RPG is taking some ideas (some of the changes to the skills, for example) from 4e. Why wouldn't a creative designer want to take a good concept from one experience and move it into the game?
I'm sure that you'd be able to recreate Tomb of Horrors in 4e, just as it's been recreated in 3.5e. While I probably won't be changing over to 4e in my home campaign anytime soon, I enjoyed the 4e sessions at DnD Experience, and I'm looking forward to playing more 4e at GenCon this summer. Additionally, I will be experimenting with things, like the death and dying rules, in my campaign, to see if it improves things.
FWIW, my advice would be to keep an open mind, find an opportunity to play it a few times, and then see what (if anything) you like about this latest version.
the pap and teets of gygax and greenwood
If I never hear this phrase again, it will be too soon.
Rainier Wolfcastle: "My eyes! Ze goggles do nothing!"
It is indeed the 'win' of this thread.
It is indeed the 'win' of this thread.
... and I so had skimmed past it until Rodney commented on it.
Thanks Rodney ...
|
|
Okay so people think Im bashing but in reality after test driving the starting module for 4th edition I gotta say I liked it!
The pros:
Much faster, easy to follow, no questions asked rules for combat. No longer does a person need multiple feats to shoot into melee, saving throws are a breeze (roll 10 or higher to succeed), Straight forward, high damage from 1st level characters, it promotes a tactical battle plan orchestrated by a chosen leader, and powers never actually leave your characters. A character could expel all powers in one encounter and still stay powerful! Remember a 1st level wizard after casting his/her 1 magic missle spell/day...almost worthless. My party tried it out and many had mixed feeling. All agreed that the biggest pro was the simplicity of the rules, faster combat, and more emphasis on the "team".
The cons:
Creative combat takes a step backwards. Many of the players like that they can called shot an arrow into a open mouth, do numerous backflips off a wall to execute a charge, let their imagination saor and ome up with anything their imagination can come up with, and then have myself make up the rolls. I know its a pre-tester so maybe WOTC can have this established in the completed book. All players did agree "Its World of Warcraft with bad graphics" Hopefully the final product does not go this route, or at least make it obvious. During the final battle with the dragon, after round 13, the party was reduced to simply rolling dice on their "at will" powers. It made them one dimensional. I know the final product will be more specific.
Overall the excitement was from a "new product" I believe I will buy both 3.75 and 4.0, mix and match, take a core system, add some flavor, and keep of course keep all the latest props (critical hit and fumble decks) and make it our own. After all thats what house rules are for!
|
|
I can understand how you might be ambivalent towards the new edition, but honestly your post reads like a great big put down to anyone who is really positive about 4th edition, and thus gets my goat.
Not anti-4th edition at all, only asked for opinions on the new edition. Our players (Old farts in your words) liked it but just saw way too many similarities to World of Warcraft, thats all. It plays quick, fast, and simple, but isnt DND a game of imagination? giving me a spell and having a definative answer to waht it does isnt creative, in fact its pretty boring. Hope the final product gives more to that idea. My players would love to take "grey" description of spells and powers and make up different ways they would work. Mage hand 4.0 spell is pretty definitive of what it does, unlike 3.0/3.5. Guess old farts will just have to brainstorm to make 4.0 their own.
giving me a spell and having a definative answer to waht it does isnt creative, in fact its pretty boring.
Having explicit rules for what a spell can and can not do sounds wonderful. It is lack of clarity in the rules which generates the most confusion and delay in D&D games.
|
I can understand how you might be ambivalent towards the new edition, but honestly your post reads like a great big put down to anyone who is really positive about 4th edition, and thus gets my goat.
Not anti-4th edition at all, only asked for opinions on the new edition. Our players (Old farts in your words) liked it but just saw way too many similarities to World of Warcraft, thats all. It plays quick, fast, and simple, but isnt DND a game of imagination? giving me a spell and having a definative answer to waht it does isnt creative, in fact its pretty boring. Hope the final product gives more to that idea. My players would love to take "grey" description of spells and powers and make up different ways they would work. Mage hand 4.0 spell is pretty definitive of what it does, unlike 3.0/3.5. Guess old farts will just have to brainstorm to make 4.0 their own.
How I loved the '85 Magic missile (variant):
Franz watched as the masked and hooded stranger in the black cloth garments pulled a metal triangle from the sleeve of his tight fitting garment, then whispered a word to it. The suddenly glowing throwing blade closed the great distance from the stranger's hand into Franz's Plate armour discharging its magical fury and burning into his body.
No offense meant, Ed, but your description of backflips, called shots, and all kinds of other things, while sounding like fun, are no where in the rules for 3E. It's only fair to compare 4E to 3E as presented in the core rulebooks, with no house rules, and no add-ons.
That said, I thought 4E's Mage Hand was a hell of a lot more useful and versatile than 3E, because it A) used less resources and B) could simply do more. I'm not sure why you thought otherwise?
Finally, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many options left to a group of 3E characters after 13 rounds of fighting either. Even at high levels, Fighter types often lack many combat actions other than "close to adjacent, stand still and make full attacks".
Most of the time when people say 4E is like WoW, it comes from those who don't play but rely on conjecture. As a MMORPG player, I don't really see the similarity. I'm curious what really made you agree with the comparison?
|
|
Most of the time when people say 4E is like WoW, it comes from those who don't play but rely on conjecture. As a MMORPG player, I don't really see the similarity. I'm curious what really made you agree with the comparison?
I only see what the play test rules have given thus far. Personally I like it. 3.0/3.5/3.75 did start to get too rule intensive. I cant recall how many times players have said "never fire into melee" due to the way the rules were in place. Actually the more I think of the simplicity of 4th edition, the more I like it. A base rule system should be basic, that gives more opportunity for adding those little elements that makes the game more fun for your group. Maybe I am just old fashioned, but DND is many things to many people and ther eis no right answer. For our group, its about being somewhere else, being someone different who can for just one day a week perform amazing things. I just wanted the rules to more simple, yet effective, and promote imagination. 4th edition seems to do just that, just hope the final product does not try to have those imagine playing WOW. Hope I dont see epic gear, jewel slots, and rep points. that is all.
Hey all,
First time posting here. Been lurking for a bit though.
I'm not big on message boards, because, well all they are is high tech bathroom stales.
But this thread kinda drew my attention. Ive got a decent little thread of questions and answers going on at the WotC site and more than not folks have been really nice. I had read "over there" that the Paizo threads were rampant flames against anything 4e. Seems that has been cleared up though.
Any way on to my point. Here we got a guy who seems to be very in favor of the new edition, but it seems any criticism of the game he has is attacked and his praise for the new game ignored.
Its odd if you ask me. I wonder if this attitude of not being "flamed" for criticizing a product is how 4e was play tested? Did the designers sit down with an "Unfinished" product to be play tested by a group of eager players only to receive comments that have no form of criticism? How would a developer ever known that 3.5 needed to be "Fixed" had not folks criticized it?
I'm amazed by not only the rampant "Fan Boy" attitude of the 3.5 fans but also the same attitudes of the 4e fans. I'm allowed to voice my thoughts, opinions or ideas on a public forum as long as I adhere to that forums rules. So why is it any time any one post any comment for or against 4e there is this need to rail against that individual.
The OP has made some of the best statements both for and against the 4e I've heard yet. And while he has not change my opinions of the new edition he has gain far more respect from me than those that have chosen to ignore half his posts.
Now onto my thoughts on 4e, I could really care less for "Rule Changes" for D&D or even any game out there, im a avid "House Rule" GM, ignoring, tweaking and creating new rules for most games I play. I play D&D because its D&D. Which brings me to the reason why I'm not happy with 4e. The over all fluff changes seems to lead the game away from its roots in traditional fantasy. The "flashy" new races and classes seem to far from the Fantasy I enjoy. Now I know I can simply ignore these parts of the game, I'm an old gamer and I guess I'm just to happy with 3.5e. My home brew campaign has had to much work put into it for me at my age to convert it, and Paizo has seemed willing to keep me satisfied with its version of the 3.5 rule set.
Now I know i will receive maybe one or two comments on my post for not being willing to convert but I could care less. You see for some strange reason with every new edition of the game it gains some new players as it seems to lose others. No more, no less. I remember being very pro 3e in the light of overwhelming anti-3e folks in my area. But the game went on and succeeded. I remember sitting in class with my buds and gripe and complain about the "Horrible" change to D&D introduced in 2e. I think because of this I have every right now to say, "4e, not for me" and nobody should be offended by that Fact.
Sorry for the rant, bad introduction I guess.
Eric
Hey all,
First time posting here. Been lurking for a bit though.I'm not big on message boards, because, well all they are is high tech bathroom stales.
But this thread kinda drew my attention. Ive got a decent little thread of questions and answers going on at the WotC site and more than not folks have been really nice. I had read "over there" that the Paizo threads were rampant flames against anything 4e. Seems that has been cleared up though.
Any way on to my point. Here we got a guy who seems to be very in favor of the new edition, but it seems any criticism of the game he has is attacked and his praise for the new game ignored.
Hmmm, I think that's because forums typically work as discussion boards, and when people discuss, they pick the points they have something to say about. Which are, more often that not, the points that they disagree. Of course, if you strongly agree with something, you may be inclined to post just to say "I agree.". However, I think it's part of human nature that we have more urge to speak when our ideas are opposed.
That is no excuse, of course, for any kind of personal insult or lack of proper education. But I don't think that's the attitude of most people on these boards.
Heh, I agree, I was just a little frustrated I guess, last night.....the WotC boards (Not all the folks there) just soured me a bit.
Eric.
|
|
Heh, I agree, I was just a little frustrated I guess, last night.....the WotC boards (Not all the folks there) just soured me a bit.
Eric.
Thank you for the postive feedback. I agree with your comments. "House rules are for the promotion of fun. Fun remember is the core rule of any table top game. I just guess my players, myself and many others see the WOW factor implied and in some cases outright plagarized from Blizzard. Many have said they do not see it so let me outline some of what we saw:
Hunter's Quarry: Marking the target with a hunters mark for additional damage/ WOW Hunters mark.Eldritch Blast Warlock You fire a bolt of dark, crackling eldritch energy at your foe./WOW Shadow Bolt
Monster are separated into minions/regular and elites which are the same level but buffed/WOW elites of the same level are uber buffed.
"some characters “tank”, some characters are “artillery”, etc. 4th Edition defines those roles into four types – controller, defender, leader, and striker". Taken from 4th edition pre-tester./WOW everone has a role as well...funny they use the word Tank.
In WOW armor is catogorized into cloth, leather, mail, plate. 4th edition is exactly the same. No more light, medium, heavy, but exactly the same.
Everything about the New paladin is too WOW to go over everything.
Steady shot/careful attack same thing and description
The tower in the playtest module is called Tower of Westfall
equipment in WOW is head, chest, hands, feet, waist, neck, rings, weapon, 4th edition copied it to the letter, but took out back?!?, etc, etc, etc
Just some feedback from my players and I. Just hope we can take 4th edition, add some of the best from 3.75, and make a house/perfect for us/ game system. Just want people to give feedback not to me but to the game. Pro's/Con;s etc
Thank you for the postive feedback. I agree with your comments. "House rules are for the promotion of fun. Fun remember is the core rule of any table top game. I just guess my players, myself and many others see the WOW factor implied and in some cases outright plagarized from Blizzard. Many have said they do not see it so let me outline some of what we saw:
Hunter's Quarry: Marking the target with a hunters mark for additional damage/ WOW Hunters mark.
Eldritch Blast Warlock You fire a bolt of dark, crackling eldritch energy at your foe./WOW Shadow Bolt
Monster are separated into minions/regular and elites which are the same level but buffed/WOW elites of the same level are uber buffed.
"some characters “tank”, some characters are “artillery”, etc. 4th Edition defines those roles into four types – controller, defender, leader, and striker". Taken from 4th edition pre-tester./WOW everone has a role as well...funny they use the word Tank.
In WOW armor is catogorized into cloth, leather, mail, plate. 4th edition is exactly the same. No more light, medium, heavy, but exactly the same.
Everything about the New paladin is too WOW to go over everything.
Steady shot/careful attack same thing and description
The tower in the playtest module is called Tower of Westfall
equipment in WOW is head, chest, hands, feet, waist, neck, rings, weapon, 4th edition copied it to the letter, but took out back?!?, etc, etc, etc
Just some feedback from my players and I. Just hope we can take 4th edition, add some of the best from 3.75, and make a house/perfect for us/ game system. Just want people to give feedback not to me but to the game. Pro's/Con;s etc
Thanks for answering my questions Ed! Not being an actual WoW player (my poison is EQ2) I'm not 100% familiar with WoW's Hunter's Mark ability. Does it really work the same (only one enemy at the time; must be closest enemy at time of marking) or is the ability itself just similar (choose one enemy to deal more damage to)? I personally thought the quarry ability was 4E's take on Ranger's classic Favored Enemy ability, which always kinda sucked. Either you picked well (or your DM took your pick into consideration) and you fought lots of opponents you favored, or else you picked poorly and a defining class ability was wasted.
Of the other similarities you've listed, probably the most striking one (and the only one I really agree with, as an idea originated in MMORPGs) would be the distinction of minion/regular/elite/solo monsters.
Many of the other similarities you listed are either how things worked in 3E (warlock's eldritch blast, equipment slots (you still have a back slot in 4E, btw), use of roles, etc) or generic enough that I wouldn't really give MMORPGs credit for them (trading damage for prescision, or vice versa, is an old concept).
But this is somewhat beside the point. WoW and DnD are both heroic fantasy RPGs (WoW a MMORPG, but still, same overarching genre). Some similarities are going to be there no matter what (classes, levels, races, etc), and if one of them has a really good idea/concept I'd hope the other would be willing to try it (you could argue that most MMORPGs are based off of ideas poineered in the original EQ which was ... based on the developer's table top DnD game).
But having a few things in common doesn't make 4E DnD a table-top version of WoW. Without scripted quests (including prewritten NPC dialogue that they cannot diverge from!) and a fully automated DM to run the monsters during the fights, I'm not sure you could even have a table-top WoW. And that's before we start adding in an Aggro mechnic, and the numerous other systems and societies that make WoW, WoW.
I said no offense in my first post to this thread, and by no means do I have any ill will towards you, but 4E in play is not going to feel anything at all like WoW. It'd be impossible, as long as a real live DM is behind the screen. I've tried the EQ d20 game and, while EQ-like, it didn't feel much like EQ in play. I've never picked up the WoW d20 game, but I'd be willing to bet that the story is the same there.
Cheers! :)
First Post eaten by the thread monster.
Apologies if you can see this twice.
Thank you for the postive feedback. I agree with your comments. "House rules are for the promotion of fun. Fun remember is the core rule of any table top game. I just guess my players, myself and many others see the WOW factor implied and in some cases outright plagarized from Blizzard. Many have said they do not see it so let me outline some of what we saw:
Hunter's Quarry: Marking the target with a hunters mark for additional damage/ WOW Hunters mark.
Eldritch Blast Warlock You fire a bolt of dark, crackling eldritch energy at your foe./WOW Shadow Bolt
Monster are separated into minions/regular and elites which are the same level but buffed/WOW elites of the same level are uber buffed.
"some characters “tank”, some characters are “artillery”, etc. 4th Edition defines those roles into four types – controller, defender, leader, and striker". Taken from 4th edition pre-tester./WOW everone has a role as well...funny they use the word Tank.
In WOW armor is catogorized into cloth, leather, mail, plate. 4th edition is exactly the same. No more light, medium, heavy, but exactly the same.
Everything about the New paladin is too WOW to go over everything.
Steady shot/careful attack same thing and description
The tower in the playtest module is called Tower of Westfall
equipment in WOW is head, chest, hands, feet, waist, neck, rings, weapon, 4th edition copied it to the letter, but took out back?!?, etc, etc, etc
Just some feedback from my players and I. Just hope we can take 4th edition, add some of the best from 3.75, and make a house/perfect for us/ game system. Just want people to give feedback not to me but to the game. Pro's/Con;s etc
Hey Ed,
So, since the boards have once more come back around to this whole 4E is copying WOW issue again, I hope I can help clear things up a bit here.
4E is not copying Wow. 4E it just an outgrowth of 3E and all the previous editions.
The problem is WOW copied 3rd edition! Remember! WoW was launched in 2004, four years after 3rd edition came out.
The secret of Blizzard's success has always been their ability to steal, quite liberally, all the best concepts, stories, and mechanics from the world of high fantasy and science fiction. Blizzard then distills those themes and concepts that everybody already knows down into an easy to understand and well made game that everybody can enjoy.
That's why Wow has 10 million players. They use things that everybody has already seen before in things like DnD and classic fantasy, and make it so simple and easy that everybody can do it. That's why they have so many players that all over MMO's combined do not add up to their current subscriber base.
All those things you've seen in 4E that are also in WoW are there because WoW stole them from DnD and other role playing games in the first place!
Let's look at some:
-Hunter's Quarry and WOW's Hunters mark are basically just Aiming and Called Shots, which have been around forever now. They
-The eldritch blast is just an eveolution of the ray spell, which grew out of the desire for people to escape the vactian magic system. Ray spell were in the original rules for 3rd edition. In fact, back in 3.0, those ranged touch spells were a huge innovation in DnD spells. Again, before WoW.
I would bet you can find a single target, evil damage based attack like the elcritch blast or shadow bolt in every single video and table top RPG made in the last twenty years.
-Monsters have been divided into elite mobs since 3.0. Remember the Elite array? DnD had this concept before WoW did. In fact, a LOT of games have had this concept prior to WoW. Boss battles are just the dragon at the end of the dungeon, or the evil lich in charge of an army.
-The concept of a fighter tanking while the cleric and mage lurk in the background has been around almost since the very beginning of DnD. Yes, they were not explicitly talked about in the books, but players have been thinking this way Forever! Front rank/back rank fighting has been around forever, and exists in video and table top RPG games well before WoW came along. That's why, when MMO's first came out, they made the fighter the Tank. WoW simply followed the standard MMO and table top RPG formula.
-4th Edition simply defines the four roles we have always been using. The controller, defender, leader, and strikers are the standard Mage, Fighter, Cleric, and Rogue.
-How long has that been the perfect DnD party? Far, Far longer then WOW or any MMO has been around.
-When it comes to armor, again remember the timeline:
3rd edition separates armor into light, medium, and heavy.
WOW categorized armor into cloth, leather, mail, plate.
Then! 4th edition decides to do exactly the same.
Again, Wow stole from DnD first.
-Steady shot/careful attack same thing and description
Again, called shots and aiming have been around in games as long as they've been played.
-The tower in the play test module is called Tower of Westfall.
Proper place names simply do not count. Westfall is a very common name. five American towns are named Westfall. (just put it into map quest!) Besides, DnD stolen almost half their gods and celestial realms from mythology. Just go type all those realms deities into wikipedia. You'll find most of them are names from mythology. Dagon? Lovecraft. Lovitar? Real world goddess.
-Now, we're back equipment and equipment slots.
Remember! 3.0 came out in 2000. And guess what? In 3.0 there were a head slots, chest slots, hands, feet, waist, neck, rings, weapon, everything! It's all in 3.0, go look in the DMG. It was in 2nd and 1st edition too. You couldn't wear two magic helms back then just like you can't now. Yes, it wasn't codified that way but thats how it was.
Once again, Wow and every other MMO stole from DnD.
Not the other way around.
And don't forget how much Blizzard copied Warhammer 40K to make Starcraft.
Oh indeed! That's a very good example of my point. Blizzard is the king of derivative content.
|
|
And don't forget how much Blizzard copied Warhammer 40K to make Starcraft.Oh indeed! That's a very good example of my point. Blizzard is the king of derivative content.
To this I agree with you. In short, I hope the game does not try to steal back, but just get better. Anyway I am still looking for people who tried the pre-test to get their feedback on it. Ill start.
Con: once negative, three rolls of 1-9 and your dead, no questions. Didnt get a good feedback at all. Probably see if they change it to something new or go with -CON score with bleeding every round. It does make for some good quick decision making and rememerable moves as a PC starts convulsing.
Hmm,
I really don't like the warlock. to me the class seemed to "Super-Hero" to me and less "Fantasy".
I really can't say if 4e is like WoW or not.....I played it for all of 3 hours and then became violently ill.....I really dislike WoW.
I agree Blizzard is incapable of original thought, One could say all fantasy "borrows" from each other, but Blizzard's blatant Warhammer rip-offs remind me of FASA's Battletech Mechs, you know FASA using Macross/Robotech mecha......sigh.....
One could say that imitation is the Highest form of flattery.
Any way, its been stated that D&D needed to "slay" certain "Sacred Cows" to say viable. You folks got any thoughts on that?
Example: The Magic System, Alignments and the very radical revamp of the planes.
Eric.
Hmm,
I really don't like the warlock. to me the class seemed to "Super-Hero" to me and less "Fantasy".
I really can't say if 4e is like WoW or not.....I played it for all of 3 hours and then became violently ill.....I really dislike WoW.
I agree Blizzard is incapable of original thought, One could say all fantasy "borrows" from each other, but Blizzard's blatant Warhammer rip-offs remind me of FASA's Battletech Mechs, you know FASA using Macross/Robotech mecha......sigh.....
One could say that imitation is the Highest form of flattery.Any way, its been stated that D&D needed to "slay" certain "Sacred Cows" to say viable. You folks got any thoughts on that?
Example: The Magic System, Alignments and the very radical revamp of the planes.
Eric.
I think this falls back on the discussion of "For you, what is D&D?"
I understand that for many people, Vancian spellcasting and the Great Wheel are an inherent part of D&D. And I can imagin the feelings of these people when they see these concepts which they grew with, being suddely removed for the "sake of change".
As for me, I never was attached to them. On 2E, I adopted the channeled spellcasting (spell points/fadigue) system when Player's Option: Spells & Magic come out. I adopted Eberron as scenario, and one of the reasons is that I despised the Great Wheel as cosmology.
That said, there are things that I don't like on 4E because they change what is D&D to me. For me, bards and druids are absolutely essential to D&D. I don't have much against Warlocks, Warlords and Tieflings but I agree they seem the kind of concept which appeal more to comic book superhero fans. The tiefling, for instance, is the old and boring "Hero with dark shades" or "Cursed Anti-hero" stereotype, like Spawn, Punisher, V, Batman, Wolverine, etc.
In the other hand, I finally had a chance to read Worlds & Monsters yesterday, and I found the description of world, monster and planes anything short of fantastic. It definetly has a high fantasy, mysterious, entrancing feel, and brought me childhood memories from the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon, where the heroes never knew what was going to lay in the next town, forest, or cavern. I actually I'm willing to play it instead of Eberron for 4E.
Seriously, unless you are an avid Greyhawk-FR-Great Wheel fan (in these cases, I understand that it's hard to accept the chnages), I highly recommend to read Worlds & Monsters before having a opinion of the feel of 4th edition.
To this I agree with you. In short, I hope the game does not try to steal back, but just get better.
I suppose that's my point really. All the changes I've seen so far don't look like stealing back but just natural improvements to the systems that were already there.
Granted, we have not seen everything yet, but just looking at what the example DnD expirence characters can do was enough to convince me they aren't copying WoW but expanding upon DnD itself. I am a long-term WoW player, and even if you ignore all the major changes that the lack of a DM in WoW causes, there is a big difference between the two games.
I think this falls back on the discussion of "For you, what is D&D?"I understand that for many people, Vancian spellcasting and the Great Wheel are an inherent part of D&D. And I can imagin the feelings of these people when they see these concepts which they grew with, being suddely removed for the "sake of change".
As for me, I never was attached to them. On 2E, I adopted the channeled spellcasting (spell points/fadigue) system when Player's Option: Spells & Magic come out. I adopted Eberron as scenario, and one of the reasons is that I despised the Great Wheel as cosmology.
That said, there are things that I don't like on 4E because they change what is D&D to me. For me, bards and druids are absolutely essential to D&D. I don't have much against Warlocks, Warlords and Tieflings but I agree they seem the kind of concept which appeal more to comic book superhero fans. The tiefling, for instance, is the old and boring "Hero with dark shades" or "Cursed Anti-hero" stereotype, like Spawn, Punisher, V, Batman, Wolverine, etc.
In the other hand, I finally had a chance to read Worlds & Monsters yesterday, and I found the description of world, monster and planes anything short of...
I really never cared for Alignments, we have always used it as more of an RP tool, 4e going to a more simplified form of alignment harkens back to OD&D to me with its Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic Alignment system, one I like far more.
The old debate comes to mind, Did Hitler think he was "Evil"? A Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic alignment system to me reflects reality better. Hitler was Lawful.......I hate the Tiefling even did back in the old Planescape days....I can honestly say that more folks in our campaigns have played Gnomes and 1/2 Orcs....than demonic "Drizzt" knock offs.....*sigh* guess i'm a minority now....Ive never been a fan of Halflings, so they have always been less important in our campaigns. 4e dumping some races and ideals because it wants to further separate its self from "old" fantasy themes, is kinda silly to me when they decided to keep the Hobbit, oops i mean the Halfling. Tolkiens Hobbits are as varied as D&D's, a little research into the "Red Book" will show that. It was always odd to me that Halflings were given special consideration in campaigns like Birthright and Darksun.
The planes....They have been some form of wheel up until, 3rd I think....FR dumped the wheel and well Eberron seems to have a revolving wheel...LOL. Greyhawk will keep the Wheel i assume....they are still supporting Greyhawk in the RPGA aren't they?
My Homebrew campaign follows the Nordic model of the planes, with a "Christian" feel for Heaven and Hell.
Fluff changes seem to be a stardard in new versions....it just seems to me this time around was more drastic. I think thats the biggest reason Im so taken back by 4e.
The MMORPG debate to me seems kinda weak to me, Although many rule changes and fluff changes seem to emulate an MMORPG i think these changes were made for the sake of speed and stream lining the game. On could say that this may "Dumb" down the game, but to tell you the truth if it is WotC goal to Steal the "kids" from WoW, it will fail. D&D will never be able to offer the instant gratification an Online game of mauch less a Video Game can do. UNtil Tech can totally simulate the Human imagination we will never see a true PnP being reflected in a Video Game.
Eric.
WOTC4E does take one thing from computer games.
Level restricted items.
Even simple games such as Spooky Castle have improved items that you cannot use till you are high enough level.
I stopped playing that game because I never got to the castle.
To say you cannot use a magic ring till you are 11th level has invited derision.
They could have gotten away with saying you can only use rings of spell storing that contain low level spells.
They could have even gotten away with saying you can only use one magic ring with one first level spell stored in it.
You can say this is an expansion of how epic items only work for epic characters, but the basic concept is unsupportable.
Rings work automaticly when someone puts them on.
A few have command words or requirements to activate fully,
but that's a very few.
I hope that clears this up.
dude...lol. You'll be a snooty DnD elitist too in a few years. Right around 5.5 or so. Enjoy your prejudice free youth while you can ;)
|
|
WOTC4E does take one thing from computer games.
Level restricted items.
Even simple games such as Spooky Castle have improved items that you cannot use till you are high enough level.
I stopped playing that game because I never got to the castle.
To say you cannot use a magic ring till you are 11th level has invited derision.
They could have gotten away with saying you can only use rings of spell storing that contain low level spells.
They could have even gotten away with saying you can only use one magic ring with one first level spell stored in it.
You can say this is an expansion of how epic items only work for epic characters, but the basic concept is unsupportable.Rings work automaticly when someone puts them on.
A few have command words or requirements to activate fully,
but that's a very few.I hope that clears this up.
One thing I hope they do change as well. If I am a 1st level nobody and my father (excuse the Conan emphasis) gave me his sword (+4 giant slayer) I am going to use it. I recall DND was kinda based on LOTR and is Frodo not able to use the ring because he is low level? Makes no sense, and that will be the first thing to go if it is a rule. It is the DM's job to manage magic items, like do not give a deck of many things to 1st level characters, etc.
One thing I hope they do change as well. If I am a 1st level nobody and my father (excuse the Conan emphasis) gave me his sword (+4 giant slayer) I am going to use it. I recall DND was kinda based on LOTR and is Frodo not able to use the ring because he is low level? Makes no sense, and that will be the first thing to go if it is a rule. It is the DM's job to manage magic items, like do not give a deck of many things to 1st level characters, etc.
I think this is something most of us can agree on; hoping it is removed has been pretty universal in what I've seen. Note though, that they've indicated only Rings are level restricted, nothing else, and re: your specific example, they've said that artifacts obey their own rules.
Here's hoping for a change.
Cheers! :)
I think this is something most of us can agree on; hoping it is removed has been pretty universal in what I've seen. Note though, that they've indicated only Rings are level restricted, nothing else, and re: your specific example, they've said that artifacts obey their own rules.
Here's hoping for a change.
Cheers! :)
I wouldn't mind it if maybe the rings had level accessible abilities. Like , as you level up the ring grants you access to more of its abilities. So even at 1st level its still providing some of its abilities.
Maybe the rings in 4e have been "upgraded" and now are far more powerful.....Strange that only rings get this treatment.....not some +5 Unholy Defender.....
Eric.
I wouldn't mind it if maybe the rings had level accessible abilities. Like , as you level up the ring grants you access to more of its abilities. So even at 1st level its still providing some of its abilities.
Maybe the rings in 4e have been "upgraded" and now are far more powerful.....Strange that only rings get this treatment.....not some +5 Unholy Defender.....
Eric.
You are correct in your guess as to why rings are supposedly level restricted. Something about how all rings are extremely powerful, and only controllable by those of strong will.
Hopefully the eventual mechanic for this will be a little more subtle than Ring: Require Level 10.
Cheers! :)
|
|
I wouldn't mind it if maybe the rings had level accessible abilities. Like , as you level up the ring grants you access to more of its abilities. So even at 1st level its still providing some of its abilities.
Maybe the rings in 4e have been "upgraded" and now are far more powerful.....Strange that only rings get this treatment.....not some +5 Unholy Defender.....
Eric.
You are correct in your guess as to why rings are supposedly level restricted. Something about how all rings are extremely powerful, and only controllable by those of strong will.
Hopefully the eventual mechanic for this will be a little more subtle than Ring: Require Level 10.
Cheers! :)
I have always treated magic items as if you get it, use it. If I give an artifact of power to a 2nd level party, then as a DM I must live with it. I made this mistake back during Age of Worms by giving an artifact bow (think it was a +5 holy, flaming burst bow of speed with 4-5 major spell type powers infused) to a ranger level 18 or so. Yikes! He ended up because of this bow having 7-8 shots/round for incredible damage. This started a chain of events that ended up giving all characters (a way to balance) artifacts of power. As you can imagine, I had to increase CR of creatures, customize a few things and ultimately the party fought the end boss and won. My point to this long winded story is that I disagree to have rules govern the game. Rules are there as a guideline, but not law. I know rules lawyers out there both chaotic (the ones that would rather argue with a DM than play) or Lawful (Rules lawyers that know all rules, but are there to help the DM) might disagree with this statement, but again primary rule is fun. Problem is fun is too many different things for too many different people. So I say bring on the rules, probably get changed if it does not work out anyway.
Which brings me to the reason why I'm not happy with 4e. The over all fluff changes seems to lead the game away from its roots in traditional fantasy. The "flashy" new races and classes seem to far from the Fantasy I enjoy. Now I know I can simply ignore these parts of the game, I'm an old gamer and I guess I'm just to happy with 3.5e. My home brew campaign has had to much work put into it for me at my age to convert it, and Paizo has seemed willing to keep me satisfied with its version of the 3.5 rule set.
I wonder if those who are not converting (myself included) would have been more tempted by 4E if the fluff had remained (relatively) the same.
I think this was one of the biggest mistakes WotC has made with the new edition.
I wonder if those who are not converting (myself included) would have been more tempted by 4E if the fluff had remained (relatively) the same.
I think this was one of the biggest mistakes WotC has made with the new edition.
Good question Dave. I'd like to think most people recognize that whatever the fluff ends up being, it is easy to change, but I know it seems to be an issue for many people.
Personally, I'm interested in seeing how they will have changed the fluff, since 3E for the most part was simply a continuation of much of 2E. Many of the ideas elicited by it have been thunk by me already, and I am happy to get some new inputs to work my brain over.
For those who refuse to play in 4E because of the new basic fluff though, I wonder why they refused use the default 3E fluff instead? I know I saw the designers say at one point that it would be easy to switch the universe back to the Great Wheel, more or less (does 4E still have an ethereal/shadow plane? Maybe you'd have to add those back in ...)
Cheers! :)
|
To answer Dave Mage:
Yes, I would have been far more willing to go 4th if they had "evolved" the Fluff.
I think, even with this Team of the Best of the Best RPG designers you can not reimagine a multiverse that evolved over 30 years and multiple campaign settings.
I would have loved an evolved generic setting. Just make up some long slumbering entities from the far realms (call the Jug Suthgog and Kulutu) awakened. They immediately started to re-shape the multiverse. The Gods went to war...
Now you can get rid of the great wheel (if you have to) and place the various planes in the astral. You can delete planes (destroye in the war), delete god (killed in the war) and create new planes (r-shaped or created form the Old Ones' Dreams.
This large war left much of the multiverse in tatters, but some areas are still pretty much as they were. Hell is Hell and the Abyss is the Abyss. Ah, Demons were really inspired by the Old Ones and got some of their old "bestial" drive back.
Always the opportunist, Asmodeus used the chance to claw his way to godhood (some well worded pacts with the gods. He gave some Devil Legions and got back his godhood).
Finally the might of the gods drove the Old Ones back to their sleep. But as they are only fallen asleep for a short (for the old ones) time, their dreams still have a physical manifestation: the Feywild (or however this is called).
Humankind suffered also. Empires crushed and past, present and future were entangled for a while. A new reality was created. Things that were not before are now (like Dragonborn and Tiefling empires) and things that were are not anymore (insert things deleted from 3rd fluff).
There you have it. No reboot but an evolved generic setting. It is Heavyhanded, sure, but I only had 10mins to write it down as I thought it up.
Professional Designers SHOULD be able to come up with some better ideas than me.
To answer Dave Mage:
Yes, I would have been far more willing to go 4th if they had "evolved" the Fluff.
I think, even with this Team of the Best of the Best RPG designers you can not reimagine a multiverse that evolved over 30 years and multiple campaign settings.
I would have loved an evolved generic setting. Just make up some long slumbering entities from the far realms (call the Jug Suthgog and Kulutu) awakened. They immediately started to re-shape the multiverse. The Gods went to war...
Now you can get rid of the great wheel (if you have to) and place the various planes in the astral. You can delete planes (destroye in the war), delete god (killed in the war) and create new planes (r-shaped or created form the Old Ones' Dreams.
This large war left much of the multiverse in tatters, but some areas are still pretty much as they were. Hell is Hell and the Abyss is the Abyss. Ah, Demons were really inspired by the Old Ones and got some of their old "bestial" drive back.
Always the opportunist, Asmodeus used the chance to claw his way to godhood (some well worded pacts with the gods. He gave some Devil Legions and got back his godhood).
Finally the might of the gods drove the Old Ones back to their sleep. But as they are only fallen asleep for a short (for the old ones) time, their dreams still have a physical manifestation: the Feywild (or however this is called).
Humankind suffered also. Empires crushed and past, present and future were entangled for a while. A new reality was created. Things that were not before are now (like Dragonborn and Tiefling empires) and things that were are not anymore (insert things deleted from 3rd fluff).
There you have it. No reboot but an evolved generic setting. It is Heavyhanded, sure, but I only had 10mins to write it down as I thought it up.
Professional Designers SHOULD be able to come up with some better ideas than me.
While I like your ideas, Tharen, and would have checked them out if they had been the generic setting behind 4E, I have to say they remind me a lot of what is going in 4E Forgotten Realms. That is, if you think the FR fans yelling "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! G%~ d%#n you all to hell!" was bad, wait until it's a percentage of all players. The heavens would shook with the violence of such nerdrage.
Cheers! :)
I worry I may have stepped over a line with my previous post and I'm sorry. That being said...
Low abilities at low levels would be better, even for artifacts.
As it stands now, rings and Ioun Stones can be used to augment bluff.
You can make fake Ioun Stones by permanantly animating specially cut gems.
You put on a magic ring and it still radiates magic.
How's anyone to know it isn't doing anything?
One +4 per faking item.
As for the loss of the Great Wheel, the locations on the new planes can be used as portals to the dumped planes. One of my gaming buddies came up with that idea. The cosmos for Ebberon is already fixed. I think you should take that tack for all other game worlds.
As for the loss of the Great Wheel, the locations on the new planes can be used as portals to the dumped planes. One of my gaming buddies came up with that idea. The cosmos for Ebberon is already fixed. I think you should take that tack for all other game worlds.
I don't think that any of the old Planes are actually being dumped, just that they are no longer organized in the wheel shape they once were. I've seen it described as the planes exisiting in an astral sea in the Devil preview that came out recently.
That means all those places which you remeber like the Abyss, Byotopia, the Nine Hells, etc. are all still out there, they just don't form the neat little wheel we had before and thus don't nessisarily have the same polotics and such that the outer planes did before. (Things like the Blood War and such.) At least that's how it's been explained to me.
|
|
While I like your ideas, Tharen, and would have checked them out if they had been the generic setting...
As I said, the writeup was heavyhanded. But you could get away with that in a generic setting. My point was that I rather have a continuation of the D&D multiverse than a reboot.
FR on the other hand is not a generic setting as there are very specific politics, people and a fixed history to empires etc.
I think you can get away with things like the spellplague if you do it with a lot of finesse. IMO the system change was too heavyhanded (but that was and is discussed elsewhere).
As I said, the writeup was heavyhanded. But you could get away with that in a generic setting. My point was that I rather have a continuation of the D&D multiverse than a reboot.
FR on the other hand is not a generic setting as there are very specific politics, people and a fixed history to empires etc.
I think you can get away with things like the spellplague if you do it with a lot of finesse. IMO the system change was too heavyhanded (but that was and is discussed elsewhere).
True, true. But then, the implied setting of 3E was supposedly Greyhawk, even though little to nothing was ever really made of that fact. And considering that none of the campaign settings published under 3E used the Great Wheel (as far as I'm aware!) I'd say the 2E idea that the implied setting is a vast overarching setting that all other settings fit into was already DOA in 3E.
Which brings us to the question of what exactly IS the implied setting? I'd say that the DnD multiverse has been unsupported for years now. If it hasn't died off at your table yet, I'm not sure 4E would/could kill it.
Another way of approaching my point (or maybe just a different one altogether) is that if the DnD generic setting lacked specific politics, people, and a fixed history, why does a reboot matter? Without any true specifics, couldn't you just twist the 3E generic setting into the 4E generic setting, much as you laid out?
A little stream of conscious (with a dash of Devil's Advocate!) :)
It's interesting what people like.
The fluff is, in my opinion, brilliant and I love it. I didn't care for the Great Wheel, I disliked the obsessive need to have things perfectly symmetric, and I think the new cosmology rocks.
Maybe the best way would have been for the core books to be "planar neutral" which would have allowed for an "all of the above" option.
Alternatively, they could have gone "great wheel lite" in the core and then have an add-on sourcebook that would have presented the great wheel cosmology and another one as their new vision. (Or they could combine them in to one book.) This way you don't alienate fans of the old, but offer an alternative to fans of the new.
In general, the planes have been largely irrelevant to WotC adventures (but NOT to Dungeon Magazine adventures). The WotC Demonweb Pits is the only one where it really matters in 3.5, IIRC.
(Meaning it would have been easy to ignore the outer planes in core for the most part.)
|
|
True, true. But then, the implied setting of 3E was supposedly Greyhawk, even though little to nothing was ever really made of that fact. And considering that none of the campaign settings published under 3E used the Great Wheel (as far as I'm aware!) I'd say the 2E idea that the implied setting is a vast overarching setting that all other settings fit into was already DOA in 3E.
Which brings us to the question of what exactly IS the implied setting? I'd say that the DnD multiverse has been unsupported for years now. If it hasn't died off at your table yet, I'm not sure 4E would/could kill it.
Another way of approaching my point (or maybe just a different one altogether) is that if the DnD generic setting lacked specific politics, people, and a fixed history, why does a reboot matter? Without any true specifics, couldn't you just twist the 3E generic setting into the 4E generic setting, much as you laid out?
A little stream of conscious (with a dash of Devil's Advocate!) :)
I for my part always used the Great Wheel in my homebrew campaigns. It was so easy to pick up a whole cosmology and insert it.
I could also use a lot of planescape stuff. Bloodwar, Mechanus all was there and useable.I can still use my old 1st edtion "Manual of the Planes" in my 3.5 games. I can steal the 2nd edition adventure idea for "A Paladin in Hell" and recreate it in 3.5. I can use the whole Savage Tide adventure Path for my homebrew setting without changing the main antagonists and the whole cosmology. My Players can have a bash on the demon Queen of Spiders in her big Metal Fortress and use 1st edtion and later they can make an Expedtion to her Realm and use 3.5.
I like the continuation and evolvement of the Fluff. Hell in 3.5 has evolved since 1st edition. Old Archfiends have fallen and new ones have rise. Even Demonlords were retired and then had their glorius Comeback!
For me, and I might know to little of 4th setting or be too negative, this continuation is now broken. This is what I do not like.
Save the Succubus!
Save the Wheel
|
|
I started off not liking 4E because it tends to break "the flavor" of what I want in my fantasy RPG, but a friend at work is all excited, so I started digging more into it. There are definitely some high points that I really enjoy about the the new cosmos. There are also some low points. Regardless, I started to get excited, even positively opinioned.
Ach, then I started to notice a complete lack of ability and responsibility to meet the initial promise of the online Dragon and Dungeon magazines. That made me a little unhappy, because they took this responsibility on themselves with all sorts of ballyhoo about how great it was going to be back in the WotC fold, etc. etc. And yet, they've completely let the magazines slip away, so that the latest issue of Dragon will spend its last days of 3.5 glory crawling miserably across 3 months, rather than giving 3.5 a loving sendoff.
Add into that the unpleasant concept that if I want miniatures for my DDI experience I am going to have to buy them? I can't get what I need for my game in the random packs as is, and now I have to buy virtual miniatures on top of it? While I know the exact pricing and format hasn't been released, I think this is absolutely ludicris. "You can use tokens ..."
Indeed.
4E has some promise, but these little fringe issues are like crocks hiding in the bush - they're not making my nature walk more fun at all!