I'm more willing to believe "clever" than "incompetent" in this case.
I'm not. Available evidence overwhelmingly favors incompetence (WotC management, not designers).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
*rolls eyes* because then they can't say they sold every copy before release day.
And being able to say that is important because...
Since this is a distribution-level "shortage", I'll be surprised if anyone has trouble getting a PH for months to come.
And yet the risk of a shortage is worth the ability to say "we sold out"?
Okay...I guess...
Edit: This reminds me of Takasi's argument about how the Maure Castle issue of Dungeon sold out because it was an anniversary issue and not because that particular adventure was very popular. Good times.
Clearly they were caught off-guard by the pace of sales.
Caught off guard... yes.
Fan reactions to 4e... fan reactions to discontinuing print magazines... getting OGL to 3rd party publishers... GenCon... DDI... how to implement DDI... running out of copies in two or three days...
My confidence runneth over :/
4e just isn't a game for role-players.i simply cannot agree with this on a subjective as well as objective basis. 4e has more space dedicated to roleplaying in the phb than in the 3.5 phb. There are no mechanical rules that prevent or even hinder roleplaying in 4e.
I have been trying to be really patient with replies to this thread but this sentiment is just plain wrong on so many levels.
What the 8 total pages that are not basics on how to run the game wow realy deticated to roleplaying. (if you dont belive go back and look and read the first section over and tell me that there is more than eight pages worth total that is not rules or basic how to's in the first 49 pages. before you blast everyone as you have the last week for their thoughts you should go back and reread what you are fighting for.
|
A very much pro 4e employee at my FLGS told me that 4e was like this (and I quote): "you know in the Lord of the Rings movie were Legolas took a shield and surfed down those stairs? Well, if you thought that was cool, then 4e is for you!"
And while he over-simplified things, at its core, I think he is correct. Instead of starting out playing lowly Bilbo Baggins (who has to learn to become powerful), you get to play Harry Potter (who has only to learn to control his innate power)...
With all previous editions, 1st level characters were weak, and many times died because of this...
Sure I suppose 1st level 4e characters die, but they sure have more "flash and pizzazz" then any other 1st level character in previous editions! It seems to me every PC class right out of the gate is a force to be reconed with. Heck even the guys on the DnD Podcast said as much...
My intent is not to bash 4e, I am sure 4e will have some good ideas/concepts, but I will use these in my 3.x games...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
except you know it has a D and a D on the cover, is sold by the people who own the rights to dnd, is called dnd by the people who play it, and most importantly is a tactical wargame with roleplaying elements that's about killing stuff and taking their items.
IF that's not dnd, I would say your definition is wrong.
Having played plenty of D&D that WASN'T about killing people and taking their stuff, I'd say that any definition of D&D that included just that was just as wrong.
What crosswired mind is saying perhaps a bit untactfully (but i wouldn't call it rude) is that THERE IS DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE CLASSES AND ALL POWERS AREN"T SPELLS. The rogue gets +2 to the reflex save that other's don't, fighters and paladin's get innate access to heavier armours that other don't or have to spend feats on, the powers themselves are worlds different (big difference between i cast a sleep spell at you, and i push you over with my relentless advance ie sleep vs tide of iron).
Yeah, well, for some of us, the distinctions aren't enough if every class has the same basic attack bonus as a wizard in 3e and the base saves, which used to vary by up to 6 points, now vary by 2.
I understand that the powers do vary in their details (though with a LOT of similarities), the very structure of every class having the same number of powers and of the same basic type leads to a lot of general sameness between the classes. The fighter's powers may be "exploits" but the difference between using spells and weapon attacks in previous editions is far greater than between using exploits, spells, and prayers in 4e. The fighter might as well be casting spells... that happen to have the somatic component of smacking the target with a weapon. ;)
|
So no, there's not going to be any moment where I read more of the rules or play a game of 4th edition and all of a sudden "see the light" and repent of all the errors of my ways and denounce the horribleness that is 3.5 and embrace the one and true D&D that is 4th edition.
I never said it was an error to like 3e better than 4e but you characterization of 4e had many errors. If you are going to bash 4e you should at least get the facts straight first.
|
|
You know...I always see people refering to "Sales Figures" but nobody ever posts links to the actual information or figures.
Where are you getting the "Dramatic pace of sales - outstripping even WotC's predictions." sales figures anyways?
I run a business. I have to estimate production runs. If I underestimate then I need to get the factory cranking because i missed the mark and need to keep up the supply to meet the demand.
We know that WotC has had to go back and order another print run of the core books because they have sold out. If they had projected the demand accurately then this would not have happened. they would have been able to manage the supply line to pace demand.
Clearly they were caught off-guard by the pace of sales.
Why else would they risk a possible disruption in supply? They wouldn't.
Well until I see actual hard numbers then I'll bite. Simply saying that WotC has said they had to go back and order another print run doesn't do much. Where is the documentation that they have done that? A link to the post from a WotC rep. If you own a business and have some kind of inside track then so be it. Just put up some numbers or links to back up the claim.
|
|
What the 8 total pages that are not basics on how to run the game wow realy deticated to roleplaying. (if you dont belive go back and look and read the first section over and tell me that there is more than eight pages worth total that is not rules or basic how to's in the first 49 pages. before you blast everyone as you have the last week for their thoughts you should go back and reread what you are fighting for.4e just isn't a game for role-players.i simply cannot agree with this on a subjective as well as objective basis. 4e has more space dedicated to roleplaying in the phb than in the 3.5 phb. There are no mechanical rules that prevent or even hinder roleplaying in 4e.
I have been trying to be really patient with replies to this thread but this sentiment is just plain wrong on so many levels.
Uh, okay. The 4e PHB has more content on roleplaying than the 3.5 phb. Feel free to do a word count but by looking at the two books side by side I would say that the rolplaying helpful hint in 4e are rough 4 to 5 times bigger than in 3.5.
Ok - now I am going from inpatient to cranky. I think the next step after cranky is to sign up for law school.
|
|
Well until I see actual hard numbers then I'll bite. Simply saying that WotC has said they had to go back and order another print run doesn't do much. Where is the documentation that they have done that? A link to the post from a WotC rep. If you own a business and have some kind of inside track then so be it. Just put up some numbers or links to back up the claim.
Dude. Go see the sold out thread for the link to the article.
Oh, and if need hard sales figures - good luck. Companies tend to keep many details like that to themselves. They may share them at some point, but all I need to see is the rankings on Amazon to know that it is doing very well.
Ok - now I am going from inpatient to cranky. I think the next step after cranky is to sign up for law school.
But if you do that you'll have to change your nick to "Sebastian2"
:)
|
|
Ok - now I am going from inpatient to cranky. I think the next step after cranky is to sign up for law school.But if you do that you'll have to change your nick to "Sebastian2"
:)
I think there is a conspiracy theory floating around that he and I are one and the same. You may have just added fuel to that fire. :D
I think there is a conspiracy theory floating around that he and I are one and the same. You may have just added fuel to that fire. :D
Ok - now I am going from inpatient to cranky. I think the next step after cranky is to sign up for law school.But if you do that you'll have to change your nick to "Sebastian2"
:)
If it is the case, I'd wager it's more of a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde type situation.
Now the question is... which one of you is the evil one?
:D
Yeah, well, for some of us, the distinctions aren't enough if every class has the same basic attack bonus as a wizard in 3e and the base saves, which used to vary by up to 6 points, now vary by 2.
I understand that the powers do vary in their details (though with a LOT of similarities), the very structure of every class having the same number of powers and of the same basic type leads to a lot of general sameness between the classes. The fighter's powers may be "exploits" but the difference between using spells and weapon attacks in previous editions is far greater than between using exploits, spells, and prayers in 4e. The fighter might as well be casting spells... that happen to have the somatic component of smacking the target with a weapon. ;)
Every class doesnt have the same basic attack. In fact, only the wizard has a force-damage attack at 1st-level and it has a range of 20 squares. The warlock has a single target attack, but it has a reduced range (only 10).
There is also a major difference in how a fighter functions from a wizard that goes above and beyond just a "spell that requires a weapon". For example, Reaping Strike lets you deal your Str mod in damage even if you miss. The wizard cant do that no matter how hard she swings her staff.The wizard gets a small AoE attack as an at-will power that she can drop within 10 squares: NO other class gets anything like that at 1st-level, and the fighter cant do that, EVER. Why? Because its NOT A SPELL.
Heck, even the rogue functions in a very different manner than the fighter. Maybe you like having all the melee classes performing in a virtually identical manner, but most of us do not.
Its stuff like that that make me wonder if you've actually read the books, or just going off of bits that Razz has said.
If it is the case, I'd wager it's more of a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde type situation.
Now the question is... which one of you is the evil one?
:D
Clearly that would be Sebastian - he is a lawyer after all. ;)
Touche.
|
I don't feel abandoned, I have long known that Wizards is a company owned by another company and their final goal is keeing the company going (just as Paizo's is - they just do it differently).
Wizards cannot take away all my awesome 3rd edition stuff, not any of the other cheap stuff that will become available over the next few months.
Wizards cannot take away any of the great times I have had playing 2nd and 3rd edition (and who knows, maybe even a future 4th edition game here and there).
All this means is that I get to spend my $40 a month for books on 3rd Edition things like Paizo's GameMastery supplements and Pathfinder.
Things change. People change. Companies change. If you really don't like 4th Edition, do what I am planning and spend your money elsewhere...anywhere, heck you might even try saving it (go on that trip you've always wanted). The most fun I have ever had gaming is when I moved away from only playing d20/Wizards material.
Thank you, Wizards, for liberating my hobby (and creating the future hobby for all those new gamers who pick up 4th Edition, even if they might have just bought 3rd edition and been happy).
Every class doesnt have the same basic attack. In fact, only the wizard has a force-damage attack at 1st-level and it has a range of 20 squares. The warlock has a single target attack, but it has a reduced range (only 10).
There is also a major difference in how a fighter functions from a wizard that goes above and beyond just a "spell that requires a weapon". For example, Reaping Strike lets you deal your Str mod in damage even if you miss. The wizard cant do that no matter how hard she swings her staff.
The wizard gets a small AoE attack as an at-will power that she can drop within 10 squares: NO other class gets anything like that at 1st-level, and the fighter cant do that, EVER. Why? Because its NOT A SPELL.
Heck, even the rogue functions in a very different manner than the fighter. Maybe you like having all the melee classes performing in a virtually identical manner, but most of us do not.Its stuff like that that make me wonder if you've actually read the books, or just going off of bits that Razz has said.
What? You can't accept that someone can read the same information and come away with a different impression from yours?
Yes, I've been reading the text and while there are some differences in specific effects here and there, most of the powers look an awful lot like "roll to hit a defense, apply a few dice of damage modified by a stat, maybe move the target around a little". Maybe it's a burst, maybe it sets up a zone, and maybe it has another minor aid effect for a buddy. And then maybe a priest's prayers are improved by the use of a holy symbol... a lot like a fighter's exploit is aided by a magic weapon. You do see the convergence here, right?
And yes, all of the classes do essentially have the wizard's base attack BONUS - 1/2 character level, just like they all have the same base defense (varying by only up to 2 points).
"roll to hit a defense, apply a few dice of damage modified by a stat, maybe move the target around a little".
And this is somehow different about the way it is done in 3rd? The mechanic is the same with the slight difference that the defender gets to roll for a saving throw. But now it is not only hit and damage. It is all about moving people, getting tactical and putting flavor in your swings, spells etc. To understand powers you should not only look at the entry. Every power functions differently not in a mechanical way put how it applies in the story. The powers have a hit mechanism which is the same for all classes. But if you see it like that then you see half of it.
And yes, all of the classes do essentially have the wizard's base attack BONUS - 1/2 character level, just like they all have the same base defense (varying by only up to 2 points).
And what is wrong with that? The wizards wont use a melee attack when it can use his at-will powers more effectively and even if he does just that then he must be very lucky to hit a monster.
What? You can't accept that someone can read the same information and come away with a different impression from yours?
Yes, I've been reading the text and while there are some differences in specific effects here and there, most of the powers look an awful lot like "roll to hit a defense, apply a few dice of damage modified by a stat, maybe move the target around a little". Maybe it's a burst, maybe it sets up a zone, and maybe it has another minor aid effect for a buddy. And then maybe a priest's prayers are improved by the use of a holy symbol... a lot like a fighter's exploit is aided by a magic weapon. You do see the convergence here, right?
And yes, all of the classes do essentially have the wizard's base attack BONUS - 1/2 character level, just like they all have the same base defense (varying by only up to 2 points).
Oh please, if you read Cleave there is no way you can come away thinking that its "just like a wizard's spell", or that its even remotely magical at all. This isnt about impressions at all: none of the martial exploits come across to me as magical in anyway.
Some might stretch things a bit in a cinematic sense, but fighters arent crapping fireballs or teleporting around.If anything, spells and some prayers function more like a fighter's attack now, since everyone rolls their own dice to determine if an effect works.
In reality this isnt much different than plenty of 3rd Edition spells: melf's acid arrow and all of the orb spells required the wizard to make an attack roll.
Anyway, I'm glad that casting classes now have items that boost their attack and damage. Thats something that really should have been in 3rd Edition especially since clerics had to use holy symbols in all their stuff anyhow.
And what is wrong with that? The wizards wont use a melee attack when it can use his at-will powers more effectively and even if he does just that then he must be very lucky to hit a monster.
And yes, all of the classes do essentially have the wizard's base attack BONUS - 1/2 character level, just like they all have the same base defense (varying by only up to 2 points).
The point of it is that people saying that 4e is stripping away the differences between the classes (which have existed since 1st edition) aren't making unfounded statements.
And this is somehow different about the way it is done in 3rd? The mechanic is the same with the slight difference that the defender gets to roll for a saving throw. But now it is not only hit and damage. It is all about moving people, getting tactical and putting flavor in your swings, spells etc. To understand powers you should not only look at the entry. Every power functions differently not in a mechanical way put how it applies in the story. The powers have a hit mechanism which is the same for all classes. But if you see it like that then you see half of it.
Actually, it is. There were a number of weapon-like spells, but the difference between defensive saves with no attack roll and making an attack roll vs a static defense are substantial. Any look at the varying combat modifiers and buffs available to making combat rolls should indicate that right away. Saving throws were rarely affected by combat-type modifiers with the exception of cover's effect on area-effect spells. Now, combat modifiers can factor heavily.
Having played plenty of D&D that WASN'T about killing people and taking their stuff, I'd say that any definition of D&D that included just that was just as wrong.
You might want to take that up with Mr. Gygax, may his soul rest in peace.
...Sales of 4e are set to surpass 3e and the game has not even been released.
I appreciate CWM's presence on the Paizo boards. He helps keep me open to the idea of even trying 4E. That said, this post lacks wings.I'm just responding to the sales part, not the betrayed part, cos that's a whole other can of worms. So those high sales...
We know that WotC hasn't advertised yet outside the D&D / gaming community (except one ad in Wired?), so the onslaught of sales likely isn't from new players. This implies there are many current D&D players buying the books.
Just for the record, I am pretty sure that CWM is talking the initial print of 4e vs the initial print of 3e/3.5. And in case you have read all the posts, we have public statements confirming that the 4e initial print is:
1. sold out2. vastly bigger than both the initial 3.0 and 3.5 initial print.
So, um, where did all these players come from???Maybe... 3.x brought in tons of new new players to D&D. These folks have loved 3.x and have stayed with the hobby for more than a few years; in fact, they are so enamored by D&D now that they are going along with a new edition, sight unseen.
First of all, it is not by any stretch of the imagination "by sight unseen". WoTC has been releasing so much information, that we in fact have been able to play something very close to 4e for months. The last month(s) there has been big excerpts 3 times a week on their site, along with a cornucopia of blogs, hints and other assorted info.
Also, DND didn't start with 3.x. It started 34 years ago, and a lot of people were playing long before your beloved 3.x came along. So yes, the people who are currently buying 4e are gamers.
3.x gamers who, because WoTC is actually the best company at making games, have faith that WotC will produce something even better this time around. But also older gamers, who left DND because of 3.x, and who now see a game that that they think is closer to it's roots.
I don't know if this is the case, but I suggest it because the situation is more complex than, oh, say, everybody hated 3.x (I'm not saying CWM said that).
Well, I doubt very much that everyone hated 3.x. But if I am given the choice between something that I like, and something that I like as well, while being better, I am going to go for door number 2. This isn't rocket science. People are buying 4e because from what they have seen, it is simply superior to 3.x.
I happen to think there are some folks who are breathlessly in love with WotC (a few folks at EN-World come to mind) and a lot of others who still remain very loyal to WotC. Although curiously, I haven't met any of those players in my local gaming groups.
I think the loyalty doesn't go much further than the benefit of the doubt. But yes, some might put more faith in WoTC.
Also, a little factoid is that the Internet in 2008 has transformed people's purchasing habits compared to, say, the dark ages of 2000. People used to wait to buy books at a hobby store. Also, in my experience, gamers tend to be tech-savvy and are more likely than the average Joe (or Jane) to pre-order a book on Amazon (though this last part is conjecture).
Yet still, those hobby stores still exist. Some people must be buying there. I know that in my country, the FLGS's are stocked with pre-orders.
Many others above have given a plethora of refutations.
Yeah, but none actually made any sense.
The problem is that so many people over here hate WoTC and 4e so much, that even if someone leaked the numbers (which would be a breach, since WoTC is a PLC - afaik), you guys would argue that it was doctored numbers and part of some greater plot to sell more. Frankly it's pathetic, and I feel sorry that a cool, no strike that, an awesome company like Paizo has fans who act like that.
Also, a little factoid is that the Internet in 2008 has transformed people's purchasing habits compared to, say, the dark ages of 2000. People used to wait to buy books at a hobby store. Also, in my experience, gamers tend to be tech-savvy and are more likely than the average Joe (or Jane) to pre-order a book on Amazon (though this last part is conjecture).
I have to agree with Dario on this one. I preordered 4E, but I wouldn't even think about buying books on the internet 8 years ago.
It's too bad that the whole evil brouhaha has started up again with the imminent release of 4e (I guess it is still technically not released yet). Folks, we are all P&P gamers. There are really too few of us to spend all of our time and effort arguing about which game system is better. I like 3/3.5. I have ever since Dungeon&Dragon started releasing snippets of the new rules in 1999. The rules they changed were ones I had homebrewed for years, and the Skills system was an excellent way of quantifying non-combat actions.
Personally, I am not going to 4e, solely for two reasons:
1. I have spent WAY too much on 3rd edition suppliments. WotC can rest easy, I have paid at least one month's rent for them out of my pocket. I can't wrap these up and store them and start again. If 4 e had more backwards compatibility I would consider it, but with Pathfinder working that angle it's just a better fit.
2. The fluff adjustments. This is just a personal thing, I like the ongoing storylines that D&D has run for years. I don't want them changed, I don't want an Astral Sea or whatever. I like the Erinyes/Succubus split, good archons, etc. etc. That is just a personal thing, once again I would be much more likely to play 4e if the storylines had remained unchanged. Mechanics are always secondary to story for me.
Those two being said, honestly I hope 4e goes multi-million sales, and Wotc ends up swallowing Hasbro. Why? Because I have enjoyed the work of the folks over there for years, and I wish them the best. 4e isn't for me, but neither is GURPS, Palladium, or NWOD. I still call the players of those games my brothers. Folks, we are a tiny subset in a seething sea of MMORPGers and non-gamers. We should focus on what brings us together ... a love of the pen and paper gaming style. Let's all play our games and learn to respect our differences.
..my 2 cents.
|
A very much pro 4e employee at my FLGS told me that 4e was like this (and I quote): "you know in the Lord of the Rings movie were Legolas took a shield and surfed down those stairs? Well, if you thought that was cool, then 4e is for you!"
And while he over-simplified things, at its core, I think he is correct. Instead of starting out playing lowly Bilbo Baggins (who has to learn to become powerful), you get to play Harry Potter (who has only to learn to control his innate power)...
With all previous editions, 1st level characters were weak, and many times died because of this...
Sure I suppose 1st level 4e characters die, but they sure have more "flash and pizzazz" then any other 1st level character in previous editions! It seems to me every PC class right out of the gate is a force to be reconed with. Heck even the guys on the DnD Podcast said as much...
My intent is not to bash 4e, I am sure 4e will have some good ideas/concepts, but I will use these in my 3.x games...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I did think that scene was cool. It's also doable in 3.5 with some imagination and a DM willing to work with you. You could even make it a skill trick or spending an action point. It's very simple to do using existing 3.5 mechanics. Using it as a skill trick, makes it fell like playing D&D, while I suspect making it a daily power in 4th edition would leave me wondering which combo I have to hit on the controller instead of reaching for my d20.
Snip
It is very ironic that you call yourself WoTC's Nightmare.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I did think that scene was cool. It's also doable in 3.5 with some imagination and a DM willing to work with you. You could even make it a skill trick or spending an action point. It's very simple to do using existing 3.5 mechanics. Using it as a skill trick, makes it fell like playing D&D, while I suspect making it a daily power in 4th edition would leave me wondering which combo I have to hit on the controller instead of reaching for my d20.
I don't think of controller, just as refresh rates bother me.
3.x
Player: "I want to surf on the shield!"
DM: "Well, lets make that a balance check, DC 20, I'll allow you to move the 15 feet down the stairs, and do a full attack, but you'll be flat footed at the end of the round."
Player: "Sounds fair. If I get back up to the top, can I do it again?"
DM: "If you find another shield, sure."
4.x
Player: "Ok, I'm going to use my daily 'move and full attack trick.'" (Disclaimer: I don't know, nor do I really care, if this is in 4e, it's an example)
DM: "Salegol the eladin jumps, landing on the shield and sliding down the stairs, shooting orcs as he goes."
Player: "Ok, I'm going to use my fey step to 'port to the top of the stairs and do it again!"
DM: "You can't."
Player: "I've got the arrows, I've got the shield, why not?"
DM: "It's a per day ability."
Antioch, just curious. You said that the fighter abilities feel like moves more than spells. If that's the case, doesn't the existance of "daily" fighter abilites break the suspension of disbelief for you?
"That was incredible the way you tore into the room and killed everyone. Ready for the next room?"
"Give me 6 hours of rest and I will be."
|
|
The point of it is that people saying that 4e is stripping away the differences between the classes (which have existed since 1st edition) aren't making unfounded statements.
Sure they are. They are taking one bit out of context and then making it a generalization. 4e is a "system" and not just one rule on basic attack bonus. Oversimplification of the argument makes it seem that Wizards and fighters are equally proficient in melee. If you base it purely on the bonus received from 1/2 your level then you will have missed all of the other differentiating factors. Once you take stats, feats, class features, powers, and gear into account then it becomes very clear that the fighter is a far superior melee combatant when compared to a wizard.
Looking at one single factor and reaching the conclusion that there is no difference between a wizard and a fghter is like saying that my local over-thirty soccer team is just like Manchester United because they each field 11 players.
|
|
Actually, it is. There were a number of weapon-like spells, but the difference between defensive saves with no attack roll and making an attack roll vs a static defense are substantial. Any look at the varying combat modifiers and buffs available to making combat rolls should indicate that right away. Saving throws were rarely affected by combat-type modifiers with the exception of cover's effect on area-effect spells. Now, combat modifiers can factor heavily.
Actually saves in 3e have a bunch of modifiers - racial mods (halfling vs fear, dwarf vs poison), spell mods (bless, prayer, etc.), auras and flat out immunities (think Holy Liberator).
|
|
I appreciate CWM's presence on the Paizo boards. He helps keep me open to the idea of even trying 4E. That said, this post lacks wings.
...Sales of 4e are set to surpass 3e and the game has not even been released.
Hmm. Thank you for the compliment. My statement about sales is based on the current trend. If the current pace of sales follows the same pace as 3.0 and 3.5 then 4e will surpass them in sales. So I did not make that statement out of some blind devotion to WotC. I made it knowing the facts on the ground.
BTW - I posted on the Wizards boards about the problems with H1 and was told to sit down and shut up because WotC was being gracious by allowing us to play 4e early. When I pointed out that the early release of H1 did not make up for the glaring holes in the quickstart rules I was severely scolded for being too negative. So here I am perceived as a WotC stooge and there I am perceived as a WotC hater. I guess if i can piss of both sides I must be doing something right.
I don't think of controller, just as refresh rates bother me.3.x
Player: "I want to surf on the shield!"
DM: "Well, lets make that a balance check, DC 20, I'll allow you to move the 15 feet down the stairs, and do a full attack, but you'll be flat footed at the end of the round."
Player: "Sounds fair. If I get back up to the top, can I do it again?"
DM: "If you find another shield, sure.4.x
Player: "Ok, I'm going to use my daily 'move and full attack trick.'" (Disclaimer: I don't know, nor do I really care, if this is in 4e, it's an example)
DM: "Salegol the eladin jumps, landing on the shield and sliding down the stairs, shooting orcs as he goes."
Player: "Ok, I'm going to use my fey step to 'port to the top of the stairs and do it again!"
DM: "You can't."
Player: "I've got the arrows, I've got the shield, why not?"
DM: "It's a per day ability."
That comment seems ironic me. The 4E DMG actively encourages the DM to listen to his players' creative ideas and accept them if they make sense. Also, the 4E DMG has a full page with guidelines to handle actions and players' ideas not covered by the rules.
The 3.5E DMG doesn't do the same. Many, if not most, 3.5E DMs would simply say "No, you can't do that" to the player or will try to impose large penalties so the action will become "balanced".
The existance of a daily power that covers a specific action just makes sure that the player can do that without making any test or being subject to any penalty.
Antioch, just curious. You said that the fighter abilities feel like moves more than spells. If that's the case, doesn't the existance of "daily" fighter abilites break the suspension of disbelief for you?
"That was incredible the way you tore into the room and killed everyone. Ready for the next room?"
"Give me 6 hours of rest and I will be."
I'm not Antioch, but I have absolutely no suspension of disbelief with Daily or Encounters powers.
"Daily" and "encounter" are actions associated with opportunity and luck.
Using an example from a GURPS sourcebook, throwing sand on the eyes of your enemies to blind them may be very effective in certain occasions.
But if it always worked, then fighters would carry sacks of sand rather than armor and shields. A daily or encounter power is simply something that the character is capable of doing - but he can't do whenever he wishes.
Take the unbalancing parry ranger power as example:
Unbalancing Parry Ranger Utility 2
You deftly block your enemy’s strike and turn his momentum
against him, causing him to stumble to the side.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Immediate Reaction Melee 1
Trigger: An enemy misses you with a melee attack
Effect: Slide the enemy into a square adjacent to you and
gain combat advantage against it until the end of your
next turn.
Does it seems believable that a warrior, once in a while, can do that?
Certainly yes.
Does it seems believable that he can it do every time he is attacked, simply whenever he wants it?
Probably not.
Daily powers and encounters powers, in my view, are a intelligent, robust way of allowing characters to do cool and spetacular things, but without abuse.
You can say: "Yeah, but on 3.5E a DM may also allow the player to try something like that once in a while, if the player asks". But probably, the player will never ask.
...
BTW - I posted on the Wizards boards about the problems with H1 and was told to sit down and shut up because WotC was being gracious by allowing us to play 4e early. When I pointed out that the early release of H1 did not make up for the glaring holes in the quickstart rules I was severely scolded for being too negative. So here I am perceived as a WotC stooge and there I am perceived as a WotC hater. I guess if i can piss of both sides I must be doing something right.
At least you have the courage of your convictions! People will always perceive you through the filter of their own expectations.
BTW - I posted on the Wizards boards about the problems with H1 and was told to sit down and shut up because WotC was being gracious by allowing us to play 4e early. When I pointed out that the early release of H1 did not make up for the glaring holes in the quickstart rules I was severely scolded for being too negative. So here I am perceived as a WotC stooge and there I am perceived as a WotC hater. I guess if i can piss of both sides I must be doing something right.
Hehe.
I'm getting it around here for liking the rules.
Starting to empathize.
...
Thank you.
Oh, and you have the best avatar - ever.
Thanks ... gotta love dem monkeys .. :)
|
|
If you don't gush over how awesome everything WotC as acompany does on their boards you will probably get labeled a "4E-hater" or "grognard" and be flamed repeatedly, and you might even have the mods step in and warn "you" instead of the flamers. They might even lock your thread or delete it. Some may think that the Paizo boards are overly hostile to 4E fans, but Paizo has nothing on WotC as far as hostility to other viewpoints is concerned. Sorry for the threadjack.
3.x
Player: "I want to surf on the shield!"
DM: "Well, lets make that a balance check, DC 20, I'll allow you to move the 15 feet down the stairs, and do a full attack, but you'll be flat footed at the end of the round."
Player: "Sounds fair. If I get back up to the top, can I do it again?"
DM: "If you find another shield, sure."
So, it is okay to break the rules so that your example makes sense?
Actually, this is how it would have been:
Player: "I want to surf on the shield!"
DM: "Well, lets make that a balance check, DC 20, I'll allow you to move the 15 feet down the stairs (don't you mean the tail), and make an attack, then as the shield hits ground, I need a tumble DC 22 or you will end up prone on the ground"
Player: Whahahaha. But my leet dual-wielding ranger sucks if I only get one attack instead of the 7 attacks I get in a full attack... and he doesn't have tumble skill..
DM: Well, be happy I am not making you use a move action to pick up the shield and place it appropriately.
Player: ¤#%&/()=¤%&/(&
Funnily enough, the question of trying again never comes up.
No-one ever said that surfing down the ass of an elephant was a power. The owner of the store said that if you like that scene, you will like 4e. That means that the flexibility of 4e, as well as the style, invites to more over-the-top action. The fact that you equate that with characters only being able to do stuff via their powers is a problem with your thought process, not the game.
But then, I, as a FR player, have sort of felt like second citizen for a few years in the making now. It's no big secret that Eberron is the new golden child campaign setting for WotC; it's the basis for DNDOnline, it's the "points of light in darkness" model that WotC has now tried to shoehorn Faerun into. Eberron will be the litmus test for what is good and playable for D&D, and the other campaign settings will be brought along in contrived ways for many years to come.
There are no "points of light" in Eberron.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm not Antioch, but I have absolutely no suspension of disbelief with Daily or Encounters powers.
"Daily" and "encounter" are actions associated with opportunity and luck.
Using an example from a GURPS sourcebook, throwing sand on the eyes of your enemies to blind them may be very effective in certain occasions.
But if it always worked, then fighters would carry sacks of sand rather than armor and shields. A daily or encounter power is simply something that the character is capable of doing - but he can't do whenever he wishes.
Take the unbalancing parry ranger power as example:
<Snip>
Does it seems believable that a warrior, once in a while, can do that?
Certainly yes.Does it seems believable that he can it do every time he is attacked, simply whenever he wants it?
Probably not.Daily powers and encounters powers, in my view, are a intelligent, robust way of allowing characters to do cool and spetacular things, but without abuse.
You can say: "Yeah, but on 3.5E a DM may also allow the player to try something like that once in a while, if the player asks". But probably, the player will never ask.
Thank you for the feedback.
Our group must have been more creative than some, we'd ask for stuff like that all the time.
Oh, and that ranger thing sounds like a 'Bluff to make target flat footed, then next round 5' step and full attack' but as a defensive ability. Or a skill trick. Pity skill tricks aren't OGL.
Even the per encounters don't bother me that much (for warriors and rogues) I like Bo9S and BoIM and can understand and accept the per encounter thing. For example, the above ranger trick I can see not working twice in a fight. Just like Steel Wind not working twice because the bad guys won't fall for it, you won't be ready, takes a moment to focus, etc.
It's the per day thing that breaks the fourth wall for me.
I am curious, speaking as a 3e player, do the abilities ever get defined as supernatural or spell like for the non-casters?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
3.x
Player: "I want to surf on the shield!"
DM: "Well, lets make that a balance check, DC 20, I'll allow you to move the 15 feet down the stairs, and do a full attack, but you'll be flat footed at the end of the round."
Player: "Sounds fair. If I get back up to the top, can I do it again?"
DM: "If you find another shield, sure."
So, it is okay to break the rules so that your example makes sense?
<inflamitory cut>
Yes, yes it is. Any incarnation of Any RPG should reward a player for creativity and Player/GM Co-operation.
And I've no idea where you get Elephants from Helm's Deep.
A very much pro 4e employee at my FLGS told me that 4e was like this (and I quote): "you know in the Lord of the Rings movie were Legolas took a shield and surfed down those stairs? Well, if you thought that was cool, then 4e is for you!" And while he over-simplified things, at its core, I think he is correct. Instead of starting out playing lowly Bilbo Baggins (who has to learn to become powerful), you get to play Harry Potter (who has only to learn to control his innate power)...
I think this is a very accurate assessment. I think 4e crosses over from the 'heroic' to the 'superheroic.' Of course, that's purely a matter of personal opinion and taste.
With all previous editions, 1st level characters were weak, and many times died because of this...
On this note, people might look carefully at hit points and healing surges. A 4e first-level fighter (with Con 14) has nearly 200 hp he/she can go through in a single day. A Wizard 1 (Con 10) can go through nearly 60 hp.
|
|
On this note, people might look carefully at hit points and healing surges. A 4e first-level fighter (with Con 14) has nearly 200 hp he/she can go through in a single day. A Wizard 1 (Con 10) can go through nearly 60 hp.
True. However, in any given encounter the fighter has 32 HP he can count on. When the Kobold Wyrmpriest is smacking him for 1d10+4 per round those 32 HP will not last long - 9.5 on an average roll gives the fighter four rounds before he drops.
EDIT: In 3e the equivalent would have been 12HP vs magic missile at 1d4+1 per hit - average 3.5 per round or four rounds to drop. The difference in 4e is that the Wyrmpriest need to roll to hit.