|
This is more of an informal review, but I understand if Paizo wants to shift it to the reviews section of the book.
I have had my 4E PHB since Wednesday, and have gone over it a few times. (My activities for Thursday being cancelled or on an off week.)
This is an overview, by chapters, with what I think of it all.
4E PHB
1. How to Play
This is a rather generic introduction to the basics of the game. You would expect it would be impossible to mess this up, but then we get to the History of D&D sidebar already mentioned, where apparently Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were the first campaign settings. Add to that the ad for D&D Insider at the end of the chapter, and you begin to really worry. Things do not get better.
2. Making Characters
Once again a relatively simple introductory chapter. There is another ad, this time for the RPGA. The first of the big changes shows up, with alignment being gelded, apparently because the differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic and between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil were too subtle for some people. That such a change, as well as the elimination of Neutral and the introduction of Unaligned trashes a significant amount of past flavor seems to have gone unnoticed. Kord as Unaligned seems more than a little weak. That it trashes the cosmology is irrelevant, as that is trashed utterly anyway.
3. Character Races
Yes, gnomes and half-orcs are out, dragonborn, eladrin, and tieflings are in. I suppose I could tolerate that, but what was hinted at in character creation now becomes more significant. Penalties have been thoroughly given the boot in 4E. Nobody must ever have any penalty for anything ever lest it be judged "unfun" or somesuch. (I suspect it may be related to being declared unmutual at the Village.) So racial penalties are all gone, and only stat bonuses remain.
Well, except for one area - size. Small races take a major step backwards to 1st ed with the massive boning they get for using weapons. Oh sure, they no longer have their weapons doing less damage, but they are also banned from all two-handed weapons and can only use one-handed weapons with two-hands. A hosing by any other name would be as wack.
I also to have to wonder about the balance of some of these racial powers. Dragonborn get a decently strong area effect attack encounter power, and eladrin get a hefty teleport. Half-elves and humans get an extra two bit at-will power that will fade over time. Elves got an attack reroll, halflings get to force a reroll when attacked. Dwarves and tieflings seem to lose big time.
4. Character Classes
This is where it all blows up.
Powers, powers, and more powers. Everything is a power!
And very little of it has any flavor. The differences between exploits (martial powers) and prayers (divine powers) or spells (arcane powers) is vague to non-existent. The biggest differences appear to be in who gets more area attacks, with real flavor seemingly only in the utility powers.
After that it is hard to say what is worse, the limitations or the failed goals.
Two weapon fighting and archery are only for rangers; fighters, rogues, and all others need not apply. Oh, rogues can get away with a bit of ranged sneakiness, throwing shuriken into people's eyes or plugging them with hand crossbows, but that does not compare to what rangers can manage. Paladins can get holy zaps, but no real ranged weapon action.
Then there was the concept of eliminating fighters taking extended periods of time to resolve all their iterative attacks (when they got them of course). Except the higher level martial powers seem chock full of Burst 1 (attack every square around you), or make multiple attacks, often with some moving. I guess it balances with casters now making attack rolls for everything they can hit with an area effect power, but it seems they just punted on that goal.
The one thing I really dislike is the background for warlocks. Apparently the only options to get warlock power are selling out to amoral fey, becoming a Cthulu cultist, or dealing with devils. I guess selling your soul works with roleplaying Lawful Good somehow.
5. Skills
Skills have been cut down from 3E, both in number and acquiring them. That part feels like a big step backwards to NWPs. The worse part is the universal benefit to all skills, so that theoretically the most untrained wizard has olympic quality athletic skill by 20th level. That just comes across as weak to me.
6. Feats
Feats are now divided by minimum level to take them. They also cover fewer of the big ticket items they did in 3E. Two exceptions I dislike are evasion and mettle both now feats. Everyone can take 0 damage from area effects! Bleah.
Multiclassing also appears as feats. With the powers being nearly identical, the power swap feats look like a total waste. The initial multiclass feat looks to have more potential, even though what 4E calls multiclassing has no relationship to what 1st ed or 3E called multiclassing.
7. Equipment
Bleah and more bleah. The horrors of too much standardization and reduction and then some. Sure, lots of weapons and armor were egregiously redundant in 3E. 4E makes more cuts than Freddy and Jason combined. Armor is light or heavy, with 3 types in each. Each type has it own proficiency feat, and has 3 subtypes for use with magic items. As for weapons, including entries for improvised and unarmed, there are 41 weapons in the PHB 4. There were 73 in the PHB 3. Adventuring gear is likewise shortened dramatically.
What is worse is the magic items, now shifted here. There is a decent selection of the 3 "mandatory" slot items - armor, neck, and weapons/implements, but there is a major dearth of items for the other slots. Well, unless you go and pick up the equipment splat book I guess.
As for the economic system, although it looks reasonably balanced by number, the flavor text is stunning. From astral diamonds to the residuum sidebar, I rather wonder why they did not just go all the way and replace gold with residuum. (Residuum is the magical energy, that looks sort of like pixie dust, that you have left over when you disenchant a magic item. It can be used to make new items, or, what the heck, used as a commodity.
8. Adventuring
A rather basic section. The one issue I have with it is why the rules are not there. The rules for everything else to run the game are in the PHB, but apparently the rules for creating an encounter are off in the DMG, while the monsters are in the MM.
9. Combat
Slightly more streamlined, I still find replacing saves with attacks against defenses to be a less than zero sum game. Players like to make their own rolls for such things. While transferring control of all attacks to the creature making them may be consistent, it does not have the same psychological effect. The various conditions and effects are massive cut down, and I do not think the game loses much there. Special actions are equally cut, and I think the game does lose a lot there. However much it may not be done regularly, players are going to want to trip and disarm NPCs. Grapple is fixed, in the sense of being thoroughly neutered. Now all you can do is hold someone in place with it. The system is simpler though.
I do wonder about one absence though. With all the powers, and even basic attacks given a standard format, why did the not do the same with other combat options? It might be a bit cluttered, but they could use power write ups.
Healing is now down with healing surges. I have seen comments about them and their effect on the duration of an adventuring day.
One unusual addition here is subduing creatures. In 4E you get to decide with your killing strike if you want to just knock the creature out so you can take it captive. No penalty to the roll or anything, you just knock it out instead of killing it.
10. Rituals
Rituals replace a whole bunch of spells, from divinations to disease curing to creating magic items. Anybody can learn to use rituals with the proper feat, which wizards and clerics get as a class feature. So yes, a fighter can make magic items or cure diseases.
Since children might be reading, I will edit the naughty words from my comments on that change:
And that's all I have to say about that.
Overall
In many ways I feel bad having to give 4E such a negative review. The people who wrote it are decent people, who despite rants do have a clue about gaming, and very much want to make a great game. And there are more than a few truly great concepts in the 4E rules. Unfortunately, somewhere between getting the ideas and putting them in this book, a whole lot of everything was lost, from flavor in the text to flavor of the game to fun being anything more than "everyone is utterly equal".
A lot of the spirit I am used to is simply nonexistent in the 4E PHB. Of course, for a game that is apparently supposed to be played on a virtual tabletop, I suppose most of it really is not needed any more. At least to someone. And that someone saw it taken out of 4E.
From this and Keep on the Shadowfell I expect 4E will be absurdly easy to write for. I just do not see how I would have any fun playing this system.
So, to summarize, 4e is different from 3e, and different is per se bad.
Got it.
Kind of a snarky response, don't you think?
Don't get me wrong...I am the first person to move to the next post the minute I realize that the poster has fallen into the "I love {insert previous version here|! How dare they change it...4e must be bad!" routine.
I felt that the OP offered up his opinion as just that..opinion. He stated what he felt was wrong with the system. Do I agree with him? On some points...yes. On others...not so much.
The OP didn't make wild, general statements and then jump to conclusions...he provided examples of what he/she found lacking in the new book. Take it with a grain of salt, disagree or agree, and move on. but don't belittle his opinions because they don't match yours.
You would expect it would be impossible to mess this up, but then we get to the History of D&D sidebar already mentioned, where apparently Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were the first campaign settings.
I think they giving Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance as examples of campaign settings and are not calling them the first ones released.
This is more of an informal review, but I understand if Paizo wants to shift it to the reviews section of the book.
This is an overview, by chapters, with what I think of it all.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
4E PHB
This is a rather generic introduction to the basics of the game. You would expect it would be impossible to mess this up, but then we get to the History of D&D sidebar already mentioned, where apparently Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were the first campaign settings. Add to that the ad for D&D Insider at the end of the chapter, and you begin to really worry. Things do not get better.
While World of Greyhawk and Blackmoor were technically the first campaign settings, I believe the milieu of D&D gamers consider these "default" settings. I believe whoever wrote that sidebar mentioned the Campaign Settings that were published as non-default settings. They go on to mention, not only FR and Dragonlance, but Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Planescape. There are many others out there, these being the most popular.
I see nothing wrong with informing new gamers who pick up the PHB about the options available in addition to the book at WotC website.
2. Making Characters Once again a relatively simple introductory chapter. There is another ad, this time for the RPGA. The first of the big changes shows up, with alignment being gelded, apparently because the differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic and between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil were too subtle for some people. That such a change, as well as the elimination of Neutral and the introduction of Unaligned trashes a significant amount of past flavor seems to have gone unnoticed. Kord as Unaligned seems more than a little weak. That it trashes the cosmology is irrelevant, as that is trashed utterly anyway.
It took me a couple look throughs to find the ad for the RPG you were speaking about. Again, to the new gamer who might not know about communities of gamers, I see nothing wrong with including this in the Roleplaying section of the book. Offering new gamers options to learn more about roleplaying seems like a good deal to me.
I agree with you that the new alignment system doesn't really sit well. Personally, I was never a fan of alignment in the first place (and I'm glad its been mostly removed from the mechanics of the game). I'd much rather a player come to me with an amazing personality for his character than a description of his alignment.
I think WotC may have had a better time adjusting people to this new system of alignment by using different terminology. Instead of labeling the alignments Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Unaligned (or Neutral) they should have used new terms entirely.
But, since 4th Edition does use these terms, let's examine what they mean. The original D&D's alignment system was - Law vs. Chaos. I think 4th Edition alignment harkens back to that original ideal, and flavors each with a bit of good versus evil.
Civilization and order versus entropy and destruction? Sounds like law vs chaos. In this sense, civilization is good and entropy is evil.
Freedom and kindness versus tyranny and hatred? Sounds like law vs. chaos as well. Only, this time freedom is good and tyranny is evil.
The only difference between 4th Edition's alignment system and 3rd Edition's is the removal of Neutral Good or Neutral Evil. All alignments deal with Law and Chaos - except for the ultimate Unaligned.
You may still dislike this and want your neutral good and neutral evil back. That's fine. I was just trying to analyze this complaint.
As for cosmology, your complaint is totally justified. The default cosmology, along with Greyhawk being the default setting is gone. I believe most players, myself included, used homebrew or other campaign's cosmology anyways. So for me, this isn't a complaint. I can see how you might be put off by it though.
3. Character Races
A lot of D&D players see this as a huge positive. I see it as a positive that allows MANY more character concepts possibly to be fulfilled (ah I can finally player a Shifter Bard). To each his own.
Well, except for one area - size. Small races take a major step backwards to 1st ed with the massive boning they get for using weapons. Oh sure, they no longer have their weapons doing less damage, but they are also banned from all two-handed weapons and can only use one-handed weapons with two-hands. A hosing by any other name would be as wack.
I disagree. I think it just makes logical sense for a halfling to wield a longsword as a greatsword, and a shortsword as a longsword. I guess I like the old-school feel that brings back to me. Again, to each his own.
I also to have to wonder about the balance of some of these racial powers. Dragonborn get a decently strong area effect attack encounter power, and eladrin get a hefty teleport. Half-elves and humans get an extra two bit at-will power that will fade over time. Elves got an attack reroll, halflings get to force a reroll when attacked. Dwarves and tieflings seem to lose big time.
Those extra at-will powers humans and half-elves get don't "fade over time". The at-will powers everyone gets stick with them throughout their career and increase in power at the different tiers of play. This is a HUGE bonus for humans and half-elves. If you played a session (not saying you haven't) this is apparent as at-will powers are the new "basic attacks" characters get.
I like all the Dwarf powers.
I agree with you on the Tiefling - which is my least favorite PC race by the way. I would have liked to have seen Orcs or Gnomes WELL before this race.
4. Character Classes This is where it all blows up.
Powers, powers, and more powers. Everything is a power!
And very little of it has any flavor. The differences between exploits (martial powers) and prayers (divine powers) or spells (arcane powers) is vague to non-existent. The biggest differences appear to be in who gets more area attacks, with real flavor seemingly only in the utility powers.
I think this is one where it just depends on whether you like this style of play, or prefer the old style where spellcasters were the only ones with interesting options and fighters just rolled their d20 multiple times per round.
Whether you like powers, or you like 3rd Edition's system, I would highly recommend playing a game of 4th Edition and seeing these powers in action before totally dismissing them.
In our game, all of the powers seemed to be oozing with flavor when you were actually using them in a battle.
Two weapon fighting and archery are only for rangers; fighters, rogues, and all others need not apply. Oh, rogues can get away with a bit of ranged sneakiness, throwing shuriken into people's eyes or plugging them with hand crossbows, but that does not compare to what rangers can manage. Paladins can get holy zaps, but no real ranged weapon action.
I believe you can multiclass to attain the two-weapon fighting and archery talents of the ranger. But you are right, this put me off too. The fighter's powers are all "melee" powers. I have a feeling the splatbook of Martial Power will open this up a lot to other classes.
Then there was the concept of eliminating fighters taking extended periods of time to resolve all their iterative attacks (when they got them of course). Except the higher level martial powers seem chock full of Burst 1 (attack every square around you), or make multiple attacks, often with some moving. I guess it balances with casters now making attack rolls for everything they can hit with an area effect power, but it seems they just punted on that goal.
I believe the most attacks you will make in a round with a high level fighter is a primary and secondary. That's a vast difference than the 5+ attacks you could achieve in 3rd Edition. They basically cut the time in half easily.
The one thing I really dislike is the background for warlocks. Apparently the only options to get warlock power are selling out to amoral fey, becoming a Cthulu cultist, or dealing with devils. I guess selling your soul works with roleplaying Lawful Good somehow.
This is about as true as all fighters "drawing their weapons for gold, for glory, for duty, and for the mere joy of unrestrained martial exercise."
I'd encourage your players (and help them) use their imaginations to come up with all sorts of interesting ways they have gained their powers.
5. Skills Skills have been cut down from 3E, both in number and acquiring them. That part feels like a big step backwards to NWPs. The worse part is the universal benefit to all skills, so that theoretically the most untrained wizard has olympic quality athletic skill by 20th level. That just comes across as weak to me.
The new skill system is one of the things I like most about 4th Edition. I love the streamlined design and ways to enhance your skillset in the new system.
Adventuring Wizards are not the Wizards of old. 4th Edition assumes your "job" as an adventurer is to - well - adventure! Why wouldn't a 20th level wizard who has been leaping about chasms, crossing dangerous bridges, fighting demons among the depths, be somewhat capable at adventuring?
6. Feats Feats are now divided by minimum level to take them. They also cover fewer of the big ticket items they did in 3E. Two exceptions I dislike are evasion and mettle both now feats. Everyone can take 0 damage from area effects! Bleah.
Multiclassing also appears as feats. With the powers being nearly identical, the power swap feats look like a total waste. The initial multiclass feat looks to have more potential, even though what 4E calls multiclassing has no relationship to what 1st ed or 3E called multiclassing.
Feats are one of the things I find most lackluster in 4th Edition. Let's hope they spruce them up with follow-up books.
7. Equipment Bleah and more bleah. The horrors of too much standardization and reduction and then some. Sure, lots of weapons and armor were egregiously redundant in 3E. 4E makes more cuts than Freddy and Jason combined. Armor is light or heavy, with 3 types in each. Each type has it own proficiency feat, and has 3 subtypes for use with magic items.
I really like the new armors and rules. I like that my Wizard can pick up some feats to take armor as he is an Aundairan War Wizard who did plenty of time on the front lines during the Last War.
As for weapons, including entries for improvised and unarmed, there are 41 weapons in the PHB 4. There were 73 in the PHB 3. Adventuring gear is likewise shortened dramatically. What is worse is the magic items, now shifted here. There is a decent selection of the 3 "mandatory" slot items - armor, neck, and weapons/implements, but there is a major dearth of items for the other slots. Well, unless you go and pick up the equipment splat book I guess.
I never got the impression that the slot items were "mandatory". Can you tell me what page number that was on?
Also, I thought the PHB had a good array of starting weapons. I am sure many options will be available in the Adventurer's Vault splatbook.
As for the economic system, although it looks reasonably balanced by number, the flavor text is stunning. From astral diamonds to the residuum sidebar, I rather wonder why they did not just go all the way and replace gold with residuum. (Residuum is the magical energy, that looks sort of like pixie dust, that you have left over when you disenchant a magic item. It can be used to make new items, or, what the heck, used as a commodity.
I personally won't be using "astral diamonds" in my campaign. I think these are merely options for those who like to run epic campaigns and hate grappling with millions of gold.
8. Adventuring A rather basic section. The one issue I have with it is why the rules are not there. The rules for everything else to run the game are in the PHB, but apparently the rules for creating an encounter are off in the DMG, while the monsters are in the MM.
The rules for everything to "play" the game at in the Player's Handbook. The rules to run the game are in the DMG. It makes perfect sense (to me at least) to have rules for creating encounters in the DMG.
9. Combat Slightly more streamlined, I still find replacing saves with attacks against defenses to be a less than zero sum game. Players like to make their own rolls for such things.
After playing several sessions, I love the new mechanic that "attackers roll". It's much better. After all, would you want your player's "rolling AC?"
Special actions are equally cut, and I think the game does lose a lot there. However much it may not be done regularly, players are going to want to trip and disarm NPCs. Grapple is fixed, in the sense of being thoroughly neutered. Now all you can do is hold someone in place with it. The system is simpler though.
You're leaving out important bits. Sure, now you can only hold people in place by grabbing them. But, you only have to grab with one arm, which allows you to do ALL sorts of things while grabbed or being grabbed. It makes perfect sense that if you are grabbed (grappled) you only be immobilized. In my opinion at least...
I do wonder about one absence though. With all the powers, and even basic attacks given a standard format, why did the not do the same with other combat options? It might be a bit cluttered, but they could use power write ups. Healing is now down with healing surges. I have seen comments about them and their effect on the duration of an adventuring day. One unusual addition here is subduing creatures. In 4E you get to decide with your killing strike if you want to just knock the creature out so you can take it captive. No penalty to the roll or anything, you just knock it out instead of killing it.
I absolutely love the new healing surge mechanic. And, you're right, the "subduing" creatures is awesome too. No more worrying about killing the guy you need to capture and interrogate.
10. Rituals Rituals replace a whole bunch of spells, from divinations to disease curing to creating magic items. Anybody can learn to use rituals with the proper feat, which wizards and clerics get as a class feature. So yes, a fighter can make magic items or cure diseases.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Since children might be reading, I will edit the naughty words from my comments on that change:
Rituals are one of my favorite new parts of 4th Edition. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the flavor of casting a ritual, and it's great that anyone can learn this art. Perfect for a setting like Eberron, where magic permeates all throughout society. Magewrights can learn ritual casting and use it in everyday life. Awesome!
Overall
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I must ask... Do you plan to play the game? You might just have fun!
|
from your examples, it looks like 4e is tailor-made for Eberron. Which is actually a good thing, IMO. Some things just didn't jive right for me under 3.5. Plus, I think I like dragonborn (sigh...).
A friend of mine did say that you could level monsters. The system provides for a way to do that (whew!).
I am disappointed in the lack of standard combat options (bull rush, sunder, etc). I am also concerned that tweaks to fill the gaps in martial powers and feats that people (even advocates) who have seen the rules are talking about will come out in future spalt books.
|
I am disappointed in the lack of standard combat options (bull rush, sunder, etc).
Bull Rush is present. Strength attack (d20+str mod+1/2 level) vs. Fortitude defense to shift the target 1 square and move into the vacated square. There is no longer an option to Bull Rush a person more than 1 square, however.
Sunder does appear to be absent.
|
|
From this and Keep on the Shadowfell I expect 4E will be absurdly easy to write for. I just do not see how I would have any fun playing this system.
I gave the same two books the same chance and feel pretty much the same way. I'll keep them both (probably; I imagine a friend of mine will eventually want to give the game a whirl and I'm not so disappointed I'd never play in it), but my temptation to buy more is non-existant. There are no true spells, no real multiclassing, no prestige classes, no 3x3 alignment grid, no domains, no skill points, no skill tricks, no great wheel - nothing. It very much feels like a war game. Which in one way is great; I don't feel tempted to buy more. On the other hand, it sucks. I can't see how this edition will be good for the hobby.
It will, on the other hand, probably make for a good new computer game or two once they get around to licensing it out again. The last vestiges of my curiosity and hesitation are gone (not that there was that much anyway) and I can safely say I'm all Pathfinder/3.5 from here on out.
One major complaint I have: some of the changes seem designed solely to stop internet flame wars once the new edition gets traction. The one that sticks out most to me is alignment, specifically the consequences of alignment change and corresponding loss of class features.
I respectfully disagree with the OP's original sentiments, but I do thank him for stating that this is simply his opinion.
Now for my opinion :)
Its a fairly simple matter to add back the alignments that you miss. I don't see this as being a problem really, its just something they didn't waste a few valuable pages on. I removed alignment from my 3.5 campaign because it is a mechanic that can be too easily abused. I have had endless frustration with sessions DM'ing groups of true neutral or CN/LN characters simply because they didn't want to get slammed by any of those spells that target alignments. Also, eventually everybody in the group ended up with a holy weapon, since 90% of the bad guys were usually evil (using published adventures).
The cosmology is something that I end up changing to suit my own campaigns anyways, so this doesn't phase me at all. I already ported the divine channeling feats over to the Golarion deities and renamed them. Took me 10 mins.
I like powers. I found some of the classes in older editions to be really boring or too mechanical to play, such as fighters. Wizards and other spellcasters became much more exciting to play as they had so many more choices available. 4E has taken that idea and spread it out over all the classes now, and it is a lot of fun to play every class now.
Tieflings and Dragonborn are not my thing, at all, I never liked these kinds of races and I still don't, but I don't really miss the Gnome either. Eladrin and Elves being split up is ok I guess, kind of unnecessary honestly. Many people were fine with the concept of wood elves and high elves I think. Humans are as good as ever, Half-Elves got a big boost that they sorely needed, Halflings are still great, and Dwarves absolutely rock. I made a dwarven ranger yesterday that uses 2 warhammers, and he was absolutely fantastic to play. Had so much fun.
I like the simple skills system they implemented. And a 20th level wizard untrained in Athletics would probably only have a skill check around +13 or so. A 1st level fighter trained in the skill could begin at 1st level with +10 or higher assuming he had a decent Strength. So I think you're exaggerating a little bit too much there.
Feats are divied up into tiers of play, and there aren't very many to begin with. But give it a few months and I'm sure we'll be bombarded with tonnes more from WotC. Powers tend to take more precedence here anyways, as feats usually just make you better at your powers or class abilities. The multiclassing feats are a great idea.
Equipment is sparse yes, but again, this is usually just flavor. You can make all kinds of cool weapons using what's provided. Mechanics wise, you don't really need much more.
All the other chapters I love. Rituals are easily controlled by the DM. If you don't want fighters to have rituals, then don't give them to them if it doesn't make sense. The key to rituals is that unless you are a class that relies on them a lot, like the wizard or cleric, you can control them to only be available to certain organizations or places. And the level limit on them is a great addition too. I hated the way magic items were handled in older versions. The group always ended up with way too many, and their first purchases were always the ones that boosted up your saves, ability scores, or attack and damage rolls. Now you don't even need them if you don't want them.
|
|
I think they giving Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance as examples of campaign settings and are not calling them the first ones released.
Not with that sentence structure.
That it later mentions other campaign settings released using "including <examples>" makes it rather clear that the intent is to label those two as the first campaign settings.|
|
[
While World of Greyhawk and Blackmoor were technically the first campaign settings, I believe the milieu of D&D gamers consider these "default" settings. I believe whoever wrote that sidebar mentioned the Campaign Settings that were published as non-default settings. They go on to mention, not only FR and Dragonlance, but Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Planescape. There are many others out there, these being the most popular.
No, we do not consider them "default" setting. We consider them as full settings, with their own canon and product lines, that were apparently considered irrelevant in the publishing history of the company compared to hyping FR and DL.
I see nothing wrong with informing new gamers who pick up the PHB about the options available in addition to the book at WotC website.
If they want to include an ad they can tag it as an endpage as they have been doing.
Then again, I am not a fan of such ads even in ordinary books I buy, let alone game books.It took me a couple look throughs to find the ad for the RPG you were speaking about. Again, to the new gamer who might not know about communities of gamers, I see nothing wrong with including this in the Roleplaying section of the book. Offering new gamers options to learn more about roleplaying seems like a good deal to me.
See above.
You may still dislike this and want your neutral good and neutral evil back. That's fine. I was just trying to analyze this complaint.
The complaint is the alignment system of 1st to 3rd was significantly more complex, with significantly more interaction and interplay, and with more meaning, and that I find the redaction of it unsatisfying and destructive to the flavor and feel of the game.
As for cosmology, your complaint is totally justified. The default cosmology, along with Greyhawk being the default setting is gone. I believe most players, myself included, used homebrew or other campaign's cosmology anyways. So for me, this isn't a complaint. I can see how you might be put off by it though.
And I used Planescape, which is made completely unusable with this new system.
A lot of D&D players see this as a huge positive. I see it as a positive that allows MANY more character concepts possibly to be fulfilled (ah I can finally player a Shifter Bard). To each his own.
Well actually, you cannot play a shifter bard as bards do not exist.
And while you can play a shifter, without further development, it is a rather weak race. (Indeed, comparing the warforged race in the new Dragon, all of the PHB races come across as rather second rate. Go figure.)However, that begs the question as to whether taking a -2 to a key ability for a class, particularly a spell-casting ability, makes it impossible to play that class. I disagree that it does.
I disagree. I think it just makes logical sense for a halfling to wield a longsword as a greatsword, and a shortsword as a longsword. I guess I like the old-school feel that brings back to me. Again, to each his own.
I agree. The thing is, it contradicts the stated goal of having no penalties for anything.
Those extra at-will powers humans and half-elves get don't "fade over time". The at-will powers everyone gets stick with them throughout their career and increase in power at the different tiers of play. This is a HUGE bonus for humans and half-elves. If you played a session (not saying you haven't) this is apparent as at-will powers are the new "basic attacks" characters get.
They do not disappear, they just become irrelevant compared to the raw power of encounter and at-will powers, making them inherently obsolete. The dragonborn's breath weapon scales and holds it use longer.
Still, a free use of a healing power has some potency, particularly compared to dwarves and tieflings.Whether you like powers, or you like 3rd Edition's system, I would highly recommend playing a game of 4th Edition and seeing these powers in action before totally dismissing them.
Note the start of my post. I was a playtester. However, I cannot comment on those experiences, only my feelings reading the PHB.
I believe you can multiclass to attain the two-weapon fighting and archery talents of the ranger. But you are right, this put me off too. The fighter's powers are all "melee" powers. I have a feeling the splatbook of Martial Power will open this up a lot to other classes.
Not if what they said at DDXP is true. It will be a book of martial power source powers, it will not have weapon attack powers for arcane and divine power source classes.
I believe the most attacks you will make in a round with a high level fighter is a primary and secondary. That's a vast difference than the 5+ attacks you could achieve in 3rd Edition. They basically cut the time in half easily.
Nope, read some of those high level powers.
Storm of Blows gives 3 attacks at level 13, and Vorpal Tornado is a Burst 1 at level 17.Iteratives are all over the place in 4E.
This is about as true as all fighters "drawing their weapons for gold, for glory, for duty, and for the mere joy of unrestrained martial exercise."
I did not want to dwell on it, but all of the flavor text in 4E leaves a massive amount to be desired.
Adventuring Wizards are not the Wizards of old. 4th Edition assumes your "job" as an adventurer is to - well - adventure! Why wouldn't a 20th level wizard who has been leaping about chasms, crossing dangerous bridges, fighting demons among the depths, be somewhat capable at adventuring?
Because adventuring is more than skill checks, and not every skill check is applicable to every adventurer.
Feats are one of the things I find most lackluster in 4th Edition. Let's hope they spruce them up with follow-up books.
Yes and no.
A ton more racial feats would be nice, but going to 3E's library of 10,000 feats is not something that would help 4E.I really like the new armors and rules. I like that my Wizard can pick up some feats to take armor as he is an Aundairan War Wizard who did plenty of time on the front lines during the Last War.
That is not the problem with the equipment or feat rules.
I never got the impression that the slot items were "mandatory". Can you tell me what page number that was on?
I cannot recall offhand.
I do know from the previews and other designer statements that three slots are mandatory:Armor for an AC boost
Neck for other defense boosts
Weapon/Implment for attack boost
All of the monsters are balanced assuming PCs have those slots filled with items within one plus for their level, with everything else being optional for flavor but not essential to survival.
Of course filling those slots and getting a +2 or +3 equipment to virtually all other rolls seems significant to me, but that is their design sttement.
Also, I thought the PHB had a good array of starting weapons. I am sure many options will be available in the Adventurer's Vault splatbook.
It has a great array of magic weapons.
It has a horrible array of optional slot items and wondrous items.I personally won't be using "astral diamonds" in my campaign. I think these are merely options for those who like to run epic campaigns and hate grappling with millions of gold.
All campaigns are expected to go epic and so need astral diamonds so players can haul their loot about.
The rules for everything to "play" the game at in the Player's Handbook. The rules to run the game are in the DMG. It makes perfect sense (to me at least) to have rules for creating encounters in the DMG.
*shrug*
Possibly. That is why I do not condemn it as a total failure, merely question it.
After playing several sessions, I love the new mechanic that "attackers roll". It's much better. After all, would you want your player's "rolling AC?"
Again, I cannot comment on my experiences.
As for that alternative, possibly, if it would make for a better play experience, certainly.You're leaving out important bits. Sure, now you can only hold people in place by grabbing them. But, you only have to grab with one arm, which allows you to do ALL sorts of things while grabbed or being grabbed. It makes perfect sense that if you are grabbed (grappled) you only be immobilized. In my opinion at least...
Such as . . . ???
Making another check and moving the person?I absolutely love the new healing surge mechanic. And, you're right, the "subduing" creatures is awesome too. No more worrying about killing the guy you need to capture and interrogate.
BLEAH on healing surges. All they do is form a new dump for resource management.
BLEAH again on subduing. All players in games I run have no issues with it in 3E.Rituals are one of my favorite new parts of 4th Edition. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the flavor of casting a ritual, and it's great that anyone can learn this art. Perfect for a setting like Eberron, where magic permeates all throughout society. Magewrights can learn ritual casting and use it in everyday life. Awesome!
Rituals are a great idea.
What 4E has for them is not a good application of it.Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I must ask... Do you plan to play the game? You might just have fun!
I might go to the game day tomorrow, if I can survive the heat.
Otherwise, I doubt anyone I know will want to play it, and I have no particular urge to make an effort to use the ruleset.|
|
They were the first two campaign settings.
They were not the first two campaign settings.
The Greyhawk folio was first published in 1980 with the boxed set following in 1983.
Mystara (The Known World) received the first significant mention in 1981 in the Expert Rulebook, although the first gazzetter did not come out until 1987.
The first Dragonlance adventures were released in 1984, with the hardcover first published in 1987.
The first Forgotten Realms boxed set was published in 1987, with its first adventure appearing in 1985.
You would expect it would be impossible to mess this up, but then we get to the History of D&D sidebar already mentioned, where apparently Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were the first campaign settings.
Agreed. Very bad of them.
The first of the big changes shows up, with alignment being gelded, apparently because the differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic and between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil were too subtle for some people. That such a change, as well as the elimination of Neutral and the introduction of Unaligned trashes a significant amount of past flavor seems to have gone unnoticed. Kord as Unaligned seems more than a little weak. That it trashes the cosmology is irrelevant, as that is trashed utterly anyway.
Well, as I ignore alignments and the "official" cosmology for a long time, no problem for me. But those who really liked it have reason to feel bad.
Yes, gnomes and half-orcs are out, dragonborn, eladrin, and tieflings are in. I suppose I could tolerate that, but what was hinted at in character creation now becomes more significant. Penalties have been thoroughly given the boot in 4E. Nobody must ever have any penalty for anything ever lest it be judged "unfun" or somesuch. (I suspect it may be related to being declared unmutual at the Village.) So racial penalties are all gone, and only stat bonuses remain.
Actually, the purpose of removal of racial penalties was to eliminate suboptimality (like "I want to play a half-orc wizard, but I won't because it sucks"). If suboptimatility is a good or bad thing, it's a long, philosophical subject which doesn't belong to this thread. Let's not go into further disucussion of this.
Well, except for one area - size. Small races take a major step backwards to 1st ed with the massive boning they get for using weapons. Oh sure, they no longer have their weapons doing less damage, but they are also banned from all two-handed weapons and can only use one-handed weapons with two-hands. A hosing by any other name would be as wack.
I also to have to wonder about the balance of some of these racial powers. Dragonborn get a decently strong area effect attack encounter power, and eladrin get a hefty teleport. Half-elves and humans get an extra two bit at-will power that will fade over time. Elves got an attack reroll, halflings get to force a reroll when attacked. Dwarves and tieflings seem to lose big time.
I think such things are hard to evaluate without playtesting them.
4. Character Classes
This is where it all blows up.
Powers, powers, and more powers. Everything is a power!
And very little of it has any flavor. The differences between exploits (martial powers) and prayers (divine powers) or spells (arcane powers) is vague to non-existent. The biggest differences appear to be in who gets more area attacks, with real flavor seemingly only in the utility powers.
After that it is hard to say what is worse, the limitations or the failed goals.
Well, I think melee combatants seem definetly more fun and tactically more interesting on 4E. But some people who liked to play wizards on former editions and were used to stop the time, shapechange to dragons, charm entire villages, insta-kill enemies, summon demons, etc. may miss some stuff.
Two weapon fighting and archery are only for rangers; fighters, rogues, and all others need not apply. Oh, rogues can get away with a bit of ranged sneakiness, throwing shuriken into people's eyes or plugging them with hand crossbows, but that does not compare to what rangers can manage. Paladins can get holy zaps, but no real ranged weapon action.
Fighters can use two-weapon fighting - it's just not a big advantage to do that. They can improve it through ranger multiclassing. It's bit suboptimal, but no more suboptimal than fighters dual wielding on 3.5E. Rogues seem to be capable of doing more damage than rangers. And I don't think paladins were ranged attack kings on 3.5E. In fact, nobody was - with the harsh penalties for ranged attacks.
The one thing I really dislike is the background for warlocks. Apparently the only options to get warlock power are selling out to amoral fey, becoming a Cthulu cultist, or dealing with devils. I guess selling your soul works with roleplaying Lawful Good somehow.
Maybe they were trying to balance the "radiant" paladin with the "dark" warlock? Like, paladin is superman, warlock is batman... okay, bad analogy.
Skills have been cut down from 3E, both in number and acquiring them. That part feels like a big step backwards to NWPs. The worse part is the universal benefit to all skills, so that theoretically the most untrained wizard has olympic quality athletic skill by 20th level.
I disagree on this one. I find very realistic that a wizard that survived hundreds of monsters and traps is physically more able than a computer nerd. Just like it's more realistic that a fighter than fell on dozens of ambushes is now capable of listening and seeing better than before, and not capable only of "climb" and "jump".
I would like to comment the rest but I don't have time. See ya!
|
|
They were the first two campaign settings.
That it later mentions other campaign settings released using "including <examples>" makes it rather clear that the intent is to label those two as the first campaign settings.
Sorry, no.
My World of Greyhawk Fantasy Setting is the First Printing of the Second Edition of said fantasy setting, and it has a printing mark of 1983.
I don't have FR any more, but an examination of the WIKI states its first box set came out in 1987, a good 4 years later.
A similar review for Dragonlance has the first Dragonlance module coming out in March '84. I have Dragonlance Adventures, and that was 1987.
Whether or not Greyhawk is considered a Fantasy Setting or a Default Setting, well, I can't get into that. All I know is that I am looking at the covers and it clearly considers itself a Fantasy Setting, and I've always viewed it as such back when we bought these boxed sets.
Also, please note the deliberate and conspicuous absence of any "Convert H1 to Greyhawk" notes. If I were a Greyhawk fan, I wouldn't hold my breath for any campaign books for that setting.
What I find funny about myself is that it's the Alignment system I am most disappointed in. I am a STAUNCH supporter of "Paladins are Lawful Good, period, the rest of you can BURN!" mindset. HOWEVER - once they decided to dump that aspect and just go Good, Unaligned, Evil, I was perfectly happy. Without the full Law-Chaos thing, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil make absolutely no sense. The "More gooder" good? Please. I'd have rather they just stuck with the 3 alignments and be done with it. Also, I found it personally hilarious after all that "Non-good paladins!" in the Races and Classes preview that the very first "official" paladin we get in a for-sale product (H1) is ... Lawful Good! ROFLROFLROFL! Way to break away from the established paradigm! Oh well, I still loves ya WotC ...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Whether or not Greyhawk is considered a Fantasy Setting or a Default Setting, well, I can't get into that. All I know is that I am looking at the covers and it clearly considers itself a Fantasy Setting, and I've always viewed it as such back when we bought these boxed sets.
That's not a campaign settings.
|
|
That's not a campaign settings.
Whether or not Greyhawk is considered a Fantasy Setting or a Default Setting, well, I can't get into that. All I know is that I am looking at the covers and it clearly considers itself a Fantasy Setting, and I've always viewed it as such back when we bought these boxed sets.
And I quote, "WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Game Setting by Gary Gygax - The Most Famous Fantasy Campaign World Ever Created is now Available in the Beautiful Expanded and Revised Set, To Make Your AD&D Adventuring Even More Exciting!"
It IS a campaign setting. The most defining content differences between the FR boxed set and this boxed set are the plastic hex overlay for the ungridded maps in the FR box, and if I remember correctly, there were "postcards" the the deities in there.
If it is NOT a campaign setting, then I guess NONE of them are.
Still, fussing about this is like fussing about the color of Brussels Sprouts ... those that like the sprouts are not going to convince those that don't that the vegetable is tasty because it's not really a green vegetable, but a white one with green highlights ... WHATEVER.
That's not a campaign settings.And I quote, "WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Game Setting by Gary Gygax - The Most Famous Fantasy Campaign World Ever Created is now Available in the Beautiful Expanded and Revised Set, To Make Your AD&D Adventuring Even More Exciting!"
It IS a campaign setting. The most defining content differences between the FR boxed set and this boxed set are the plastic hex overlay for the ungridded maps in the FR box, and if I remember correctly, there were "postcards" the the deities in there.
If it is NOT a campaign setting, then I guess NONE of them are.
Why do I get the suspicion that Sebastian just now yelled "INCONCEIVABLE!!!" ? :P
|
|
Why do I get the suspicion that Sebastian just now yelled "INCONCEIVABLE!!!" ? :PThat's not a campaign settings.If it is NOT a campaign setting, then I guess NONE of them are.
Heh. Afraid I am too literal to know if he's joking or not. Again, fussing about whether they are or are not is childish, trivial, and ultimately immaterial. It's one comment out of ~ a couple hundred pages, and nowhere near serious enough for eternal damnation ...
"WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Game Setting by Gary Gygax - The Most Famous Fantasy Campaign World Ever Created is now Available in the Beautiful Expanded and Revised Set, To Make Your AD&D Adventuring Even More Exciting!".
I didn't realize World of Greyhawk ever had an official Campaign Setting book.
|
|
Actually, the purpose of removal of racial penalties was to eliminate suboptimality (like "I want to play a half-orc wizard, but I won't because it sucks"). If suboptimatility is a good or bad thing, it's a long, philosophical subject which doesn't belong to this thread. Let's not go into further disucussion of this.
The thing is, it does not do that.
You see when no one has a penalty, optimization will now be determined by bonuses.If a race does not have a default bonus to one of the key ability scores of a class, it will still wind up being suboptimal to that class. Once can see that in all the class write ups having a list of suggested classes for that race.
As with too many things of 4E, a "problem" has not been solved, merely shifted somewhere else with fancy accounting.
I think such things are hard to evaluate without playtesting them.
Which of course drops me back into "no comment territory".
Fighters can use two-weapon fighting - it's just not a big advantage to do that. They can improve it through ranger multiclassing. It's bit suboptimal, but no more suboptimal than fighters dual wielding on 3.5E. Rogues seem to be capable of doing more damage than rangers. And I don't think paladins were ranged attack kings on 3.5E. In fact, nobody was - with the harsh penalties for ranged attacks.
Not in terms of the wide range of powers specifically for two-weapon fighting that rangers have.
Oh sure, they can burn a couple of feats for some minor bonuses, but they never get the powers that supercharge it.The same for any class choosing a bow.
Likewise for really focusing on a specific weapon type.
Now having a class utterly defines what sort of combat you can ever possibly do.
Maybe they were trying to balance the "radiant" paladin with the "dark" warlock? Like, paladin is superman, warlock is batman... okay, bad analogy.
The sad thing is, there is more flavor in that quip than in pretty much all of the 4E PHB.
|
|
I didn't realize World of Greyhawk ever had an official Campaign Setting book.
It has had four:
The World of Greyhawk Fantasy World Setting folio 1980
The World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting boxed set 1983
From the Ashes boxed set 1992
The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer 2000
If you want, you can count:
Greyhawk: The Adventure Begins sourcebook 1998
But it did not have significant summaries of all of the locations as the others did. That does not mean it was bad, just that you would be hard pressed to use the entire setting with just that book, unlike the others.
I now no longer need to type. Bleach speaks for me. I now retire. ;)
|
|
re: Racial penalties
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Optimizers will ALWAYS pick the race that has a beanie to the benefit, be it 3E or 4E. By eliminating the penalty to a race, you increase the number of options that non-optimizers will take.
I always find the ones that take say half-orc sorceror package for example, take it for the explicit reason to prove that the combination is a valid choice.
Again, I'm unclear as to why having penalties is a good thing.
In 3E, a half-orc can never have that 18 Int to start, no matter what.
In 4E, a dwarf (or other races) can never have that 20 Int to start, no matter what.If you want to focus the entire value of optimization on a difference of 2 in an ability, an ability modifier of +1, then there is no functional difference in just eliminating penalties. As long as the bonuses exist, even a non-optimizer is going to face being behind the power curve.
That means citing greater opportunity for race-class combinations is not a particularly valid argument. The same disparity exists, just one point higher. All WotC has done has made their amps go to 11.
As to why having penalties is a good thing, why have any modifiers? In what way do they distinguish between the races, other than optimizing them for particular classes, and thus reducing the perceived or projected value of another race taking that class?
Overall, its a fix for a non-existent problem.
|
|
Hey Samuel. Can't say I'm surprised by your views. Even before the last 2 months, I knew you were going to like 4e:)
Who? Me?
O:)re: Alignments
*shrugs*
That is like an entire forum's worth of discussion by itself.
In the end, it is an issue for me.
re: Skills
I think there are several places in 4E where a high level character is either worse than a low level character at a task, or he enjoys no significant increase in success rate.
And yes, there should be some tasks that become automatically successful at high level. That should be taken as part and parcel of becoming high level.Likewise I think skill challenges leave a great deal to be desired, but that is another thread with some hardcore number crunching required.
Overall, skills are one of the systems in 4E that I feel that had a great base idea for, they just completely missed it with the implementation.
In 3E, a half-orc can never have that 18 Int to start, no matter what.
In 4E, a dwarf (or other races) can never have that 20 Int to start, no matter what.If you want to focus the entire value of optimization on a difference of 2 in an ability, an ability modifier of +1, then there is no functional difference in just eliminating penalties. As long as the bonuses exist, even a non-optimizer is going to face being behind the power curve.
That means citing greater opportunity for race-class combinations is not a particularly valid argument. The same disparity exists, just one point higher. All WotC has done has made their amps go to 11.
As to why having penalties is a good thing, why have any modifiers? In what way do they distinguish between the races, other than optimizing them for particular classes, and thus reducing the perceived or projected value of another race taking that class?
Overall, its a fix for a non-existent problem.
Ah, but in 3E a caster needs a stat of 10+spell level to be able to use any spells of that level or higher. In addition, high stats offer more spells per day and so not having as high as possible a stat as you can in your "casting stat" really limits your power ... if it isn't high enough you may lose out a complete level (or more!) of spells.
4E largely abandons those concepts, although even if they had left racial penalties in place, you wouldn't face those situations. Overall, it seems that stats matter less than they did in 3E, but I haven't played extensively enough to determine one way or another. Surely, that +1 to hit isn't too likely to make a large difference, at least IMO.
Cheers! :)
If you want to focus the entire value of optimization on a difference of 2 in an ability, an ability modifier of +1, then there is no functional difference in just eliminating penalties. As long as the bonuses exist, even a non-optimizer is going to face being behind the power curve.
Actually there is a HUGE difference if you use point buy.
The net loss is never as great as the net gain of a bonus.
|
|
Ah, but in 3E a caster needs a stat of 10+spell level to be able to use any spells of that level or higher. In addition, high stats offer more spells per day and so not having as high as possible a stat as you can in your "casting stat" really limits your power ... if it isn't high enough you may lose out a complete level (or more!) of spells.
4E largely abandons those concepts, although even if they had left racial penalties in place, you wouldn't face those situations. Overall, it seems that stats matter less than they did in 3E, but I haven't played extensively enough to determine one way or another. Surely, that +1 to hit isn't too likely to make a large difference, at least IMO.
Cheers! :)
With stat boost items, being able to cast 9th level spells is not a significant issue, at least not with any race with only a -2 modifier.
Bonus spells from high stats tend to be minor, particularly at higher levels where +2 to the ability score rarely grants an additional spell of the highest level you can cast.As for a constant 5% difference in attack bonus, that seems rather significant to me, not to mention the gratuitous damage bonus.
|
|
Actually there is a HUGE difference if you use point buy.
The net loss is never as great as the net gain of a bonus.
Only for a score of 18.
Since the whole point of taking a race with a bonus is to bump that 18 to a 20, the cost effect is moot.And of course, with no minimum score needed, if the only relevant effect is attack bonus and a minor damage modifier, then there is even less relevance to an ability in 4E. You could be just as optimal as a half-orc charisma based class in 4E as any other class.
No, the whole issue of penalties is because they are not "fun".
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
That's not a campaign settings.
The folio (1980) and the boxed set (1983) absolutely were both campaign settings. It would be difficult to define a campaign setting from the 80s in such a way that you would exclude them and yet include Dragonlance (which didn't have anything but modules for some time), especially the 1983 boxed set.
|
|
I don't understand the assertion that Greyhawk is not a campaign setting. It befuddles me. It is more crudely hewn, or rather sparser on detail, in some of the incarnations I am familiar with when compared to the fleshed out or more market-supported settings like Forgotten Realms. (forgive me, I'm vaguely familiar with the Living Greyhawk works historically). However, I believe all the elements that constitute a campaign setting are in existence.
They were the first two campaign settings.
That it later mentions other campaign settings released using "including <examples>" makes it rather clear that the intent is to label those two as the first campaign settings.
I thought Mystara was the first with the whole hollow world concept?
I think there are several places in 4E where a high level character is either worse than a low level character at a task, or he enjoys no significant increase in success rate.
And yes, there should be some tasks that become automatically successful at high level. That should be taken as part and parcel of becoming high level.
I disagree. I think that a high level character should always have a chance of failure. Even the best should still have to fear a fumble. It keeps players humble.
IMO - if racial penalties are eliminated and only racial bonuses are given, you really diminish a lot of character and flavor of that particular race.
There is a reason Dwarves have a Charisma penalty - most are gruff and reserved. It suits that particular race. Does that remove the chance of that dwarf from becoming a powerful paladin or sorcerer - maybe, but you can naturally increase stats over time. And depending on your DM, you can apply a higher stat to Charisma so you can run that mighty dwarven sorcerer (or allow more points at character creation). Not all dwarves are mean or have no personal magnetism - you could role-play a dwarf who was friendly and had a lot of personality - but it is his racial trait that knocks it a bit lower.
Similar (in some ways) to the Strength score of a halfling vs. human. The halfling, based on size, are naturally not as strong as humans. Can you have super strong halflings? Sure. But generally speaking, most are not.
It feels like 4E wants the character creation to be very bland. We all get this blank mannequin, and we all get the same stats and powers. The other racial and class characteristics and backgrounds are just window dressings - clothes on the mannequin.
I personally do not plan on buying 4E - since I ran into Pathfinder and my rather large collection of 3E & 3.5E.
I hope I did not come across as a 'flamer' against 4E. I didn't mean to - I just don't like what I have seen - kinda like reading a bad review or reviews on a movie you are kinda on the fence on.
With stat boost items, being able to cast 9th level spells is not a significant issue, at least not with any race with only a -2 modifier.
Bonus spells from high stats tend to be minor, particularly at higher levels where +2 to the ability score rarely grants an additional spell of the highest level you can cast.As for a constant 5% difference in attack bonus, that seems rather significant to me, not to mention the gratuitous damage bonus.
I'll admit the instances where you ACTUALLY lose out on a spell level will be rare if you wish to avoid it, due to 3Es wide range of stat boosting magic. However, if your race started you with a -2 to your casting stat, you're going to always be behind the curve, needing those stat boosters more than the other guy with a +0. And the loss of any spell slot is pretty important to me (but as I disagree with you on the worth of a 5% bonus to hit, I'll spot you the loss of a lower level slot as non-important in exchange.)
That said, a class in 3E with a -2 stat is going to have -1 to all of their DCs, effectively a -5% chance to affect their targets. They could focus on spells that didn't have DCs, but that isn't really a character type available in 4E (whether this is good or not is a different argument entirely).
In the end, this probably comes down to a personal sense of taste (as much on this forum seems to). I think getting rid of racial penalties was a good idea, and makes non-optimal race/class combos more common (which I consider a good thing!)
I won't try to push the argument that subtraction is more difficult for some than addition, but I have seen that argument thrown about on this topic as well.
Cheers! :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I thought Mystara was the first with the whole hollow world concept?Nope. Mystara was a retro-fit onto the early B series. The Known World (which became Mystara) *is* one of the oldest mentioned campaign settings, having been first established in 1981's X1: Isle of Dread. This puts it after 1980's Greyhawk.
Note also that the earliest settings were all in play in large campaigns prior to publication, most notably Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and the Forgotten Realms.
Sam, thanks for the detailed review! I agree with many of your points (the small size drawbacks, the clunky alignment system, etc) but there is much I like in the books and the combat chapter seems exceptionally polished to me. I'm going to try a 4e Eberron game to see how it goes---feel free to mock. :)
IMO - if racial penalties are eliminated and only racial bonuses are given, you really diminish a lot of character and flavor of that particular race.
Are we diminishing "flavor" or stereotypes? Because dwarves still have all the flavor I know and love. Sturdy, tough little bastards who love killing orcs and gobbos with hammers and axes.
Sorry if I can't stand the whole "gruff" dwarf character being overdone so many times - that negative modifier really puts a loose straight-jacket on players who want to play dwarves. How about a pleasant dwarf who is hardy and yet endearing?
There is a reason Dwarves have a Charisma penalty - most are gruff and reserved. It suits that particular race. Does that remove the chance of that dwarf from becoming a powerful paladin or sorcerer
I'd rather have the option of playing a dwarf paladin, sorcerer or bard (here's to hoping PH II!) that DIDN'T have to rely on my DM giving me bonus points (or me as a DM having to allot bonus points to a character just to fill his concept). This isn't fair to other players and seems like 4th Edition solves this problem entirely with the lack of negative modifier adjustments.
Similar (in some ways) to the Strength score of a halfling vs. human. The halfling, based on size, are naturally not as strong as humans. Can you have super strong halflings? Sure. But generally speaking, most are not.
Really I'd say the strength scores of characters is based more on their class than their race - especially in 3rd Edition. A fighter is (in most instances) going to have a higher strength than a wizard - no matter what the race.
4th Edition focuses - no - HIGHLIGHTS each race's strengths. A halfling fighter is probably going to be more dextrous than a human. Plain and simple.
I see this as a very eloquent step FORWARD.
It feels like 4E wants the character creation to be very bland. We all get this blank mannequin, and we all get the same stats and powers. The other racial and class characteristics and backgrounds are just window dressings - clothes on the mannequin.
Again, I have to respectfully disagree. Now more than ever (in 4th Edition) your race matters more. There is a vast difference (as said above) between a halfling fighter and a human fighter - and those are going to be vastly different from a dwarven fighter or a dragonborn fighter. Racial feats are just the icing on the cake.
I personally do not plan on buying 4E - since I ran into Pathfinder and my rather large collection of 3E & 3.5E.
Have fun! Pathfinder looks like a nice refinement to the 3.5 Edition rules.
I hope I did not come across as a 'flamer' against 4E. I didn't mean to - I just don't like what I have seen - kinda like reading a bad review or reviews on a movie you are kinda on the fence on.
You didn't. And, sometimes you need to skip the reviews and just check it out for yourself to see if it's really all that bad.
Did WOTC put the tribute in towards Gary Gygax like they said they would?
|
|
I disagree. I think that a high level character should always have a chance of failure. Even the best should still have to fear a fumble. It keeps players humble.
There is humble and then there is humble.
Falling off a log 5% of the time no matter how good you are at balancing yourself is just a bit too much for me.Instead you should now have an issue with walking across a rope the thickness of a human hair or something reasonably appropriate.
Pumping up every difficult at a constant rate turns the whole thing into playing a sequence of more and more modern pinball machines. The values on the bumpers get extra zeroes, but so does the value needed to get an extra play. After a point, being higher level just means shouting out bigger numbers.
|
Everbody *still* wants to post their review on how it's different from 3.5E like this is somehow news? :-) Move on already!
It's interesting that in many of the negative reviews so far a number of the things folks see as "negatives" I view as "<shrug>" or "great".
It's a streamlined version of DnD. They traded some simulation aspects for some streamlined rules and gameplay. Ok. That's what it is. If you get a group of folks together I bet you could still manage to have some fun with it, within the context it presents.
Play 3.5E! Play PFRPG! Play 4E! Drink some beer, eat some fritos, have fun with your friends.
Everbody *still* wants to post their review on how it's different from 3.5E like this is somehow news? :-) Move on already!
It's interesting that in many of the negative reviews so far a number of the things folks see as "negatives" I view as "<shrug>" or "great".
It's a streamlined version of DnD. They traded some simulation aspects for some streamlined rules and gameplay. Ok. That's what it is. If you get a group of folks together I bet you could still manage to have some fun with it, within the context it presents.
Play 3.5E! Play PFRPG! Play 4E! Drink some beer, eat some fritos, have fun with your friends.
I'm shocked at you Apple! Everyone knows playing DnD is dreadfully *SERIOUS* business, only undertaken by very *SERIOUS* individuals. To even suggest we should simply try to maximize what we find fun and leave others to their own devices! I'm ... I'm totally speechless!
Or was that the other way around? :P
|
I can't find any enchantment spells, polymorphs, or summoning spells. Did I miss them, or are they really not there? I mean, those spells have been around since 1st ed. Why would I want to play D&D without those? I know those kinds of spells can add complexity, and maybe aren't "convenient" for the DM (or the players if used by an NPC), but that's all part of the fun.
I dig the rituals, and how the cleric doesn't have to spend all his time healing others.
I miss the gnome. I know he's in the MM, but he ought to be in the PHB too. I loved running gnome illusionists.
That's not a campaign settings.
Whether or not Greyhawk is considered a Fantasy Setting or a Default Setting, well, I can't get into that. All I know is that I am looking at the covers and it clearly considers itself a Fantasy Setting, and I've always viewed it as such back when we bought these boxed sets.
Eh? The Greyhawk boxed setting certainly was a published Campaign setting. Same as the Forgotten Realms boxed set was also a published campaign setting. Why aren't both campaign settings? And of the two, Greyhawk clearly was in print first. I still have the giant maps from it up on a wall and we played many a campaign in Greyhawk long before Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance appeared on the scene.
The whole default setting thing is just a distracting 3E-ism and doesn't really have a bearing on what is, and what is not, a campaign setting.
I didn't realize World of Greyhawk ever had an official Campaign Setting book.It has had four:
The World of Greyhawk Fantasy World Setting folio 1980
The World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting boxed set 1983
From the Ashes boxed set 1992
The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer 2000If you want, you can count:
Greyhawk: The Adventure Begins sourcebook 1998
There was also the "Greyhawk Adventures" hardcover book that came out in 1988 (by James Ward) with information on different sites, spells, items, etc. Not to mention a slew of adventures (modules) dating back to the early days of the game.
|
|
I'm shocked at you Apple! Everyone knows playing DnD is dreadfully *SERIOUS* business, only undertaken by very *SERIOUS* individuals. To even suggest we should simply try to maximize what we find fun and leave others to their own devices! I'm ... I'm totally speechless!Or was that the other way around? :P
I have just one word to say about this.
Smurf
I rest my case on the *SERIOUS* business involved here.