I have to say, it kind of bugs me when someone says "well can't you just call a spear a lance" or "well I never liked mounted knights anyway." Its not that folks don't have a right to their opinion, but I think such comments are dismissive of a concern that reflects a broader point.
Lances are a staple of one of the most ancient medieval tropes, the mounted knight, which has existed from the birth of the paladin and cavalier classes in the game. What the lack of lances represents more broadly, is the overall sense of incompleteness that IMO permeates 4e.
With the missing core classes, classic monsters, limited paragon paths, limited epic paths, limited skills, etc. 4e seems unfinished in a way that I cannot say that 2e/3e or 3.5e was when these versions were released. Combat is exhaustively covered but it seems that many other things were given a lot less love.
Damn, I am begining to miss Gary Gygax's list of obscure polearms from the 1e Unearthed Arcana.
I fully agree with your assesment of what a lance, and the associated ancient medieval tropes, need to be part of D&D. The mounted knight and his squire is a defining character type in the medieval setting.
However, I do understand why the main Player's Handbook lacks things like the lance, mounted combat, and good rules for horses and cohorts. They are iconic, yes. But they are not universal to all types of characters.
The intent of the first Player's Handbook is to us a single book which a player can buy and have, in one place, all of the rules he needs to play the game.
However, the new system takes up a lot more space then the old, even with the various space saving tricks employed in the powers section. That means they had to trim some things, because if they left everything in from 3rd edition while adding all the new powers and feats, the book would have ended being a massive tome over 450 pages long.
So they prioritized what went into the first book, and what would become the expansion books. If it was universal, then it stayed. If it was specialized to only a couple of the classes, then it was postponed.
Rules for all sorts of weapons have been printed, including all the basic weapon traits you'll see in the game. To save space, they trimmed the list itself, but made sure all the mechanics remained. You have all the tools required to create more weapons, but the section does not take up more room then is nessisary.
The same is true of the gods, races, classes, feats, magic items, and rituals. Each of these section could be doubled in size, if not trippled. But doing so would simply make the book too big to manage.
So they made compromises in each section. The classes they put in consist of a basic set of classic D&D classes, alongside two new classes which have become staple characters of the fantasy genre outside D&D. (The heroic leader who inspires his compatriates to glory and the dark, evil warlock who makes a pact with the devil are quite common in the fantasy genre, they just haven't been staples of D&D prior to now.)
These compromises unfortunatly also extend to the classes which were included. The developers had to leave out things that are not universally considered part of a class because of space, but they also built the system so that these things could be included easily later on.
A quick example would be adding a Paladain power called Holy Mount. The power could be an encounter power or daily power that gives the paladain a perminant mount to accompany him, and the reduced number of encounter powers avaiable to the PC would balance the power gained from the mount.
Anyway, while many paladains have a holy mount and squire, that's not true of every paladain. Some ride, some don't. Many holy knights are simply pictured as a man weilding a two handed sword or a sword and shield, not a lance weilding knight.
Thus, the rules should be available, but not pushed into the main PHB because not everyone actually needs those rules. Better to put in something more players will use, and print the mounted combat rules later. They included rules for mounts in the DMG to assist folks running them until that book comes out, but until it does you'll have to house rule it for a while.
Is that annoying to old hand players like us? Sure, a bit. But I don't see it as a failure of the system itself, just that their new design philosphy hasn't had enough time to develop yet. Will it work? I think so, but only time will tell.
In a few months, Martial Power will be out, and mounted combat and cohorts will be a major part of that book from what I understand. The new equipment guide will provide all the magic items and normal gear you could want. This will greatly improve the game, but those rules aren't things which you absolutly need to play the game.
Damn, I am begining to miss Gary Gygax's list of obscure polearms from the 1e Unearthed Arcana.No matter how many editions we traded up, we had to hold on to those 1st edition DMGs for all that cool stuff in the back. Different herbs and their effects! Gemstones and their magical associations! Names for royal ranks by culture!
I kinda miss the little funny bits as well. "Don't move Wizard, or the Familiar gets it!" Gamers didn't take the game (or themselves) quite so seriously back then, and it was acceptable to poke fun.
Nostalgia aside, Wayne Reynolds artwork is a damn sight prettier than that of Erol Otus, I will admit...
You know, I really wish somebody would publish a book with all this sort of stuff for 4th edition.
You and Chris are right Set, these things make more fun, and there's so much room in the 4E D&D for expansion.
I would love seeing special herbs that make rituals last longer, or give you bonuses for resisting the new diesease mechanics.
Heck, you could use the diesease rules to do some really fun things with magical herbs that boost the power of a secific power source, say giving a bonus to an arcane class, but have addittive qualities.
Just as Ed Greenwood is extensively involved in 4e FR?
It had been my understanding that Ed was, indeed, not that involved with the new version of FR. Sure he's still around and writing, but I think 4E's FR was developed mostly by WotC insiders. Am I wrong here?
Cheers! :)
Just as Ed Greenwood is extensively involved in 4e FR?It had been my understanding that Ed was, indeed, not that involved with the new version of FR. Sure he's still around and writing, but I think 4E's FR was developed mostly by WotC insiders. Am I wrong here?
Cheers! :)
I honestly can't speak to his specific level of involvement (I have no way of knowing) but can only point to the following:
He has author credits on the new 4e FRCS (he is listed on the cover as an author.)
There was some Q&A on this in Kobold Quarterly #3. Mr. Greenwood does address some questions on this topic, but at the time of his interview, he was bound by a NDA. I'd recommend interested parties support KQ and buy the issue if they are keen on the particulars. Mr. Greenwood does offer some opinions on what he would do "if he ran WoTC" and his response seems to indicate that things would be quite different for the 4e realms.
I'd also like to point out that Mr. Greenwood states that he is quite comfortable having outer planes that are intentionally far too deadly for practical adventuring purposes (he specifically mentions the Hells) which is at odds with one of the 4e basic premises on the planes.
Storval ekbitel nalharest
I honestly can't speak to his specific level of involvement (I have no way of knowing) but can only point to the following:He has author credits on the new 4e FRCS (he is listed on the cover as an author.)
There was some Q&A on this in Kobold Quarterly #3. Mr. Greenwood does address some questions on this topic, but at the time of his interview, he was bound by a NDA. I'd recommend interested parties support KQ and buy the issue if they are keen on the particulars. Mr. Greenwood does offer some opinions on what he would do "if he ran WoTC" and his response seems to indicate that things would be quite different for the 4e realms.
I'd also like to point out that Mr. Greenwood states that he is quite comfortable having outer planes that are intentionally far too deadly for practical adventuring purposes (he specifically mentions the Hells) which is at odds with one of the 4e basic premises on the planes.
Storval ekbitel nalharest
That more or less sounds like what I had heard as well. Ed really seems to only be marginally associated with the 4E FR changes. Keith, on the other hand, seems to have been much more thouroughly involved. I don't have any insider info, but it's just the gist of things I've heard.
Cheers! :)
Like Vegas, 4e is bright and shiny with lots of toys and constant excitement but like Vegas, 4e is missing an undefinable something, something I would call soul.
I have to agree with this. My friends and I think that this edition feels more like a video game than D&D. The mechanics look great on paper, it was fun to write up our characters...but as soon as we started rolling the dice it felt...empty.
I can't really point out anything specific, because, as this thread has shown, any rule or change one doesn't like can be house-ruled or will be updated with new books shortly (besides HD...anyone upset about how different modifying monsters is?)...so I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling 4e is soulless.
I have to agree with this. My friends and I think that this edition feels more like a video game than D&D. The mechanics look great on paper, it was fun to write up our characters...but as soon as we started rolling the dice it felt...empty.
I can't really point out anything specific, because, as this thread has shown, any rule or change one doesn't like can be house-ruled or will be updated with new books shortly (besides HD...anyone upset about how different modifying monsters is?)...so I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling 4e is soulless.
For what it is worth though, my group (playing since 2e) seems completely reinvigorated by it -- to the point that all 4 of my players have actually called me at work to discuss what feats they want to take at 2nd level. We have not been that into our characters since 2e and high school.
So as they say, "one man's soulless edition is another man's . . ."
I agree with vance on mechanics being able to handle a setting. In my opinion, good mechanics can handle any setting. You should not have to adjust your setting to match your rules. While this alone does not mean a game is a failure, it does indicate a weakness to me.
I have not read the 4e PHB cover to cover, but it does seem a lot was left out. I do not doubt that most of that will be included in future releases. I do not even blame WotC for ensuring that you would need to buy every new splat book they put out to keep current. They need to eat. I also do not have to agree with them or support them. I also do not doubt there will be power creep. WotC wants to sell more books, so they are going to put everything they can in them to make them absolutely must haves. I would think that includes giving Complete Werepig so much more cooler abilities than found in the PHB III.
We'll be seeing Lances, mounted combat, followers, and all the other missing things soon enough. I can understand why it's annoying not having these things right away, but they're coming.
Frankly, I havent found anything missing yet. If the path that the prefabbed adventures continue to take deals with undead though I might start making it into a horror campaign. Im all for descriptive storytelling that makes the pcs want to gouge out their respective eyes( and ears and scrub their brains with soap). It would be interesting to see if they do some kind of update via dragon or dungeon to heroes of horror.
Im also working on a house rule for madness becuase I thought it might be fun.
Frankly, I havent found anything missing yet. If the path that the prefabbed adventures continue to take deals with undead though I might start making it into a horror campaign. Im all for descriptive storytelling that makes the pcs want to gouge out their respective eyes( and ears and scrub their brains with soap). It would be interesting to see if they do some kind of update via dragon or dungeon to heroes of horror.
Im also working on a house rule for madness becuase I thought it might be fun.
Just to expound here, in over a decade of gaming I'm not sure that I've ever really see anyone try the Mounted Knight routine. Mounts and riding just never seem to have been a big deal in any game I've run/played in, with several different groups.
I'd suspect a similar reason for why swapping a Paladin's Mount with something else was always a popular thread on ENWorld. Lot's of people don't grove to it.
Cheers! :)
I agree with vance on mechanics being able to handle a setting. In my opinion, good mechanics can handle any setting. You should not have to adjust your setting to match your rules. While this alone does not mean a game is a failure, it does indicate a weakness to me.
So, are you saying that unless a game system can handle every setting without change it is flawed?
Because, if you are, then you are saying that every version of D&D has been seriously flawed. Every setting that was printed for D&D has embelished and changed then rules of the game, (Ravenloft had madness checks, etc.), and then those settings were altered when the core rules change with each new edition.
It happens all the time, with every game system out there. No matter what game system we are talking about, when the rules change the settings associated with them change too. Change how space travel works in Star Wars, and you change the economics of the universe. Change how a mech fights and the world of Mechwarrior is altered.
RPG game rules model the world in which your characters exisit. If you change those rules, you by definition change the setting. If you think this is a flaw in gaming systems, then it has existed is every game system by definition of being an RPG.
In a few months, Martial Power will be out, and mounted combat and cohorts will be a major part of that book from what I understand. The new equipment guide will provide all the magic items and normal gear you could want. This will greatly improve the game, but those rules aren't things which you absolutly need to play the game.
Few complained that the 3.5 core rules were systematically lacking in important components for fantasy roleplaying. Yet 4e gets that criticism all the time.
With 3.5, players could usually play a satisfactory game with just the core rules. With 4e it increasingly seems I need to go beyond that -- even 4e's most ardent supporters say "just wait for such-and-such to come out."
What will be enough? I'll get a book for swordslingers, a book for rogues, a book for wizards, and a book for clerics. With core rulebooks, now I'm up to about $280 in books!
Eeeek!!!
Im also working on a house rule for madness becuase I thought it might be fun.
Good idea...what about just treating it as a disease and using the rules from the DMG?
I will start a new thread on this...come on over! :)
Few complained that the 3.5 core rules were systematically lacking in important components for fantasy roleplaying.
Quite true. But I well remember the screaming nerdrage about how little had changed, how soon the new books were coming, and "OMGWTF WIZARDS IS JUST TRYING TO RIP US OFF FOR OUR MONIES! NEVER GET A CENT FORM ME AGAIN WIZARDS!"
Someone is always upset about something every edition; there is no realistic way to please everyone. Maybe next edition switch I'll get my chance to complain! ;)
No matter how many editions we traded up, we had to hold on to those 1st edition DMGs for all that cool stuff in the back. Different herbs and their effects! Gemstones and their magical associations! Names for royal ranks by culture!
D&D's golden age, when rules were less important than playing :)
So, are you saying that unless a game system can handle every setting without change it is flawed?
Yes, that is what I am saying. I suppose if a setting has some really oddball physics, it would require game changes. I can not think of any setting off the top of my head that meets those requirements though.
Because, if you are, then you are saying that every version of D&D has been seriously flawed.
Yes.
Every setting that was printed for D&D has embelished and changed then rules of the game, (Ravenloft had madness checks, etc.), and then those settings were altered when the core rules change with each new edition.
Many games already have mechanics built in that allow for madness checks.
It happens all the time, with every game system out there. No matter what game system we are talking about, when the rules change the settings associated with them change too.
Most universal systems that I am familiar with do not require revamping the mechanics to fit the setting. Some rules may be more often used in one setting compared to another.
Change how space travel works in Star Wars, and you change the economics of the universe.
That sounds like a setting change to me, not a mechanics change.
Change how a mech fights and the world of Mechwarrior is altered.
Would you provide an example? I am not sure I am on the same page.
RPG game rules model the world in which your characters exisit. If you change those rules, you by definition change the setting.
I disagree. Changing the rules may change the feel of the game. I could concede that point.
If you think this is a flaw in gaming systems, then it has existed is every game system by definition of being an RPG.
It is a flaw I perceive in every game tied to a setting. That explains why I prefer universal systems.
Yeah Halflings were almost always rogues, but I have seen halfling rangers, monks, and bards too. Half-orcs on the other hand...I've seen half-orc clerics, monks, and rogues. So I think you are still utterly failing to show any distinction between the "stereotypical rogue halfling" and the "stereotypical half-orc fighter/barbarian."
Now maybe that is a dumb reason for getting rid of half-orcs...There's no "maybe" about it.
You're forgetting that the half-orc had two stat penalties (two mind you) to one stat bonus. This was something you mostly for monster races with a CR less than 1, but I guess a +2 to STR was enough to get two stat penalties for WotC. In any case, the -2 to CHA meant they'd be terrible sorcerers and bards, and the -2 to INT meant almost no half-orc wizards. Alright, so I guess they could be clerics, and maybe okay paladins.
But wait, half-orcs get a +2 to STR. In fact they're the only base class that gets a +2 to STR, and one of the few races to get a bonus to STR without a level adjustment. So of course everyone who wanted to make their fighter and barbarian went to half-orc 'cause they were really good at it, in fact they were the only base race that was good at it!
Now 4e has no more stat penalties, but the thing half-orcs lack more than anything is personality. I mean they have personality, but compare to halflings: fearless, affable, sneaky, good at pilfering things too. Half-orcs are: fearless (but out of stupidity, not ambition), dumb, crude, good at killing things, dumb. At least dragonborn (their "replacement") have the whole honorable warrior thing going on, which is met with a +2 to CHA. Half-orcs like fighting, but don't seem too great on the honor, leading them to fall into the stereotype of "Durr, kill everything!"
I don't know, I mean if they re-work the half-orc (which they're gonna have to, seeing as they're pretty important to Eberron), then I'm all for it, but for now it's hard for them to get out of that stereotype.
I always wanted to try running a Half-Orc bard but I am sure I would have been gleefully killed by any DM for making such a ‘stupid’ character.
...but the thing half-orcs lack more than anything is personality. I mean they have personality, but compare to halflings: fearless, affable, sneaky, good at pilfering things too. Half-orcs are: fearless (but out of stupidity, not ambition), dumb, crude, good at killing things, dumb.
You're right -- they do not come with a ready-made personality. Sadly, it falls upon the player to take an ostensibly one-dimensional character and invest it with life beyond what the racial stereotype dictates.
Of course, that's not the 4e-paradigm. The new rules allow, but do not require, creativity.
And there's my new gripe with the new version :)
Half-orcs, as an example, are a race which really can't go anywhere without creative input from the player. What, no ready-made personality? Axe it from the rules!
Previous versions had countless utility spells begging for creative uses by players. What, a spell's value isn't immediately obvious to a first-grader? Axe it from the rules!
The bard (as another example) was a character with arguably little use in combat -- except in the hands of a clever player. What, not combat-optimized? Axe it from the rules!
Sure, 4e allows me to do everything 3.5 allowed (except use a lance, of course). It even allows roleplaying and creativity -- but it doesn't encourage them. IMO.
Regards all :)
And there's my new gripe with the new version :)
Half-orcs, as an example, are a race which really can't go anywhere without creative input from the player. What, no ready-made personality? Axe it from the rules!
Previous versions had countless utility spells begging for creative uses by players. What, a spell's value isn't immediately obvious to a first-grader? Axe it from the rules!
The bard (as another example) was a character with arguably little use in combat -- except in the hands of a clever player. What, not combat-optimized? Axe it from the rules!
Sure, 4e allows me to do everything 3.5 allowed (except use a lance, of course). It even allows roleplaying and creativity -- but it doesn't encourage them. IMO.
Regards all :)
I get what you're trying to say Tat ... but unless you cede that 3E didn't encourage it anymore, I think you're being unfair here.
Like you say, Half-orcs didn't come with any real personality, unless the player invested one into the Half-orc. So what did I see? I saw Half-orcs with no personality.
Sure sometimes my players took spells that had no real apparent use ... and most of the time those spells were, indeed, useless.
And Bards are surely going to be in ... they just didn't make the first cut; whether you chalk that up to space constraints or just capitalistic money grubbing, I'll leave for you to decide (I call space constraints! :P)
4E encourages roleplaying and creativity as much as 3E. I'm not claiming that's a lot, mind, but there hasn't been a marked decrease either. IMO as well, of course, so there probably isn't too much room to really debate anything. :P
Cheers! :)
It even allows roleplaying and creativity -- but it doesn't encourage them. IMO.
I would argue the same about 3.5.
I always wanted to try running a Half-Orc bard but I am sure I would have been gleefully killed by any DM for making such a ‘stupid’ character.
Call him Thump or Thwack!(Or maybe his clubs should be called that) Have him dual wield bone clubs to make "melodies" out of his "insturments" and sing while doing it ala Monty Pyhthon and the Animal xylaphone. Be a great war drummer.
Brilliantly fun concept.
It even allows roleplaying and creativity -- but it doesn't encourage them. IMO.I would argue the same about 3.5.
I've never had an argument of mine summed so succinctly. Wow.
I get what you're trying to say Tat ... but unless you cede that 3E didn't encourage it anymore, I think you're being unfair here.
Fair enough.
Everything you and Courtfool said is completely true, so maybe I'm imposing a double standard. Earlier editions didn't encourage roleplaying and/or creativity any more than 4e -- and I think you might make an argument that they did worse in some ways.
But I can't help but feel that they've deliberately trimmed away material (like half-orcs) that requires more work and input on the part of the player. Of course, if you have to cut something (as they clearly did), those things should probably be on the list.
It even allows roleplaying and creativity -- but it doesn't encourage them. IMO.
I would argue the same about 3.5.
You and Mark are right.
But, for the sake of discussion, I think half-orcs are an interesting example. The race is arguably very one-dimensional; it takes creativity and effort from a player to get out of the stereotype. Such a race encourages creativity -- not deliberately, and I'm not suggesting earlier versions of the game deserve credit for this fact.
But I do think 4e deserves a little criticism -- anything that might be challenging to play was removed.
And David is right -- this is all personal opinion. I believe what I believe, and I'm not likely to have my mind changed. Others believe what they will, and my arguments are unlikely to sway them.
Though your point is well taken :)
Regards.
What will be enough? I'll get a book for swordslingers, a book for rogues, a book for wizards, and a book for clerics. With core rulebooks, now I'm up to about $280 in books!
Eeeek!!!
So, I see you have unwittingly stumbled upon WoTC's master plan. The planned incompleteness of the initial release of 4e was so that you would feel that you need to buy the various other core books to patch the holes.
Great business model actually though I personally detest the idea of needing to buy some $300 of books to get everything that used to be in $120 worth of books. 3.5 was ultimately filled with splatbooks, however you didn't feel that the game was incomplete without buying them all. With 4e, there will be an apparent need for them all. This is primarily because rabit fans NEED the OFFICIAL version of everything. Its always been this way.
Its a brave new world for D&D....gods preserve us.
I agree with vance on mechanics being able to handle a setting. In my opinion, good mechanics can handle any setting. You should not have to adjust your setting to match your rules. While this alone does not mean a game is a failure, it does indicate a weakness to me.
I disagree. Now almost any rules can be made to fit but if your saying all rules should be so open ended that they can cover any kind of setting then I think your talking about a very loose frame work indeed. Your giving up on the mechanics doing some things very well in certain kinds of settings in order to make it so that the mechanics don't reflect any core concepts at all and can be slotted onto whatever core concepts a setting might encompass.
There are a lot of conceits at the core of 4E and the game won't work equally well for any type of game. I'd hesitate before trying to use it to give an authentic picture of a Roman Legionaries life. Now If I wanted to transport a Roman Legion into another fantasy setting I could make it work but its a lousy game for authentically simulating history for example. GURPS, on the other hand, is not bad for simulating history.
Few complained that the 3.5 core rules were systematically lacking in important components for fantasy roleplaying. Yet 4e gets that criticism all the time.With 3.5, players could usually play a satisfactory game with just the core rules. With 4e it increasingly seems I need to go beyond that -- even 4e's most ardent supporters say "just wait for such-and-such to come out."
You can play using just the core rules your just not able to play every type of character you can imagine.
Now there is a price to be paid for that for sure but, on the other hand, 3.5 had rules for mounts that covered a grand total of 1/2 a page. They got rules in there for a lot more but did so by being very brief on the rules themselves. I've played with mounts and the rules are there but they don't feel very complete. Every time mounted combat comes up my group spends an inordinate amount of time scanning over the 3 or 4 paragraphs included in the rules and the section with the ride skill desperately trying to figure out how to run things. Those rules where not very clear in reality and it was probably a space consideration that kept them stripped down. I notice the same thing with the stealth Skill were aspects of how to use it where never laid out.
I think 3.x went with a model that attempted to include everything but this lead to brevity in some areas. 4E realized that they would need to stick out splat books to cover most of the breadth of 3.5 in any case and choose to focus on core concepts in greater detail. Lances and Mounted Knights were not considered core concepts by the designers and where mostly cut out.
I'm back! Did I miss anything? :)
I have to say, it kind of bugs me when someone says "well can't you just call a spear a lance" or "well I never liked mounted knights anyway." Its not that folks don't have a right to their opinion, but I think such comments are dismissive of a concern that reflects a broader point.
Thanks for the defence of my broader point Christopher! I'm well aware that I can 'wait for such-and-such book', or create my own, and I'm not actually complaining about Wizards' splatbook mentality. They're a company that needs to make money, and can't include everything that 3.5e did in their first book.
There doesn't seem to be anything that a class can lay claim to that is *always on*. For example the ranger's favoured enemy, paladin's divine health and so on. And what about clerics? It's okay calling their powers prayers but one cleric just uses the same powers another does (or can do). Where *are* the unique features that distinguish one class from another?
I'd also like to reiterate the point above, which was never really addressed. All classes get features and powers, and powers never last more than an encounter. Say what you want about mechanics, missing stuff, reasons of economics and so on. Unless some book comes out with substantially different rules, I can see no way to add something like the above. True, a Paladin's Mount power could be created but would anyone like to set a precedent where a power grants a bonus over several hours? I haven't seen one yet, and I suspect that that will be the first breaking point of the game - in much the same way that the 3.5 splatbooks inundated with so many feats.
Discuss. :)
It even allows roleplaying and creativity -- but it doesn't encourage them. IMO.I would argue the same about 3.5.You and Mark are right.
But, for the sake of discussion, I think half-orcs are an interesting example. The race is arguably very one-dimensional; it takes creativity and effort from a player to get out of the stereotype. Such a race encourages creativity -- not deliberately, and I'm not suggesting earlier versions of the game deserve credit for this fact.
But I do think 4e deserves a little criticism -- anything that might be challenging to play was removed.
And David is right -- this is all personal opinion. I believe what I believe, and I'm not likely to have my mind changed. Others believe what they will, and my arguments are unlikely to sway them.
Though your point is well taken :)
Regards.
Things that were challenging to play usually fell into two camps: 1) It sucked, or required too much thought to be effectual that it wasn't as fun to play (which I guess if you're really into that kind of thing sure, but the guy next to you who went for the druid character is much more lax). 2) Rather than using creativity and effort, the player usually resorted to the common stereotype, which is where the dumb half-orc barbarian came from. Oh sure, people made half-orc clerics, and halfling wizards and what not, but nine times out of ten a half-orc was fighty.
Hey! The picture that Wizards' showed as a mock up of the game table (and caused SmiteWorks to issue a Cease & Desist) and shown here, contains a custom dice expression of ... 1d20 Lance Attack!
Eh? What gives? Sounds to me like either there's something in the pipeline or it's just someone's wishful thinking.
|
I'd also like to reiterate the point above, which was never really addressed. All classes get features and powers, and powers never last more than an encounter. Say what you want about mechanics, missing stuff, reasons of economics and so on. Unless some book comes out with substantially different rules, I can see no way to add something like the above. True, a Paladin's Mount power could be created but would anyone like to set a precedent where a power grants a bonus over several hours? I haven't seen one yet, and I suspect that that will be the first breaking point of the game - in much the same way that the 3.5 splatbooks inundated with so many feats.
Hmm, I can image that "Summon Mount" may be a Ritual for the Paladin.
Maybe takes 1 minute to do and you have to spend X per encounter Power (so no other Class can use this ritual).You might have to tame a wild animal and bond with it beforehand to be able to use this ritual.
The Mount therefore is a real mount (not some magic construct) but has better Stats and some other Features.
I can think that you do not summon the mount out of thin air, but are somhow able to call it from far away and it will come to you as fast as possible.
Things that were challenging to play usually fell into two camps: 1) It sucked, or required too much thought to be effectual that it wasn't as fun to play (which I guess if you're really into that kind of thing sure, but the guy next to you who went for the druid character is much more lax). 2) Rather than using creativity and effort, the player usually resorted to the common stereotype, which is where the dumb half-orc barbarian came from. Oh sure, people made half-orc clerics, and halfling wizards and what not, but nine times out of ten a half-orc was fighty.
Don't any players actually enjoy putting "too much thought" into their roleplaying? This makes it sound as if 4e is (as is often claimed) catering to the lowest common denominator among gamers. A claim that I am not making.
IMC things that are challenging to play are often chosen, and played well.
I'd also like to reiterate the point above, which was never really addressed. All classes get features and powers, and powers never last more than an encounter. Say what you want about mechanics, missing stuff, reasons of economics and so on. Unless some book comes out with substantially different rules, I can see no way to add something like the above. True, a Paladin's Mount power...
The paladin's mount was more about character development and less about having a 'power' that had an effect within the context of an 'encounter' -- which is why I suppose it is gone :/
Same for animal companions for rangers and druids (or the entire druid class), the combat-crappy bard, miscellaneous utility spells, half-orcs, cohorts & followers, lances... etc, ad nauseum...
I should stop reading (or contributing to) some of these threads. I'm really quite eager to play 4e.
There doesn't seem to be anything that a class can lay claim to that is *always on*. For example the ranger's favoured enemy, paladin's divine health and so on. And what about clerics? It's okay calling their powers prayers but one cleric just uses the same powers another does (or can do). Where *are* the unique features that distinguish one class from another?I'd also like to reiterate the point above, which was never really addressed. All classes get features and powers, and powers never last more than an encounter. Say what you want about mechanics, missing stuff, reasons of economics and so on. Unless some book comes out with substantially different rules, I can see no way to add something like the above. True, a Paladin's Mount power could be created but would anyone like to set a precedent where a power grants a bonus over several hours? I haven't seen one yet, and I suspect that that will be the first breaking point of the game - in much the same way that the 3.5 splatbooks inundated with so many feats.
Discuss. :)
Babbage, my friend (Charles Babbage?) I did address this point, but I can understand a post being missed in the shuffle. I'll quote myself to save time.
Actually there are a number of "always on" abilities for most of the classes. Clerics add their Wisdom to their healing abilities. Warlords give initiative bonuses to allies, as well as HP or bonuses to hit when AP are spent. Fighters get a bonus to hit. Rogues get bonuses on SA damage or OA AC. Those are just off the top of my head, there are probably a few others (Rangers can choose to dual wield one-handed weapons on both hands, another one I just thought of)
So there you go, a number of "always on" abilities provided by a number of classes. Likewise, pretty much all feats are always on as well, with only a few being toggle-able (Power Attack still is, I think ... any others?)
Cheers! :)
Things that were challenging to play usually fell into two camps: 1) It sucked, or required too much thought to be effectual that it wasn't as fun to play (which I guess if you're really into that kind of thing sure, but the guy next to you who went for the druid character is much more lax). 2) Rather than using creativity and effort, the player usually resorted to the common stereotype, which is where the dumb half-orc barbarian came from. Oh sure, people made half-orc clerics, and halfling wizards and what not, but nine times out of ten a half-orc was fighty.Don't any players actually enjoy putting "too much thought" into their roleplaying? This makes it sound as if 4e is (as is often claimed) catering to the lowest common denominator among gamers. A claim that I am not making.
IMC things that are challenging to play are often chosen, and played well.
Oh sure, people like putting thought into characters, but when you have to do it in order to have an effective character, then it gets weird. It's like giving one batter on the baseball team a foam bat and telling him "You gotta put more muscle!"