|
I know a lot of people have some pretty strong opinions about the loss of material in the 4e corebooks but I am going broach the subject anyway.
From my point of view this marketing strategy resembles the Basic, Expert, Master, etc. version of D&D. You get a limited picture that is, intially, very easy to learn. As the game progresses we will get new and more advanced options via new PHBs, DMGs, and MMs. In addition we have supplements that will provide more options in the form of powers, weapons, and other material.
I started D&D when I was 8, with the red box Basic. For me, there was no Great Wheel and none of the assumptions that entails. Even when I switched to 1e and then converted to 2e the idea that stuff was set in stone didn't really appeal to me. I hearkened back to the BEMCI version and I realize now how many of my games were inspired by the material in those box sets. So this transition is probably a bit easier for me even afer 23 years of play. I know the lore well, I just never really took to it as strongly as others. Most of my homebrews more closely resemble the scant material presented in the BECMI sets.
So for my tastes, from a release schedule pov, a system pov, and a lore pov, 4e works for me.
Now, I understand there are options that players would have preferred to see released now. I don't have an argument with that. You hoped for druids and now you are being told you have to wait. I was bit bummed by gnomes but I found I really like them in 4e. I even wrote a few race feats for them.
I also understand that some see all of this as a thinly veiled marketing scheme. I think this release schedule does benefit the end user to some extent. In the end, this method probably came about for both reasons. While not everyone will agree there are benefits to the end user I will have to agree to disagree with you there.
So, that brings me to my question.
What is/was the breaking point for you? What missing material would you like to see included ASAP? What would element would have to be included before you would try/commit to 4e either realistically or theoretically? What is it about that missing piece that you find is necessary for the game? Why do you like it?
I understand for some people it is the "total mass" and I can sympathize. If that is case, go ahead and feel free to express why that is.
Please be civil and patient. Understand we might all hold differing opinions on these subjects. I guess the key is "be respectful". Think about your post before you hit submit. Let's bring back the old Paizo love on these boards.
So, let's discuss.
A lot of the ambivalence I feel towards 4th Edition comes from the near complete lack of any sort of non-rules substance in the core books. The rules have never really been that much of a sticking point for me in any of the RPGs I've played. Normally I'm inspired by the setting, by the overall 'flavor' of the game. 3rd and 3.5 were already light enough to barely interest me, except for in the Monster Manual. The 3.0 Monster Manual was half the reason I started playing 3.0, and frankly, the 4th ed version has about as much description in it as two pages of the 3rd ed version (hyperbole, but not by too much).
It seems to carry over to the other books as well, leaving the whole thing feeling bland and 'unsaturated'. Almost all the rules seem to have been reduced to pictures more than text that's actually descriptive. While the rules don't seem that great to me in certain areas, it's really the lack of anything evocative that makes me go "I NEED to put this in an adventure somewhere" that makes me really dislike 4th edition.
The lack of quality binding, ink, and paper also turns me off to a lot. I don't like feeling as though I have to treat the book as though it's some holy relic while I'm handling it or else I won't be able to read it.
|
From my point of view this marketing strategy resembles the Basic, Expert, Master, etc. version of D&D. You get a limited picture that is, intially, very easy to learn. As the game progresses we will get new and more advanced options via new PHBs, DMGs, and MMs. In addition we have supplements that will provide more options in the form of powers, weapons, and other material.
I just want to address this single point here. While your analogy can be stretched to describe 4e, its not a good fit. there is nothing more "advanced" about gnomes, bards, druids, monks(?), etc... In fact, there is very little evidence available to support a stance that these materials were held out to "simplify" the initial release.
You are correct that this is a marketing strategy, but incorrect regarding how it is intended to work. WotC left out these classes so the PHB2, DMG2 MM2 (and 3, and 4) have "core" material to lure in sales. Many people will be willing to live without optional material like the samurai or dragon-ninjas or warlocks, but want everything that was core in 1st, 2nd or 3ed to be in their game.
However, speculation regarding the motivation or purpose behind the new core book annual release philosophy cannot actually be (dis)proven. What we can prove decisively, is that the cost of owning all core books has gone up substantially for 4ed. that is one change that can be decisively proven.
EDIT: To clarify, the annual release of core books was one of the big sticking points to me. I applauded the 3rd edition philosophy of selling the core books cheaply, and limiting it to only 3 volumes. What the new edition essentially asks is that you repurchase the core each year to stay current.
Yes, for everyone that screams the core books should have covered everything…go find yourself a copy of Hero System 5th edition.
Do you really want your books that large?
|
|
Yes, for everyone that screams the core books should have covered everything…go find yourself a copy of Hero System 5th edition.
Do you really want your books that large?
come now, my friend. The 3rd edition core books were of reasonable size. 4ed is supposed to be a simplification of 3rd, so why couldn't they include the iconic core material while keeping the books manageable? My point is that it was a conscious choice - a feature, rather than a bug. It just happens to be a feature that I loathe.
come now, my friend. The 3rd edition core books were of reasonable size. 4ed is supposed to be a simplification of 3rd, so why couldn't they include the iconic core material while keeping the books manageable? My point is that it was a conscious choice - a feature, rather than a bug. It just happens to be a feature that I loathe.Yes, for everyone that screams the core books should have covered everything…go find yourself a copy of Hero System 5th edition.
Do you really want your books that large?
Becuase you would be adding at least another 70 pages to the PHB. Anyone know how much its costs to add 70 pages to a book from a publishers end?
|
|
The Breaking Point for me was actually Breaking Points. Three of them.
1. Two many changes. Many 'sacred cows' were violated in the creation of 4e. Those Sacred Cows scream for revenge ;) Kidding aside. As has been expressed in a diferent thread on these boards, "If a third party had created this game...would anyone have associated it with D&D"
My answer- no.
I wouldn't have spent one cent buying the product if someone like Mongoose or Green Ronin had published the game and wouldn't have given it a second thought. Putting the D&D name on a game that hardly even resembles it anymore, to me anyway, is tantamount to putting a Porshe Emblem on a Miata.
And before the 4e supporters scream, I am not saying the game isnt any good. Im saying it doesnt have the resemblance to the D&D that I love.
2. Playability is too diferent. If I wanted to play an MMO I would. I dont want every class to be valuable in every situation. I want a character to have to play out of his comfort zone...to me thats what makes an RPG fun....watch that wizard find things to make himself a value when his spells are gone. The Rogue to look for ways to use his skills to the max besides just opening a lock or disabling a trap....what about the Fighter proving the party needs him...
Its not a game I enjoy anymore
3. Marketing. This is probably the biggest thing that made me walk away from a company I had supported through thick and thin....I feel insulted. I feel betrayed. Someone else on these boards made mention to the fact that Gamers are a passionate sort. That is sooo true. Seek our approval and we forgive even the hardest treatment. Act like we are 'dummies' or aren't 'worthy' and lose our respect.
Once more before any 4e supporters strike out saying "how" or "why"....remember ...Its always the one doing the 'speaking' that has to put it in words 'the listener' understands. In this case WotC spoke...and I listened. I got out of it that they dont care for my business anymore...so be it.
So there you have it. I hold no ill will to those that enjoy 4e. I hope the game thrives and brings many players into the RPG world. Some will stay with that system...some will drift over to a system that offers more choices...and some will drift away to the new thing...But for the chance to get some of the new blood who may like Pathfinder more...it will serve its purpose ;)
All I can say is Thank You Paizo for keeping my hopes in a kinder gentler Gaming World ;)
Dread
What is/was the breaking point for you? What missing material would you like to see included ASAP?
My major breaking point was what was done to Forgotten Realms to cram it into 4E's little box. The total destruction of the world, a hundred year jump into the future, and a play system that simply doesn't fit with FR's original structure.
A secondary break was the lost of Gygaxian mythos, a trashed cosmology that makes less sense that the great wheel, and an utter disregards for 30 yrs of history.
Add to that a lack of backward compatiability, Bad, insulting marketing, and having Paizo as an excellent option and there you have it.
Also on a side note, the goals that 4E had were never realized. They still have Tolkien heavy references, they still have redundant monster (Balor and Pitfiend anyone) The demons and devils still don't make any sense. (If devils are supose to look the most human, why are Ice Devils still devils?)And as far as making the game faster at higher levels, I have yet to hear of anyone running a game at 30th level to tell me if it's even true. Anyone?
Yes, for everyone that screams the core books should have covered everything…go find yourself a copy of Hero System 5th edition.
Do you really want your books that large?
At $40 a pop they should be big enough to contain everything it needs to.
Yes, for everyone that screams the core books should have covered everything…go find yourself a copy of Hero System 5th edition.
Do you really want your books that large?
It's less a question of wanting the books that large. For me, it's more a question of making the right choices of what should be in there.
Right now, there's only one controller in the PH - I'd have held off on the 3rd striker and put in another controller... like a druid. Right now, it begins to look like they had trouble figuring out a 2nd controller type character, which isn't a real confidence builder. Adding a second, distinct one, would help proof of concept.
The MM has a distinct lack of some iconic fantasy creatures like a pegasus, and it lacks mundane animals like lions and elephants that help ground a campaign in an ecosystem more like our own (so that monsters can truly be weird and terrifying). I'd have tossed out any number of other critters like boneclaws and angels to put in a number of decent regular creatures... like sharks. They have sahaugin in the MM, but no sharks. That's totally weird to me to say nothing of the fact that mundane creatures make excellent encounters for low-level PCs.
Reference the Breaking Point question. I am waiting to decide if I like 4e when they have the basic classes. So maybe after the PHB 2 I would run a campaign. It does not need the eleven 3.5 classes but more than are available. I would also like the year of public play testing it gives them. Although I hope not to buy books and just use the DDI, if I buy books, I want PHB2 and the reprinting of PHB1.
Reference this being a Basic Edition to be built on later. I don't think the book was written to be easily digestible for a beginnning player. IF that was their goal, I don't think they accomplished it. It is too easy to loose sight of the trees because of the forest. WotC should have a free PDF that described the first few levels and 'restricts' the choices. If there are only four (or so) first level at-will powers for fighters, the basic book should give them together with the class. Small spoon size doses for the early decisions. Later you can give them the fire hose of feats and powers. I think the DDI was supposed to help with beginning character generation but that goal was missed.
|
|
Becuase you would be adding at least another 70 pages to the PHB. Anyone know how much its costs to add 70 pages to a book from a publishers end?come now, my friend. The 3rd edition core books were of reasonable size. 4ed is supposed to be a simplification of 3rd, so why couldn't they include the iconic core material while keeping the books manageable? My point is that it was a conscious choice - a feature, rather than a bug. It just happens to be a feature that I loathe.Yes, for everyone that screams the core books should have covered everything…go find yourself a copy of Hero System 5th edition.
Do you really want your books that large?
then don't put magic items in the PHB, or put less, or cut a few powers from each class, or ... you get my point. EVERY other edition has been able to fit the icnonic core classes/races/monsters in the initial release. WotC has outright stated that they have held back iconic classes and monsters specifically to be released in later PHB/DMG/MM releases. It had nothing whatsoever to do with book length.
Yes, for everyone that screams the core books should have covered everything…go find yourself a copy of Hero System 5th edition.
Do you really want your books that large?
Ummmm. Yes?
A lot of the ambivalence I feel towards 4th Edition comes from the near complete lack of any sort of non-rules substance in the core books. The rules have never really been that much of a sticking point for me in any of the RPGs I've played. Normally I'm inspired by the setting, by the overall 'flavor' of the game. 3rd and 3.5 were already light enough to barely interest me, except for in the Monster Manual. The 3.0 Monster Manual was half the reason I started playing 3.0, and frankly, the 4th ed version has about as much description in it as two pages of the 3rd ed version (hyperbole, but not by too much).
Uh... are you really talking about the 3.0/3.5 MM? The 3.5 MM doesn't seem to have more non-combat information than the 4E MM. For instance, the 3.5E MM has 36 lines of role-playing information for orcs; 4E MM has 35. The 3.5E MM has 2 lines of role-playing information for succubus; 4E MM has 8. In fact, many 4E monsters have disproportionally more role-playing information thant the 3.5E counterparts, such as minotaurs, mind-flayers and githyankis. The opposite also holds true for other cases (such as beholders), but both MMs seem pretty comparable.
Neither the 1E MM has any significant amount of role-playing information for monsters (on fact, it has less than both the 3.5E and the 4E MM).
The only MM rich with "non-rules substance" is the 2E Monstrous Manual.
Anyway, saying that "the 4th ed version has about as much description in it as two pages of the 3rd ed version" is a very gross hyperbole.
Perhaps you can argue that the 4E has more space spent with statblocks (usually more than 1 per monstes), but to me who is DMing, they are great... at least they already saved me many hours of encounter preparation.
Becuase you would be adding at least another 70 pages to the PHB. Anyone know how much its costs to add 70 pages to a book from a publishers end?
Easy,Warlock/warlords out. Druid,Barbarian,monk AND BARD in. Dragonborn out gnomes half-orcs in...... It really wouldn't have been that many more pages at 40 bucks each.
No kidding. It's pretty hard to take someone seriously when they complain that 4E books have less role playing value than the 3E books. It's a ridiculous statement that reflect either, a) the person didn't even look at 4E is is going off half-cocked or b) the person has not actually done a cross comparison and just "thinks" 3E is more fluff heavy, for whatever strange reason, or c) the person just has an irrational hatred of all things 4E, for whatever reason, but won't state that REAL reason and instead feels the need to make up fake reasons. Like the people who originally said the art sucked. What a load of crap. There are REAL reasons to dislike 4E. But these are not them.
I agree that 4E is a huge change... but so was 3E. To say that 4E is more different than Advanced D&D than 3E was... I don't know if that's true. Both have TREMENDOUS departures from the original.
I agree that they should have put 2 to 4 more classes in the PHB, left the magic items in the DMG, included more mundane items in the PHB, and USED SMALLER FREAKING TYPE. One wouldn't have to add 70 pages... just reduce the font size a tiny bit. Either they didn't have time to playtest the additional classes OR they were just looking to make more money. Likely the money thing.
In the end, they should have included Bard as an arcane leader and a Divine controller of some sort, that way the next PHB could be only Primal, Psi, and Shadow or Elemental. As it is, it looks like the next PHB will have classes from 4 or 5 power sources, which is kinda silly.
A lot of the ambivalence I feel towards 4th Edition comes from the near complete lack of any sort of non-rules substance in the core books. The rules have never really been that much of a sticking point for me in any of the RPGs I've played. Normally I'm inspired by the setting, by the overall 'flavor' of the game. 3rd and 3.5 were already light enough to barely interest me, except for in the Monster Manual. The 3.0 Monster Manual was half the reason I started playing 3.0, and frankly, the 4th ed version has about as much description in it as two pages of the 3rd ed version (hyperbole, but not by too much).
Uh... are you really talking about the 3.0/3.5 MM? The 3.5 MM doesn't seem to have more non-combat information than the 4E MM. For instance, the 3.5E MM has 36 lines of role-playing information for orcs; 4E MM has 35. The 3.5E MM has 2 lines of role-playing information for succubus; 4E MM has 8. In fact, many 4E monsters have disproportionally more role-playing information thant the 3.5E counterparts, such as minotaurs, mind-flayers and githyankis. The opposite also holds true for other cases (such as beholders), but both MMs seem pretty comparable.
Neither the 1E MM has any significant amount of role-playing information for monsters (on fact, it has less than both the 3.5E and the 4E MM).
The only MM rich with "non-rules substance" is the 2E Monstrous Manual.
Anyway, saying that "the 4th ed version has about as much description in it as two pages of the 3rd ed version" is a very gross hyperbole.
Perhaps you can argue that the 4E has more space spent with statblocks (usually more than 1 per monstes), but to me who is DMing, they are great... at least they already saved me many hours of encounter preparation.
I don't see 35 lines of RP info in my 4E MM for orc. I see 16. The only way I can see 35 is if you count the tactics notes for each of the individual orc entries. I don't view combat tactics as RP info, just like I don't view a PC class power list as RP info. I view things like monster society information, and the like, as RP info, but that might be just my view.
I do think there could be a lot less stat blocks and a lot more 'fluff', but, again, that could be my own biases. I'd rather have more baseline info and then tweak a baseline goblin, for instance, to how I want it, then have 'goblin x, goblin 7, goblin z', all with locked in powers that dictate what they do every time PCs fight them.
I like the layout of the 4E MM, but the monsters are much more shallow. Less options do make things more simple, and I can see the reasoning behind the design decision, but they also make monsters be much more one dimensional - once you fight monster X, it has no suprises, the next time you fight it, it will be the exact same experience.
"Becuase you would be adding at least another 70 pages to the PHB. Anyone know how much its costs to add 70 pages to a book from a publishers end?"
Had they chosen to use a similar typeface and font size as 3rd edition, I suspect that they could have cut that 70 pages down to around 15.
I have no doubt, but no proof, that the layout of 4e is simply part of the marketing strategy, requiring the purchase of more books to get the quantity of content contained in the 3e PHB.
It's business, sure. I understand that.
That is why MOST of my RPG money these days is going to Paizo.
I don't see 35 lines of RP info in my 4E MM for orc. I see 16. The only way I can see 35 is if you count the tactics notes for each of the individual orc entries.
The "Lore" section is full of RP information.
I do think there could be a lot less stat blocks and a lot more 'fluff', but, again, that could be my own biases. I'd rather have more baseline info and then tweak a baseline goblin, for instance, to how I want it, then have 'goblin x, goblin 7, goblin z', all with locked in powers that dictate what they do every time PCs fight them.
I guess this is a matter of personal DM style. I have very few time to prepare adventures, so not to have to spend hours to fully stat party of monsters like I did on 3.5E seems like a bless. However, I understand that some DMs really enjoy to stat with detail every monster and NPC, so it's not a problem for them.
Other cool aspect of multiple statblocks is that they are not just "classed monsters" that you could do yourself. On 3.5E, almost all differences between a 7th-level orc and a 7th-level hobgoblin were due to their classes, not to their races. But the 4E statblocks offer unique abilities for each humanoid race - such as the Hobgoblin's Phalanx Fighting and the Orc's Death Strike. When the PCs fight a level 7 hobgoblin, they feel they are fighting a level 7 hobgoblin - not a level just a 7 fighter or level 7 cleric which happens to have +2 to Con and Dex (not that anyone will note that).
I like the layout of the 4E MM, but the monsters are much more shallow. Less options do make things more simple, and I can see the reasoning behind the design decision, but they also make monsters be much more one dimensional - once you fight monster X, it has no suprises, the next time you fight it, it will be the exact same experience.
As my personal experience with 4E dictates, it's exactly the contrary. In fact, the 4E DMG encourages you to change abilities of monsters to surprise your PCs. Monsters are extremly easy to customize on 4E, and it's also very easy to create monsters from scratch using the DMG guidelines. I created a brand new solo monster for the last session (a variant of mine of the foulspawn seer), and it took me less time than making a classed version of an existing monster on 3.5E. And more importantly, the result - when I put the monster against the PCs on the table - was simply perfect. The monster almost TPKed the party, but he was 2 levels higher (a difficult challenge), and the PCs had spent too many resources on the past encounters.
I really don't believe that giving classes is what make monsters special (although you can still do that on 4E). Classes just make monsters more like PCs - if you give 20 sorcerer levels to a minotaur, it will feel like a sorcerer, not a minotaur. What makes monsters special is the DM's creativity - and I can say the 4E DMG greatly encouraged me to use mine, as I rarely felt confident enough to create a new monster on 3.5E.
No kidding. It's pretty hard to take someone seriously when they complain that 4E books have less role playing value than the 3E books. It's a ridiculous statement that reflect either, a) ... or b) ... or c) the person just has an irrational hatred of all things 4E, for whatever reason, but won't state that REAL reason and instead feels the need to make up fake reasons. Like the people who originally said the art sucked. What a load of crap. There are REAL reasons to dislike 4E. But these are not them.
I try to refrain from posting in the 4th edition threads, but I do read a fair amount here. I just wanted to address your last point about the art. I decided to not play 4th ed. before the books ever came out, for reasons not important to anyone but myself. However. I did recently look through the PHB & the MM. I very much disliked the art. I won't say it "sucked" b/c I don't want to insult the various artists; but it was not my cup of tea. The few pieces I liked were mainly recycled from 3rd edition.
This isn't really a post about "art is subjective" blah blah blah. But I would add my dislike of the art throughout the books to the other reasons why I have no interest in this game. Sorry that's not a "REAL" enough reason for you. The fact is, I'm a very visual person, and art goes a long way towards inspiring me to get into the feel of the game. Which is why I loved 2nd edition art so much (Brom = Dark Sun goodness!), and liked most of 3rd edition art (whoever SW is in the MM, you're awesome. And thanks!).
|
|
"Becuase you would be adding at least another 70 pages to the PHB. Anyone know how much its costs to add 70 pages to a book from a publishers end?"
Had they chosen to use a similar typeface and font size as 3rd edition, I suspect that they could have cut that 70 pages down to around 15.
I have no doubt, but no proof, that the layout of 4e is simply part of the marketing strategy, requiring the purchase of more books to get the quantity of content contained in the 3e PHB.
It's business, sure. I understand that.
That is why MOST of my RPG money these days is going to Paizo.
to be fair, the use of white space and a larger font is the current cutting edge in text books & similar printings. It does greatly enhance the ascetic appearance of the book, and improves readability to boot. Unfortunately, everything is a trade off. Improved appearance/readability equals less material in the book.
However, WotC marketing likely views that as a win, since it leaves sought after core classes for future publications. Bard, Druid & friends will definitely help sell a lot more PHB2/MM2 than would move without those classes.
Ummmm. Yes?Yes, for everyone that screams the core books should have covered everything…go find yourself a copy of Hero System 5th edition.
Do you really want your books that large?
Um, me too.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw this core set as the 'Large type' edition.
As for the information and RP info...go to the WtoC site and dl the Warforged article. There's more info on them in that article than for ANY of the races in the PHB old core or new.
Hero system 5th? If it wasn't for Paizo, I might be pulling my copy out to start something new. Or GURPS. Both have more interest to me than 4e. And yes, I *AM* running a 4e game, as I felt it wasn't fair to condem it without a test. While setting it up I had an odd realization...this is the first system I've purchased that my first response was to spot a race/class combo that appealed to me and run with it. I have 0 inspiration so far.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I must admit that the "incompleteness" of the 4e PH was a black mark against my personal interest in the system.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm joining a campaign in a couple of weeks and I'm sure I'll have fun with it, but I'm not sure the dragonborn and an extra elf (but these ones wear _mauve_!) are worth what we lose in the race department.
We'll see.
|
|
I just want to address this single point here. While your analogy can be stretched to describe 4e, its not a good fit. there is nothing more "advanced" about gnomes, bards, druids, monks(?), etc... In fact, there is very little evidence available to support a stance that these materials were held out to "simplify" the initial release.
Okay I will give you that point. My use of the word advanced was flawed. But the effect is similar. Perhaps the new releases won't provide more "advanced" information but not everything in the BECMI set necessarily did either. Sometimes they threw in info that would have been really helpful back at the expert or basic level. So its probably better to say the new releases will provide expanded options. Which still gives me that feeling of nostalgia.
And I don't disagree about it being a marketing decision. I am certain that the BECMI release structure was a good part marketing as well. But it had a nice effect and I appreciate the feature. I think it has an effect for the end user.
On the other hand, I can totally see why others would have a problem and I respect that.
|
|
I don't think the book was written to be easily digestible for a beginnning player. IF that was their goal, I don't think they accomplished it.
I have a totally anecdotal thought to add here. I have a player that has participated in my games since late 2nd ed. She flat out refused to create a character because she felt character creation was too difficult. She is a good player but has a hard time grasping some concepts. Very intelligent person but she never committed because she thought she couldn't.
During the character creation session for my upcoming campaign she not only created her own character but had a good handle on how that character would be played.
Like I said, totally anecdotal so it doesn't necessarily reflect the larger experience, but I was impressed. For the first time D&D seemed really exciting for her. She has gone from being a player who plays to be social to someone who really groks her character and how she fits in the world.
While setting it up I had an odd realization...this is the first system I've purchased that my first response was to spot a race/class combo that appealed to me and run with it. I have 0 inspiration so far.
Um, I meant that I WASN'T able to find a concept that appealed to me.
I thought I had proof-read that.
|
The Breaking Point for me was actually Breaking Points. Three of them.
1. Two many changes. Many 'sacred cows' were violated in the creation of 4e. Those Sacred Cows scream for revenge ;) Kidding aside. As has been expressed in a diferent thread on these boards, "If a third party had created this game...would anyone have associated it with D&D"
My answer- no.
I wouldn't have spent one cent buying the product if someone like Mongoose or Green Ronin had published the game and wouldn't have given it a second thought. Putting the D&D name on a game that hardly even resembles it anymore, to me anyway, is tantamount to putting a Porshe Emblem on a Miata.
And before the 4e supporters scream, I am not saying the game isnt any good. Im saying it doesnt have the resemblance to the D&D that I love.
2. Playability is too diferent. If I wanted to play an MMO I would. I dont want every class to be valuable in every situation. I want a character to have to play out of his comfort zone...to me thats what makes an RPG fun....watch that wizard find things to make himself a value when his spells are gone. The Rogue to look for ways to use his skills to the max besides just opening a lock or disabling a trap....what about the Fighter proving the party needs him...
Its not a game I enjoy anymore
3. Marketing. This is probably the biggest thing that made me walk away from a company I had supported through thick and thin....I feel insulted. I feel betrayed. Someone else on these boards made mention to the fact that Gamers are a passionate sort. That is sooo true. Seek our approval and we forgive even the hardest treatment. Act like we are 'dummies' or aren't 'worthy' and lose our respect.
Once more before any 4e supporters strike out saying "how" or "why"....remember ...Its always the one doing the 'speaking' that has to put it in words 'the listener' understands. In this case WotC spoke...and I listened. I got out of it that they dont care for my business anymore...so be it.
So there you have it. I hold no ill will to those that enjoy 4e. I hope the game thrives and brings many players into the RPG world. Some will stay with that system...some will drift over to a system that offers more choices...and some will drift away to the new thing...But for the chance to get some of the new blood who may like Pathfinder more...it will serve its purpose ;)
All I can say is Thank You Paizo for keeping my hopes in a kinder gentler Gaming World ;)
Dread
Amen, brother.
... Many 'sacred cows' were violated in the creation of 4e. Those Sacred Cows scream for revenge ;) ...
MOOOOO!!!
|
I just got my 4E books from Amazon, and I could safely be described as a Paizo fanboy. Though if gas prices keep going up, I may need to lose my two remaining subscriptions. I digress.
I think the readability of the PHB is greatly reduced in this edition. I had no problem jumping into the middle of a 3.0 or 3.5 rule book because the format was very similar to my old AD&D PHB. The feel was similar.
When I opened up the 4E PHB for the first time, I have to admit that I felt a little lost. It strikes me as a book that you pretty much have to read from cover-to-cover just to get yourself acquainted with where things are. At first blush, the DMG seems more familiar, and more readable. The MM looks like an MM should, and I think it does what it needs to, though I need to look at it more closely to form a better opinion.
Oh! And I need to play the darned thing. Readability-readashmility. I think 4E will win me over or loose me entirely based on how playable it is. I can already see that DM prep. will go way down with this edition. I want to see what kind of legs this game has at the table.
Which brings me to ask (and I hope I'm not hijacking the thread in asking), how many here have played 4E for an actual session or three?
Impressions?
Which brings me to ask (and I hope I'm not hijacking the thread in asking), how many here have played 4E for an actual session or three?
Impressions?
Check this thread.
|
|
What is/was the breaking point for you? What missing material would you like to see included ASAP? What would element...
While I was initially fairly happy to hear of a 4e, the first five minutes of teasers were enough for me.
The change of philosophy and willy-nilly butchering of the sacred cows, the "cloudwatching" ... were sufficient to make my decision.
After reading everything that was said since, nothing ever gave me any reason to look back. Quite the contrary. By now, nothing will ever make me adopt that system, or any product related to it.
|
|
What I do not understand is why they did not gave us more "horizontal" otption for Races (included Gnomes and Half Orcs) and Classes (Druid, Bard and Barbarian) instead of the whole "certical" options (levels from 1-30).
If they would have gone from say level 1-20 in the PHB and from Level 21-30 in PHB II they could have included more Races and Classes AND give us more Epic Paths.
I don't think the book was written to be easily digestible for a beginnning player. IF that was their goal, I don't think they accomplished it.
I have a totally anecdotal thought to add here. ....[in previous editions] She flat out refused to create a character because she felt character creation was too difficult. ....During the character creation session for my upcoming campaign she not only created her own character but had a good handle on how that character would be played.
Anecdotal or not it contains some truth. I think 4e should be easier for new players. It is like a tree. You go up the trunk and it splits. You choose which way to go. You got to second level. The branch splits again and you choose. They start that way at first level by saying you have two basic builds. But after that it would be easy for a new player to get lost going through the powers list trying to figure out the choices. The PHB is not written well to support that process.
And to repeat, I think the problem is that the DDI is supposed to support creation process. With a computer it would be easy to show as you move from 2nd to 3rd level, here are your choices. But since we don't have DDI, it is now a big weakness. Did I mention I want the DDI?
I think this issue touches on one of my beefs with class/race based systems. I prefer to be given basic building blocks from which I can craft my own classes and races. Sure, you can give me some examples, but let me build I want. Your iconics may not be my iconics.
Of course this opens up the floodgates for complexity which is a huge turn off for a lot of gamers.
I think the page count issues were due to the fact that they put magic items into the book, but also that class writeups now took up so many more pages. The warlord I am happy to see, the warlock, tiefling, dragonborn I am not. I would have much preferred a druid to the warlock.
The classes take up so much more space now though, so the whole book kind of had to be re-organized. Now instead of you having 3-4 class abilities or tiny little bonuses to explain for each class, you have to explain 30 levels of powers for each class, and its paragon paths too.
To your argument of incompleteness I'll raise you one of "unchanging". I'd rather each edition axe a few races/classes and add a few new ones in, rather than be stuck with the same ones for all of eternity. A new edition should be about change, and revision. It should bring new ideas and thoughts into the existing mold. If all we get is a book with the same choices we had in 3E, why even switch in the first place?
Cheers! :)
What got left out is bothering some of my players (the druid/sorcerer and the rogue/spellthief), but I'm happy with what's there so far.
I have to say, though, that I'm really disappointed with a lot of the responses in this thread. It seems like a lot of people skipped over the question the OP asked and just decided to vent. He asked if there was anything in the books that got left out that would have made a difference for you. Complaining about the marketing campaign doesn't come close to answering the question.
I appreciate the people who did respond to the spirit of the question (I noticed Erik's response, because I recognize his avatar, and I probably missed others while skimming).
As for the dragonborn and the tiefling I didn't think i was gonna like them either... But some people really really do ( I got two dragonborn in my starting party). I think wizards knew what they were doing when they put them in. Lets fill the books with a variety of popular stuff which althought not everyone may like everything, everyone has something to like kinda mentality.
Indeed. I still don't like the tiefling being a core race, but the dragonborn has grown on me.
And before the 4e supporters scream...
Once more before any 4e supporters strike out saying "how" or "why"....
Please stop putting words in other peoples' mouths, Dread. It's rude.
I think Dragonborn would be great in a setting like Dragonlance, where you could easily incorporate them as Draconians or other races like that.
Some settings that don't have dragons (or they are extremely rare) will be hard pressed to include them, such as Birthright or Dark Sun. That being said, those 2 settings either focus on humans and elves and dwarves (Birthright) or have a slew of their own unique races (Dark Sun) which are easily created.
In summary, races are super easy to convert or make new ones, being 1.5 pages of the PHB each and needing only a few racial feats to complete. Classes on the other hand, are VERY big and take a LOT of work to do, so you are better off multiclassing I think.