It was posted to Youtube by GamerZer0, aka Scott Rouse, WoTC's 4e PR guy...Not according to what I see on the site from the link?
FROM: rpgmp3
Added: September 06, 2007 (Less info)
A short video consisting of photos from around the net regarding Dungeons and Dragons 4e (4th Edition) combined with a song written by one of the members of www.rpgmp3.comIs rpgmp Mr Rouse? Or are they connected in some way?
I'm confused. :)
My apologies, I quoted the url you provided, rather than the one originally provided by pookchan, and then misunderstood your comments about the video "not being produced by WoTC" to be in reference to pookchan's url, rather than the url you provided.
Also, GamerZer0 is indeed a WOTC employee, but its Mike Lescault.
Total Party Analysis: This one fell down to 50% . . . hm . . . I thought it would work out higher than the others, but I guess with a smaller party that's what happens.
To me, a large part of the problem here is trying to define such wildly varying individuals with a class.
No problem, F33b.
I just thought I was missing something. :)
[
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.
I do not know. One of the biggest changes is that I like all of the equipment in the players handbook.
I am sure that some things could be improved ( like a chart with all the powers by class), but that wasnt my point. People are already complaining about the cost of the books. If you want them bigger you would have to pay more (in theory).
I would have loved to see more classes. But I can't say that having 128 basic options is a bard start.
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.
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 races are easier to add in at about 3-4 pages each ( 2 pages for the standard right up, and an additonal amount of space for feats etc)
If you removed Warlock and Warlord thats only 30 pages roughly. And I can't say which two classes would be a better fit. In my own caimpaigns Barabarians and Druids are used more often. But as far as roles go we lose 1 striker and 1 leader so the classes that replace them should be roughly the same. Honestly I would have loved to see a Divine Controller (Favored Soul or Druid) and 9 classes in the PHB( 2 defenders, 3 strikers, 2 controllers, 2 leaders).
My game's not really missing anything right now without those classes . The fan work for the Bard and Druid on enworld has been pretty good . I am hoping future splat books will allow us to get more in depth with power sources .
(Edited for excessive 'though' removal)
I would have loved to see more classes. But I can't say that having 128 basic options is a bard start.
Why do you hate bards?
I would have loved to see more classes. But I can't say that having 128 basic options is a bard start.Why do you hate bards?
Complete typo on my part. At work I am forced to use IE which doesnt auto apellcheck for me. I suffer for it.
Nothing against bards but they have never been my flavor. I did play a Zilargo gnome bard in Eberron who worked for a newpaper though. Was fun, but it was a step out of my normal characters.
I would have loved to see more classes. But I can't say that having 128 basic options is a bard start.Why do you hate bards?
That reminds me, have you guys seen this? Poor Gimble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwp-lDSN3Qo
LMAO. Those are great. I loved Jozan
That reminds me, have you guys seen this? Poor Gimble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwp-lDSN3Qo
If you worship Vecna I will come to your house and MURDER you for Pelor's sake!
. Lol.
Indeed though. Poor Gimble. It was a nice picture though. :P
To my mind, one of the most egregious design decisions was the gutting of the Wizard class(es). One of the stated goals of the 4E designers was to make the game easier to DM, which sounded good--but now I see that one way of doing that has been to reduce the wizard to a damage machine and toolbox, i.e., spellcaster whose effects could be adjudicated by a computer. As a player, a big part of the wizard's appeal has always (last 20+ years, anyway) been versatility; as a DM, the wizard presents a great challenge because you have to improvise NPC reactions to spells like Charm Person.
But now the spells which created often unpredictable effects and demanded DM and player creativity and roleplaying, particularly those producing charm and illusion effects, have been essentially eliminated from the core. The two core builds might as well be the same--one is choking to death, and the other is blasting to death. Not a whole lot of room there for making a wizard interested in anything but being a killing machine. I suppose that the take-home is that easier is not always better. Without spellcaster variety and creativity, to me it's just not D&D any more.
To my mind, one of the most egregious design decisions was the gutting of the Wizard class(es). One of the stated goals of the 4E designers was to make the game easier to DM, which sounded good--but now I see that one way of doing that has been to reduce the wizard to a damage machine and toolbox, i.e., spellcaster whose effects could be adjudicated by a computer. As a player, a big part of the wizard's appeal has always (last 20+ years, anyway) been versatility; as a DM, the wizard presents a great challenge because you have to improvise NPC reactions to spells like Charm Person.
But now the spells which created often unpredictable effects and demanded DM and player creativity and roleplaying, particularly those producing charm and illusion effects, have been essentially eliminated from the core. The two core builds might as well be the same--one is choking to death, and the other is blasting to death. Not a whole lot of room there for making a wizard interested in anything but being a killing machine. I suppose that the take-home is that easier is not always better. Without spellcaster variety and creativity, to me it's just not D&D any more.
I see your point but I can't say I really agree with your conclusions. Spells like Illusions and Charm Person where very difficult to adjudicate and where notorious for causing problems in peoples games.
Personally I did not negotiate the use of such spells in my campaigns. When I was much younger I just got into annoying arguments with my players when dealing with such spells (this would be in 1st and 2nd ED) and as an older more experienced DM I simply state unequivocally what these spells mean in my campaign - I essentially house rule for clarity right from day one.
Now I feel that such powers and spells do belong in the game but maybe not in the initial rules offering since they are open to causing problems for new or inexperienced groups. Also, when we do see the return of such abilities, I'd be very happy if their are done in such a manner that it was pretty clear how they were to be handled from day one.
Illusions, in 3.5, were somewhat complicated in actual game play but I recall being very happy with them when compared to older editions where 'believing' in them seemed to make them real.
To illustrate: There was a famous trap in 1st or 2nd edition. I never used it myself or even ran into it but some of my players had and they'd talk about it. I suspect that it had been used at a major convention where it had gained notoriety and had then been used in peoples home games.
The PCs walk into a room with a table or dias that has a note on it. If they read the note it says "The floor is an illusion". Well at that point the character reading the note has to make a save - if he MAKEs it, then he sees the floor for what it is and falls screaming through it. All the rest of the players that see him scream and fall through the floor then must make Saves and they in turn fall through the floor if they make them.
I was very happy when I realized that 3.5 had recognized that this was ridiculous and created rules that clarified that this was not possible. You could not walk on an illusionary floor just because you believed it to be real. Your beliefs did not make it true.
I suppose my feeling is that one of the reasons we have new editions is to increase clarity in the rules and doing so is a positive good that improves the game. One of the goals in 4E was to make the experience easier and better for new groups, they did not always carry this mandate forward perfectly, I think they could have done a better job in a number of areas but I do applaud those areas where they did take this step.
Disclaimer: Been playing D&D for 1.5-2 years. Loving 4E so far.
I don't find 4E incomplete at all. It has the right amount of material to get the game up and running at a good pace.
Here's the high points for me, so far:
1. Less fluff. This might seem stupid, but less fluff in the books is amazing for me. It means less crap to wade through trying to get the feel for the world. It has the benefit of making it easier to change fluff. Since spells have been boiled down to mechanics, you can flavor them any way you want. Want a druid? Get a warlock, name it druid, and change all your powers to reflect what you want them to do. Want a necromancer? Get a wizard, name it necromancer, and reflavor all the spells, giving a couple of them necrotic damage!
2. Easy to create. With all the "missing" stuff that my players want, you might think we wouldn't be playing. Not so. It is unbelievably easy to create new mechanics, powers, feats, paragon paths, etc. that they have had little complaint about the change. You want an animal companion? Sure, here's how you do it... Want to summon something? Sure! Go for it! Want to become a one-man army? Shove off.
As for converting characters, I've had a few problems, but they stem from one thing: The character is overpowered. You can't recreate CODzilla in 4E. The wizard that covers the planet in snow is gone. Granted, there are a few genuine problems (psionics, monks, and bards).
Now, for fun, I got the word count for the 3.5PHB and the word count for the 4E PHB.
4E PHB = 151,900 words... 879KB pure text
3.5 PHB = 286,000 words... 1.61MB pure text
Those are the figures without table of contents, index, and glossary.
How do you feel about the classes, Traken? I've been DMing 4E. I have a few regular players who are opposed to it, but have some others who like it and are having fun (as am I). But we discussed the classes at one point and I think everyone at the table was of the view that it would be interesting to see if we're still as interested in 4E in a year. The main complaint was that the classes are fairly homogenous in feel (with all of them even martial classes having quasi-magical powers) that it might get dull faster.
I'm not typically a player, being a DM most of the time, so I don't have a good grasp on how these all "feel," so I'm interested in your take.
How do you feel about the classes, Traken? I've been DMing 4E. I have a few regular players who are opposed to it, but have some others who like it and are having fun (as am I). But we discussed the classes at one point and I think everyone at the table was of the view that it would be interesting to see if we're still as interested in 4E in a year. The main complaint was that the classes are fairly homogenous in feel (with all of them even martial classes having quasi-magical powers) that it might get dull faster.
I'm not typically a player, being a DM most of the time, so I don't have a good grasp on how these all "feel," so I'm interested in your take.
I'm also the DM, but my thoughts are that if you play anything long enough, your current options are going to be boring. There's a reason 3.5 ended with so many classes, feats, spells, and prestige classes that it's very unlikely anyone will be able to play them all.
As for 4E, it might well become stale after a year or two. The mechanics of every class are very similar, even though the few characters I've played have all felt drastically different. All powers can pretty much boil down to "Deal X damage and do Y status effect." If you let it, the system will become stale.
The biggest problem, from what I can tell, is that you have powers and rituals. Powers are quick, one shot things that you will use often. They do boil down to "Deal X damage and do Y thing." Then you have Rituals are a lot more flexible, but take 10 minutes to use. In most situations, you just won't have time. Basically, there's no middle ground for useful cool effects. Magic Items and Utility powers try to fill this gap, but it's just not working.
I'm sorry if that sounds like an incomplete thought... but my brain just ran out of juice. -_-