|
Link can be found here. I found the sections on All Characters Must Rock and his experience with other rpgs to be especially fascinating.
Any chance we'll get to see a similar interview with Jason Bulmahn once the official Pathfinder RPG's released in August? Oh, Zachary...!
|
Hmmmm (couple of comments)
Actually the article is WAY to long (and annoying) to comment on everything said.
I love the "system" of 4th Ed. in principle - but the reasons that they did all of what they did are the reasons I won't play it. There is an inherent idea that everyone has to be the same.
"All Classes Must Rock", sounds like something stolen from World of Warcraft. In many ways 4E looks like an attempt to capture the MMO feel in a pen & paper game. In this I think they have excelled and produced a beautiful game.
Maybe "All Classes Must be Useful" would have suited me better?
One example;
From the start we knew that we wanted to get rid of 3E's save-or-die effects, attacks that could knock out a PC with one hit or one-die roll attacks that could cause a PC to become paralyzed, enchanted, or otherwise helpless but still alive.
Why? This only helps cement the "run in, bugger research or being prepared" style of play - some may like it, I don't.
S.
Hmmmm (couple of comments)
Actually the article is WAY to long (and annoying) to comment on everything said.
I love the "system" of 4th Ed. in principle - but the reasons that they did all of what they did are the reasons I won't play it. There is an inherent idea that everyone has to be the same.
I didn't see that "inherent idea" anywhere in the article. I think you took that idea with you when you went in to read the article and your perception of what Heinsoo was saying was heavily colored by that.
"All Classes Must Rock", sounds like something stolen from World of Warcraft.
Oh, sweet. A "4th Edition is like WoW" line. "All Classes Must Rock" is a mentality that should shape every role-playing game's design, regardless of medium, unless your goal is to design a system in which certain players will play second fiddle to the real heroes.
In many ways 4E looks like an attempt to capture the MMO feel in a pen & paper game. In this I think they have excelled and produced a beautiful game.
I'm pretty sure that they didn't try at all to produce an MMO on paper. I think you're getting the term "MMO" confused with "solidly designed combat system".
Maybe "All Classes Must be Useful" would have suited me better?
That's what they did. All classes are useful. Useful classes rock.
One example;
From the start we knew that we wanted to get rid of 3E's save-or-die effects, attacks that could knock out a PC with one hit or one-die roll attacks that could cause a PC to become paralyzed, enchanted, or otherwise helpless but still alive.
Why? This only helps cement the "run in, bugger research or being prepared" style of play - some may like it, I don't.
I'll tell you what I don't like: starting my adventuring day off with a face-to-face with a spellcaster who fires off a save-or-die in the first round, targets me, and I roll low on my Fort save. I'm now dead, at the beginning of the session, and I will not be playing the game for the next hour, at a minimum, while the party finishes the combat. Furthermore, my play experience was cut short by a single die roll and a situation I (and my party) were completely unable to react to.
The above scenario is a huge problem with 3rd Edition, 2nd Edition, and just about every incarnation of the game before 4th Edition arrived. Now we have potentially deadly tactical situations that we can react to. Powers that can result in your death still exist, but you now have a chance to try and figure a way out to avoid them after they go into effect.
Researching and being prepared still has its merits, Stefan Hill. The only change in this respect is that an element of gameplay that a huge number of groups found distinctly un-fun has been removed. Save-or-dies needed to disappear.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
"All Classes Must Rock", sounds like something stolen from World of Warcraft.Oh, sweet. A "4th Edition is like WoW" line. "All Classes Must Rock" is a mentality that should shape every role-playing game's design, regardless of medium, unless your goal is to design a system in which certain players will play second fiddle to the real heroes.
It takes two to troll, Scott. Maybe if you didn't react so quickly to the WoW comparisons, people would stop making them. And the designers of 4e have never denied that capturing the WoW crowd was one of their major goals for 4e; they have to, otherwise the fanbase is shrinking without new blood. And besides, with the two huge behemoths in the market of role-playing games being Warcraft and D&D, a comparison between the two is bound to come up, warranted or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It takes two to troll, Scott. Maybe if you didn't react so quickly to the WoW comparisons, people would stop making them. And the designers of 4e have never denied that capturing the WoW crowd was one of their major goals for 4e; they have to, otherwise the fanbase is shrinking without new blood. And besides, with the two huge behemoths in the market of role-playing games being Warcraft and D&D, a comparison between the two is bound to come up, warranted or not.
"All Classes Must Rock", sounds like something stolen from World of Warcraft.Oh, sweet. A "4th Edition is like WoW" line. "All Classes Must Rock" is a mentality that should shape every role-playing game's design, regardless of medium, unless your goal is to design a system in which certain players will play second fiddle to the real heroes.
The problem with "4th Edition is like WoW" comparisons (beyond being phenomenally annoying to have to constantly deal with) is exactly what you're saying: Of course 4th Edition has similarities to WoW. WoW had similarities to D&D 3.5. This is a good thing. WoW is very focused on making the game enjoyable all the way through, for any class, and any race. It has a rule system that is not arcane or difficult to understand. It puts a premium on fun gameplay. None of these things, however, have anything to do with WoW being an MMO. They could just as easily have come from a single-player game. The problem isn't the comparisons; it's the obvious mentality behind those comparisons - that taking elements from an MMO is a bad thing. The mindset here is that there is something "tainted" about MMOs and that anything from them needs to be kept the heck away from my D&D. This is fostered by a further mentality of "WoW is a popular extension of my niche hobby, which means it's no longer special or cool, which means it is deserving of derision regardless of its implementation." Gamers tend to like feeling smug and elitist (something we hold in common with most other species of nerd) and this is just another way to express that feeling.
"4th Edition is like WoW" has been done to death, and was never a valid criticism in the first place.
As for your counter-criticism, James, it can be taken elsewhere. I'm addressing false criticisms from someone who refuses to play 4th Edition deciding to let the world know in the 4th Edition forums. The defense, in this case, is more than warranted. To boot, neither one of us is trolling - I think you probably need to get a new definition for that word, as you seem to think that it is interchangeable with the word "arguing". Stefan Hill gave his opinion on the article, and I rebutted it. There's no need for you to act the part of forum enforcer here.
|
Third Edition D&D is a good game; in fact, it's so good that some of its problems are easy to miss for long-term players—they're just part of how the game works.
This is something I have heard a lot and it just bothers me. I am a long time player of 3e. I had fun, now you telling me I had problems I didn't even know about. That sentence just seems very demeaning to me. Maybe I am just being too oversensitive, but this was a theme that turned me off of 4e right away, the idea that I was not getting what I wanted out of 3ed and the wizards people were going to show me why.
I almost seems like there are two mechanics in the shope talking about me.
"Can you believe this guy, His car has no widget?"
"No widget, how could he drive it without a widget?"
"He didn't even know it was missing, HAHA"
"Wow what a moron, wait till we get him to buy a new car that has a widget, he'll thank us"
Meanwhile, I'm driving my car fine...
Third Edition D&D is a good game; in fact, it's so good that some of its problems are easy to miss for long-term players—they're just part of how the game works.This is something I have heard a lot and it just bothers me. I am a long time player of 3e. I had fun, now you telling me I had problems I didn't even know about. That sentence just seems very demeaning to me. Maybe I am just being too oversensitive, but this was a theme that turned me off of 4e right away, the idea that I was not getting what I wanted out of 3ed and the wizards people were going to show me why.
I almost seems like there are two mechanics in the shope talking about me.
"Can you believe this guy, His car has no widget?"
"No widget, how could he drive it without a widget?"
"He didn't even know it was missing, HAHA"
"Wow what a moron, wait till we get him to buy a new car that has a widget, he'll thank us"Meanwhile, I'm driving my car fine...
Yes, that would be oversensitivity speaking. You completely missed what Heinsoo was trying to say: that people who have played 3.5 forever (I was one of them) eventually learned to gloss over parts of the game that could have been improved because that's just the way things were, and we were so used to them that it didn't really bug us until we were exposed to a system that did it better. It isn't meant to be demeaning at all, it's just an observation on human nature.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yes, that would be oversensitivity speaking. You completely missed what Heinsoo was trying to say: that people who have played 3.5 forever (I was one of them) eventually learned to gloss over parts of the game that could have been improved because that's just the way things were, and we were so used to them that it didn't really bug us until we were exposed to a system that did it better. It isn't meant to be demeaning at all, it's just an observation on human nature.
Of course, in the course of trying to fix some of those issues, they created a game that many who liked 3E have little to no interest in playing. Them's the breaks.
3E. Issue free? No. 4E. Issue free? No. 4E lost enough of what I like in D&D that it lost me as an active player.
Of course, in the course of trying to fix some of those issues, they created a game that many who liked 3E have little to no interest in playing. Them's the breaks.
And at the same time they created a game that many who refused to play 3E suddenly found themselves interested in. They also created a game that countless people who had never played D&D before could easily get into.
Yeah, they probably lost some fans who couldn't tear themselves away from 3E. Some may eventually learn to enjoy 4th Edition, some might not. In the end it's not really that big of a deal.
3E. Issue free? No. 4E. Issue free? No. 4E lost enough of what I like in D&D that it lost me as an active player.
I'm sorry to hear that. Enjoy your game.
|
|
Yes, that would be oversensitivity speaking. You completely missed what Heinsoo was trying to say: that people who have played 3.5 forever (I was one of them) eventually learned to gloss over parts of the game that could have been improved because that's just the way things were, and we were so used to them that it didn't really bug us until we were exposed to a system that did it better. It isn't meant to be demeaning at all, it's just an observation on human nature.
I would agree if I think the changes were an improvement, which I do not. Taken in that light, It still seems demeaning to me. Sorry, just my opinion.
I would agree if I think the changes were an improvement, which I do not. Taken in that light, It still seems demeaning to me. Sorry, just my opinion.
Yes, that would be oversensitivity speaking. You completely missed what Heinsoo was trying to say: that people who have played 3.5 forever (I was one of them) eventually learned to gloss over parts of the game that could have been improved because that's just the way things were, and we were so used to them that it didn't really bug us until we were exposed to a system that did it better. It isn't meant to be demeaning at all, it's just an observation on human nature.
Then it sounds like your problem was not with the manner in which the changes were presented, but with the changes themselves (since, by your own admission, you wouldn't see it as demeaning if he were, in your opinion, correct). Which means you have taken an issue of opinion and transformed in into an issue of condescension where none existed. Having an opinion different from yours does not make someone demeaning. Either way, enjoy your game.
I'm finding parts of the interview irritating too, and right off the bat.
"So 4th Edition is meant to be played."
Aaaaannnnnd other versions aren't?
"The system math didn't work out right at the lowest levels; e.g., a single critical hit from an orc with an axe could take out low level characters."
But if that's a feature of the system math, potentially deadly encounters, the system math works just fine. I guess I'm not particularly a fan of the designer who just declares that something doesn't work without making the point that they are the ones who don't think it works.
I will say that I think the interview does shed some interesting light on the process... but it certainly doesn't give me any greater love of 4e. It just illustrates to me how different their design approach seemed to be compared to the 3e design team. And, considering this game's history, I'm not sure I can really appreciate that.
Hard to believe this long after launch people are still so over-sensitive to the slightest criticism of 4e.
I'm glad some people are enjoying it. I'm also glad people are still enjoying 3.5E. Around here the 3.5E groups still dominate, and it looks like 3.5E materials are keeping pace with 4e in online sales, so it looks to me like both versions have a good player base. So no matter which you play you'll find players and materials by and large.
I'm finding parts of the interview irritating too, and right off the bat.
"So 4th Edition is meant to be played."
Aaaaannnnnd other versions aren't?
Other versions made concessions - sacrificing playability for the sake of holdover mechanics from previous editions, for instance.
I didn't find Heinsoo's meaning here hard to discern. Are other people just looking for things to criticize in this interview?
"The system math didn't work out right at the lowest levels; e.g., a single critical hit from an orc with an axe could take out low level characters."
But if that's a feature of the system math, potentially deadly encounters, the system math works just fine. I guess I'm not particularly a fan of the designer who just declares that something doesn't work without making the point that they are the ones who don't think it works.
Why should someone have to make the declarative "In my humble opinion" before everything they say in an interview.
Either way 1-roll death at 1st-level is a pretty terrible feature. The guy playing D&D for the first time with his 4 hit point Wizard coming up against the party's first baddie of the night - an orc with an axe - stands a chance of having his night ruined before he even gets a chance to roll a die. This is a good thing to fix.
I will say that I think the interview does shed some interesting light on the process... but it certainly doesn't give me any greater love of 4e. It just illustrates to me how different their design approach seemed to be compared to the 3e design team. And, considering this game's history, I'm not sure I can really appreciate that.
The 3E design team was moving in this direction years ago. A lot of it is what they always wanted to do with the system but for whatever reason thought that the community would whine and moan about it. 3E design went through a process of evolution during the course of its own lifespawn, and 4th Edition is the natural continued progression of that evolution.
Hard to believe this long after launch people are still so over-sensitive to the slightest criticism of 4e.
Hard to believe that this long after launch people are still making an effort to stop into the 4th Edition forum for the sole purpose of explaining exactly why they don't like 4th Edition. I can't imagine the thundering rage that 4th Edition players would encounter if they spent this much effort explaining why the hate 3rd Edition (or PFRPG!) on the Pathfinder-specific boards. The 4th Edition players are too busy enjoying themselves on their own sub-forum.
Hard to believe this long after launch people are still so over-sensitive to the slightest criticism of 4e.Hard to believe that this long after launch people are still making an effort to stop into the 4th Edition forum for the sole purpose of explaining exactly why they don't like 4th Edition. I can't imagine the thundering rage that 4th Edition players would encounter if they spent this much effort explaining why the hate 3rd Edition (or PFRPG!) on the Pathfinder-specific boards. The 4th Edition players are too busy enjoying themselves on their own sub-forum.
I don't see anything wrong with it. I like both editions and I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of each. The only problematic people are those who can't seem to take it if someone makes a criticism. Grow up already.
|
|
The article states they removed "the grit". System independent I like my grit in RPGs. Players can't always feel that lots of "hit points" will save them from everything.
Just to defend my statement;
Actually the article is WAY to long (and annoying) to comment on everything said.
As I have repeatedly said, I like the idea of 4E and many of the mechanics. It sometimes just frustrates me that a game with such huge promise failed utterly for ME. I WANTED to play 4E, but once I did it was RPG vanilla ice cream. What I meant my my "out burst" was every reason given in the article was a nail in the coffin for MY kind of D&D. This statement wasn't meant to come across as a hate attack against either the designer or the 4E product. Humble apologies if it did.
I was under the impression however that this topic was started to discuss the article? It should be expected that views will vary.
S.
PS: WotC marketing would have been insane not to attempt to include aspects that would attract the "WoW" crowd btw.
PPS: Scott, if you felt less inclined to feel the need to "defend" 4E then topics wouldn't end up side tracked. I expressed my opinion on the linked article (and where possible gave MY reasons), read it then discard it from you mind if it offends you. Your reply tearing apart "line by line" my views only serves to confirm my suspicion that you are getting kick backs from WotC?!
The 4th Edition players are too busy enjoying themselves on their own sub-forum.
Except when they're not.
While I certainly don't understand the need for people to go to another forum to profess their dislike of a system, it isn't like it is only that other side that does it.
I'm fine with people discussing pros and cons of a system, however I become more distasteful of arguments when one side takes a "it has no 'Pros' worthy of mentioning" and another takes the position that "it has no 'Cons' worthy of mentioning." When that happens, I find that the arguments are more likely to just go nowhere and not be useful to me.
|
I don't see anything wrong with it. I like both editions and I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of each. The only problematic people are those who can't seem to take it if someone makes a criticism. Grow up already.
I share your view. Where exactly people who like both editions should discuss what they think about them ? Overdefensiveness is a passive attack against innocent bystanders.
I was under the impression however that this topic was started to discuss the article? It should be expected that views will vary.
And that those views will be discussed and, quite probably, debated.
PPS: Scott, if you felt less inclined to feel the need to "defend" 4E then topics wouldn't end up side tracked.
I don't think this topic was side-tracked at all. We were still discussing the article just fine until Steerpike7 decided to take issue with people discussing each other's opinions.
I expressed my opinion on the linked article (and where possible gave MY reasons), read it then discard it from you mind if it offends you.
It doesn't offend me. Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I'm offended by it. But I did disagree with it.
Well, while I can understand the reasoning behind the "all classes must rock" design strategy, Heinsoo basically comes out and admits that wizards as they currently stand in 4e are bland, underpowered and incomplete. This may (will have to be) addressed in the Arcana volume, but again it gets into the trouble of having to buy an as-of-yet-still-unpublished supplementary volume to play the complete game. I want to summon a familiar now. How difficult should that be?
1st ed had a rather elegant set-up for the PHB: 4 main classes--fighter, cleric, thief, wizard; 4 secondary classes--paladin, druid, monk, illusionist. A couple funky prestige classes, like the 1st ed assassin and uber-bard.
We'll see how it plays out in any case.
|
|
I don't think this topic was side-tracked at all. We were still discussing the article just fine until Steerpike7 decided to take issue with people discussing each other's opinions.
I do think it is. I do think that some people might do not give their opnion with fear that they might be bullied if it is not an "agreeable" opnion. But it is just my opnion.
I found the article great (althrought annoying because the manner how everytime 3.xE is used as a stepping stone [infered]) and the only thing that maybe would turn 4E in a better game is if rules could be patched if need arise (erratas could be landed, but isn´t the same). Changing an eventual mistake in a rule system realtime would resolve unbalancing issues (it´s a shame that lesson can´t be learnt from MMOs).
|
|
Hard to believe this long after launch people are still so over-sensitive to the slightest criticism of 4e.Hard to believe that this long after launch people are still making an effort to stop into the 4th Edition forum for the sole purpose of explaining exactly why they don't like 4th Edition. I can't imagine the thundering rage that 4th Edition players would encounter if they spent this much effort explaining why the hate 3rd Edition (or PFRPG!) on the Pathfinder-specific boards. The 4th Edition players are too busy enjoying themselves on their own sub-forum.
Well, I believe there is room for intelligent discussion of pros and cons - I don't believe this has a statute of limitations on it. Also, the advantage is that we get to discuss if anything's changed since then, or "Well, from my table, it works like this..." sort of approach that may get someone to take another look.
When doing any sort of discussion on der innerwebz, I *try* to break the standard molds and go for "velvet hand inside a velvet glove." After 4 decades and some change, I've found it's easier to change my own attitudes than the attitudes of others. Every now and then I DO get snarky, but I blame that on Sebastian ... >.>
Oh! By the by - as to the lethality of the system. It was only my 3d game running 4E last night, and the characters were level 2. By the end of the first fight, one player went down hard, but got healed back up before he had a lunch appointment with the Raven Queen, and later on in the fight three other players came THISCLOSE to being goblin chow.
As to lethality in 3.5 ... 15 minutes into the game and my wizard is dead. Quite literally, we did the open to the campaign, six new characters went tromping off into the forest singing happy sounds, and then ... There is INDEED some merit to the concept that "deadly is fun, just maybe not quite THAT deadly." After all, it's the reason why so many of us have been house-ruling max HPs for 1st level since 1st edition ...
There is INDEED some merit to the concept that "deadly is fun, just maybe not quite THAT deadly." After all, it's the reason why so many of us have been house-ruling max HPs for 1st...
That and the fact that your average 1st ed 1st level wizard could get taken out by your average 1st ed housecat....
Well, while I can understand the reasoning behind the "all classes must rock" design strategy, Heinsoo basically comes out and admits that wizards as they currently stand in 4e are bland, underpowered and incomplete. This may (will have to be) addressed in the Arcana volume, but again it gets into the trouble of having to buy an as-of-yet-still-unpublished supplementary volume to play the complete game. I want to summon a familiar now. How difficult should that be?
Both you and Heinsoo are right - Wizards currently lack the utility of the other classes when it comes to fights that don't contain minions. That said, they're not useless or unfun to play. The difference in power level and utility between the Wizard and, say, Rogue in 4th Edition is far smaller than the difference in power level and utility between the Fighter and Wizard in 3rd Edition.
As for familiars, they'll be appearing soon in Arcane Power. If you can't stand to wait, a couple of example familiars (and the feat that allows you to obtain them) are available for free here. If neither the cat nor the bound demon suits you it should be relatively simple to design your own familiar using the two given as examples of what is appropriate. Enjoy!
From the start we knew that we wanted to get rid of 3E's save-or-die effects, attacks that could knock out a PC with one hit or one-die roll attacks that could cause a PC to become paralyzed, enchanted, or otherwise helpless but still alive.Why? This only helps cement the "run in, bugger research or being prepared" style of play - some may like it, I don't.
The weak point with this is that 'being prepared' is only a very partial solution most of the time. Its nearly impossible to anticipate all the varous ways you can die. The result was that design and development, in 3.5, basically resolved the problem by making access to magic that brought you back from the dead much easier to get ones hands on (see for example revivify). That was a solution but its weakness was that it cheapened death. Death became a minor inconvenience since many of these spells side stepped the loss of money issue - which was kind of becoming required since dieing to often would actually screw up play balance by knocking the wealth by level calculations completely out of whack.
KoDT did a good play on this in one strip in which the players, dealing with a Deck of Many Things weigh the risks of using the deck and come to the conclusion that 'death can always be circumvented but treasure is forever'.
1st and 2nd edition sort of got around this because saving throws got better and very little actually effected saving throws. Hence a higher level character just made their saves almost all the time. This worked passably in 1st and 2nd but did not really work in 3.5 because the lethality of 3.5, at higher levels (anything above 10th really), is far, far, higher then 1st or 2nd.
From a game mechanics point of view any kind of instant death event is probably best avoided. Putting the threat of death on the table is wonderfully exciting, and the threat should be real, but part of its strength is that there is a build up of tension and excitement. So a character that, for example, will die in a few rounds if some one does not help him is loads of fun because it creates a lot of excitement and tension at the table. On the other hand having the DM say something along the lines of 'OK you hit the pressure plate and...[roll]...your dead' does not do much to add to the game. The player does not get to interface with the event, its near instant, feels almost arbitrary and does not really add to the excitement at the table.
In this kind of a scenario the game faces some issues. If the DM does this rarely then it really seems like the DM is arbitrarily killing players while, if the DM does it often, the players end up handling the adventure with extreme kid gloves making for a much slower game. This can be an interesting style of play (see Tomb of Horrors) but its one that generally only a minority of the audience wants to play on a regular basis. It certianly works against the style of gaming that 4E was aiming for though it'd fit right in if one happened to be playing Call of Cthulhu.
|
|
One of the things which came out of the PF playtest was the difference in power levels between different classes. Some people are fine with it, others aren't - including the designers of of 4e. While there are a number of different way attempted to get round it (though I don't think that PFRPG actually really tries to) the only reasonably balanced version of the system I have seen is 4e, because balance between the classes is at the very core of the system, in terms of power output and the ability of effects to disable and kill (pretty much anything that is save-or-die or save-or-suck is removed from 4e).
I've DM'ed 3e and 4e, and I've enjoyed both very much. A lot of the changes that have been made for 4e seem pretty reasonable to me - there is nothing worse, really, than a player sitting there with nothing to do because he failed a single saving throw. While I don't completely abhor save-or-die - they can be useful for tension and drama, but I don't actually want the PC to fail his save - on balance I don't miss them. In yesterday's game, all the players had stuff to do - and lots of stuff, even at 2nd level - and combat was certainly not a push-over (a lot of monsters do massive damage and have lots and lots of hit points, even at this low level). However, death (or near death) is always through incremental hit point loss, not a single random die roll. 3e is wide open in terms of options in a way that 4e is not, and that is the main thing I miss - but given how easy it is to set up a session in 4e, I don't miss it that much.
|
|
MY TURN.
I have played both 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, WOD, Shadowrun, well, just about all the major rpgs out there.
I love combat. I love roleplaying. I love the complexities of combat in 3.whatever. I love the streamlined combat in 4.0.
I DON'T like the lack of roleplaying in 4.0 And paladins still suck.
Every room had monsters in it. It was like playing 1 or 2e DND. As far as the whole "4e is like WOW"-I agree completely. When most people percieve a correlation between WOW and 4e that means there probably is one. BUT, WOW does have a fairly balanced class system.
I find balanced=boring.
In 4e, I could be an acid wizard and cast an acid spell that does 1d4 ACID damage and a roll for knock back.
In 4e, I could be a fire wizard and cast a fire spell that does 1d4 FIRE damage and a roll for knock back.
I like variety to my spells, the above is NOT variety.
When you say we are glossing over rules because we love them so much, turn the mirror around, because it seems to me that 4e players must DEFEND themselves (not their game, they aren't really defending their game) whenever the topic of 4e vs 3.whatever comes up.
I don't care about you. I'm still exploring the OPTIONS in 3.5 that I have. See my post in the general boards.
Also, this board needs to be shut down.
|
|
Well, that your description of the wizard spells isn't quite accurate but I know what you mean. That said, the At Will powers tend not to be very different but the Encounter and Daily powers do vary in effect, especially at higher levels.
As for WoW - well, I play WoW and can see some influence in mechanics and flavour, but playing a table-top RPG is not the same as playing a MMORPG. It is a social experience, not you sitting in a room with a screen and keyboard talking over Teamspeak. The fact that there is influence is hardly a big deal - the game takes its influence from all over.
Also, don't confuse the set-up of the published adventures with the way the game might work in individual play. The modules are pretty much set-ups for combat, but (truism incoming) how much roleplaying you do is down to you and your group. The modules are very plain vanilla and that is probably deliberate - they are intended for incorporation into a campaign with minimum fuss, so they are light on intricate background detail.
And I disagree about paladins - we have one in our group and he is fine.
As for familiars, they'll be appearing soon in Arcane Power. If you can't stand to wait, a couple of example familiars (and the feat that allows you to obtain them) are available for free here. If neither the cat nor the bound demon suits you it should be relatively simple to design your own familiar using the two given as examples of what is appropriate. Enjoy!
Hmm. An animal-shaped spirit creature that reforms later if splatted now. A fairly reasonable solution to the previous problems.
I'm not certain if I like it 100%, but I certainly don't dislike it, other than the fact that it's a feat, and it and the other familiar feats may cause feat-bloat. But it's also easily handwaved with a house rule giving it as a free feat to wizards.
I give all sorcerers Eschew Materials and Spell Thematics for free anyway.
Either way 1-roll death at 1st-level is a pretty terrible feature. The guy playing D&D for the first time with his 4 hit point Wizard coming up against the party's first baddie of the night - an orc with an axe - stands a chance of having his night ruined before he even gets a chance to roll a die.
Nitpick: it requires at least 3 rolls: initiative, attack roll and damage.
I also have to question what sort of an encounter setup is in place such that 1) the Orc is within charging distance of the Wizard and 2) the party Fighter isn't in the way. In a wilderness setting, encounters typically start at a much greater range, while in a dungeon setting it is usually the Fighter who kicks down the door, restricting the Orc's ability to target the Wizard.
In other words, this example of how 3e is so horribly horribly broken is at best extremely rare, and at worst grossly exaggerated.
All that said, it's still not great. Some sort of boost to hit points for first level characters (especially with inexperienced players) is a good thing.
Hm, I can roleplay just fine in 4E. I must be doing in wrong. ;/
As for familiars, they'll be appearing soon in Arcane Power. If you can't stand to wait, a couple of example familiars (and the feat that allows you to obtain them) are available for free here. If neither the cat nor the bound demon suits you it should be relatively simple to design your own familiar using the two given as examples of what is appropriate. Enjoy!Hmm. An animal-shaped spirit creature that reforms later if splatted now. A fairly reasonable solution to the previous problems.
I'm not certain if I like it 100%, but I certainly don't dislike it, other than the fact that it's a feat, and it and the other familiar feats may cause feat-bloat. But it's also easily handwaved with a house rule giving it as a free feat to wizards.
I give all sorcerers Eschew Materials and Spell Thematics for free anyway.
One option I would consider (if they don't make it available in Arcane Power to begin with) is to let Wizards and other Arcane characters who receive Ritual Casting for free to gain a familiar instead.
Nitpick: it requires at least 3 rolls: initiative, attack roll and damage.
Granted. Though by the time you get to the damage roll, it's probably too late.
I also have to question what sort of an encounter setup is in place such that 1) the Orc is within charging distance of the Wizard and 2) the party Fighter isn't in the way. In a wilderness setting, encounters typically start at a much greater range, while in a dungeon setting it is usually the Fighter who kicks down the door, restricting the Orc's ability to target the Wizard.
I used the Wizard as an extreme example, but this is actually something that happens far more often to Rogue (or other scout-type) characters. A failed Hide or Move Silently check while making sure the next hallway is clear can very easily provoke one of those orc-with-an-axe charges. Rogues are nearly as vulnerable in the hit point department as Wizards are. This exact scenario took place during my final 3.5 campaign - gnoll Barbarian notices the sneaking Rogue and cleaves his head clean off before he can react. From the player's perspective, he had about as much influence on that particular outcome as he would have had getting hit by a save-or-die spell.
In other words, this example of how 3e is so horribly horribly broken is at best extremely rare, and at worst grossly exaggerated.
It speaks to a much larger problem. Though it's an extreme example, it has an extreme result (outright character death). It's much easier for that same orc to instead knock that Wizard or Rogue into the negative hit point range. It doesn't require a re-roll of the character, but it's quite possible that the player will spent the remainder of the encounter staring at an unconscious character because the healer only has so much healing at his fingertips, and it takes his whole turn to administer it. I'm not saying that previous editions are unplayable - in fact, they're awesome. But (just like 4th Edition, as many have indicated) they have their own quirks and issues that need to be addressed.
All that said, it's still not great. Some sort of boost to hit points for first level characters (especially with inexperienced players) is a good thing.
And as much as I'd encourage people to try out 4th Edition, this is something that can easily be implemented in D&D 3.5 games.
MY TURN.
I don't care about you.
Also, this board needs to be shut down.
Hahaha, oh wow.
|
I don't get it, I just don't get it...
For thirty years, D&D has been a game where you role up a character WITH THE EXPECTATION that he may die through no fault of your own!
Was this aspect of the game an accident?
No, for if it were, surely Mr. Gygax would have changed things by the time first edition debuted...
I know that is not the point being argued, but Somewhere along the lines, an aspect of entitlement cropped up, and now player's somehow feel they have a RIGHT to have their characters survive past first level or to not be placed in a position where death is avoided by the luck of a single die roll (otherwise they cry "Foul! Unfair! Unfun! Bad form!")...
Then there is the expectation that wizards somehow must be able to cast spells all day long, or again, the aforementioned of crying foul and unfun is uttered (and again, for thirty odd years, you played D&D, you knew going in what the rules were)...
Anyway…
Call of Cthulhu was mentioned...
In that game, an early death is almost unavoidable (and if not death, then certainly insanity kicks in)...
People have been happily playing it for damn near as long as D&D has been around!
When a character dies in that games, the player just says, "Ah shucks, guess I have to roll up a new one." (and character creation can be just as involved as it is with D&D)...
No, we are not talking about Call of Cthulhu here, but my point is; why can something be tolerated in one game, and not another?
*END RANT*
Fourth Edition was released, and it is what it is. One can love it, hate it, or give a rat's rear-end one way or the other about it...
If you enjoy it (4e), great, but don't call it superior and Third Edition inferior.
It's not the game I question, it's the attitude behind its design...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
There is an argument for what you say. On the other hand, I've been at tables where characters dying is a downer. And 4e doesn't stop characters dying, by the way - it stops them dying in ways which are boring, like a single die roll. And dying isn't the problem as such - it is sitting there for the next two hours while the fight plays out with nothing to do as a player.
I think this thread is more about expressing a preference, rather than saying 3e is crap. I'm still playing 3e online here, so I don't think it is crap at all. 3e is far more modular and flexible as a system in terms of character design, whereas 4e is much less so. But my experience of playing both is that actually 4e is a bit quicker and easier to play but doesn't detract much from the core experience of killing things.
I think the core philosophy of 4e is to take away the Gygaxian sadism inherent in previous editions. In a sense, it feels a bit "softer" as a result. But Gygax seemed to be a fairly hostile DM in a way I am not, and so the elements that have been removed seem to be little loss to me, since I didn't use them much in 3e either. And it isn't much softer - monsters are tougher, often do more damage, and there are more of them generally. The difference is that damage is exclusively HP damage, and the chances of you dying or being out of a fight immediately or due to a single die roll are practically nil. That is intended, so far as I can tell, to enhance the fun for everybody by keeping them in the game for the longest period of time. It might not be a design goal favoured by all (though I sort of wonder why, exactly) but there it is.
I think CoC is not really relevant as an example - there the goal is simply to survive without going insane or getting splatted by vastly more powerful monsters. Horror requires the PCs to effectively be powerless - where is the horror when you can kick evil's arse? D&D has always been about killing things and taking their stuff, which is a different mindset.
|
"4th Edition is like WoW" has been done to death, and was never a valid criticism in the first place.
Sure it is. Its the reason I play 4th edition. Me and my friends who play WoW gravitated to the system because of our WoW experience.
Also, balance is a theory. Rangers in certain builds are hella broken.
|
|
My nitpicks:
That's why 4th Edition D&D is so focused on giving characters at-will abilities, as well as abilities they can use once an encounter, and abilities that are so powerful they can only be used once a day. We want all D&D characters to have the option of feeling heroic, to keep fighting and adventuring until they are truly too beat up to continue, and not to stop as soon as they have used up their only cool powers.
I kind of have a problem with this. Rob, it's called resource management, and it's a core part of D&D player strategy going back decades. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy playing D&D, a lot of us do. Your new power system feels more like building a deck than building a character.
Getting back to your original question, I hated the fact that once you started playing level 11+ in 3E, the non-spellcasting character classes didn't matter as much as the spellcasters. There was fun to be had as a fighter, or as a monk (mostly through roleplaying), but the truth was that adventures usually depended on the abilities of the wizard and cleric—where a missing wizard or cleric got some high-level 3E games I was in rescheduled. Did 3E games get rescheduled if the fighter was missing? Only if the character was central to the storyline of that session, not because the group actually depended on the fighter for survival while the wizard and the cleric were around.
...
I had a personal stake in this goal. My favorite 3E character was a dwarf fighter named Sigurd in Jonathan Tweet's Elysombra campaign. But at 12th level, the point when the other PCs were hitting full stride, I was succeeding purely as a consequence of correctly guessing which magic items I should pick up before the adventure. Oil of slipperiness and a flight ring? Pure gold. Sigurd's fighter abilities? Irrelevant. So I switched to playing a tricked-out half-dragon gnome psychic warrior, thinking I'd have more fun. The story didn't suffer, given that my new character ended being the daughter of the morally ambiguous elder dragon of the campaign, but the other players never really forgave me for abandoning Sigurd.
I'm really shocked by how much the game was shaped by his personal negative experiences in 3E. It's particulary ironic that he was unhappy in his character's combat role (tank), considering that 4E goes much further in stuffing classes into specific combat roles, and the fighter is still a tank.
I dunno, I guess our party is doing it wrong, because our fighters kick ass right alongside the wizards, and ofttimes it's the squishy casters that are afraid to proceed without their hardshell protectors.
I like the idea of martial powers though, I really do. We call them "feats" in 3E, but that's another rant.
The new 4E bard, appearing in PH2, and the upcoming monk both have clear roles, things they excel at and fun ways they're different than every other character class that fills that role. We want to reward players who think that playing a bard or a monk will be fun, not hand them a subtly poisoned time-delay capsule that will eventually wake them up to the realization that they're the weakest member of the party.
Credit where it's due -- the 3E bard is kinda broken and needed love.
The monk on the other hand? See comments about fighter above. And I would be more willing to accept his thesis about the monk if, nearly a year after release, we actually, you know, had a 4E monk class to play and compare.
|
|
Then it sounds like your problem was not with the manner in which the changes were presented, but with the changes themselves (since, by your own admission, you wouldn't see it as demeaning if he were, in your opinion, correct). Which means you have taken an issue of opinion and transformed in into an issue of condescension where none existed. Having an opinion different from yours does not make someone demeaning. Either way, enjoy your game.
To get things back on target, and talk about the interview, and not the diff between editions... and to reply.
I do have a problem with the changes, however, I also have a problem with the attitude that I was playing a game and having fun, and didn't know I was doing it wrong. He dosen't use the word wrong, but that is the impression I, and many others get from this. Now, Scott, you can certainly feel that is not the intent, but I feel it is and that is not changing. In fact ignore my earlier sentence where I think I may be oversensitive, I don't think I am the one oversensitive any longer.
Part of the problem with the design of 4th is that the developers went into it trying to fix something that not everyone felt was broken. This can be seen right from thier own words. Either they thought that we were playing an inferior system which needed to be fixed so we could have better fun or they made made the changes that would make the MMORPG crowd happy, and are using that angle to try to convinve the old players that the new toys are much better. I believe the latter. When WOTC was supporting 3.5 I never heard this "you don't even know what you are missing" attitude from anyone. They all seemed to thing 3.5 was great. But now that they have to sell the new system we hear about how all the fun we were having was missing some important parts. That to me is insulting. They are telling me I was not smart enough to know what I was missing out on, but they are going to show me. That is the wrong way to market something to me. Tell me "We made this new game that we feel is better than the old version" I may not agree but I will respect that. Don't tell me "We did such a good job on the last game, you don't even know what is wrong with it, we'll fix it and you can play the new one and be happy we took care of that for you"
That is my opinion and it isn't going to change by listening to any defenders. In fact, the way some people defend the new edition just make me even surer or my own feelings on the matter.
Sort of related but my 1st Level Warlord died in 2 hits in his third combat ever at the weekend - the deadliness is still there. It made me laugh more than anything but it reminded how one then just has to sit there and vicariously enjoy the other players trouncing the monsters. I did offer to play said monsters and assist in trouncing the other players... :D
|
|
Hahaha, oh wow.MY TURN.
I don't care about you.
Also, this board needs to be shut down.
Let me elaborate: I don't care what you do in your game. You enjoy 4e, I enjoy 3e.
My ending statement? This thread has a potentiality to become a major flame war. If flame is what you want, go to EnWorld. 4e vs 3.whatever has been debated for over a year.
It's over man. Stop beating a dead horse. The verdict? Everyone wins, because everyone is happy with the game they are playing.
As for WoW - well, I play WoW and can see some influence in mechanics and flavour, but playing a table-top RPG is not the same as playing a MMORPG. It is a social experience, not you sitting in a room with a screen and keyboard talking over Teamspeak. The fact that there is influence is hardly a big deal - the game takes its influence from all over.
Actually this was one of the intended goals of 4e and the DDI setup from day 1. They wanted to offer D&D online for REAL. in the form of the virtual tabletop. However this has been nixed, not due to bad sales possibility or anything, just overambitiousness at launch really. It may yet happen in the future, and it will then be gaming over the net with a teamspeak-esque setup, as a matter of fact there are people who have been doing for years and 4e probably has LOTS doing it now. Just saying.
Also, don't confuse the set-up of the published adventures with the way the game might work in individual play. The modules are pretty much set-ups for combat, but (truism incoming) how much roleplaying you do is down to you and your group. The modules are very plain vanilla and that is probably deliberate - they are intended for incorporation into a campaign with minimum fuss, so they are light on intricate background detail.[qote]
So very true sir, so very true.And I disagree about paladins - we have one in our group and he is fine.Again I concur, this might be the best paladin yet honestly. 2e (my original D&D) had good paladins, but were hard to qualify for (how many people HONESTLY rolled a pally often on 3d6 or even 4d6 drop the lowest? Not me :P) and the 3e pally kind of sucks something bad, needing massive house ruling to be fun IMO. The 4e pally really captures some good flavor and seems fun to play. That's all on paper for me though as I haven't actually played, but Dmed only. Obviously YMMV. :P
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Yes, that would be oversensitivity speaking. You completely missed what Heinsoo was trying to say: that people who have played 3.5 forever (I was one of them) eventually learned to gloss over parts of the game that could have been improved because that's just the way things were, and we were so used to them that it didn't really bug us until we were exposed to a system that did it better. It isn't meant to be demeaning at all, it's just an observation on human nature.Third Edition D&D is a good game; in fact, it's so good that some of its problems are easy to miss for long-term players—they're just part of how the game works.This is something I have heard a lot and it just bothers me. I am a long time player of 3e. I had fun, now you telling me I had problems I didn't even know about. That sentence just seems very demeaning to me. Maybe I am just being too oversensitive, but this was a theme that turned me off of 4e right away, the idea that I was not getting what I wanted out of 3ed and the wizards people were going to show me why.
I almost seems like there are two mechanics in the shope talking about me.
"Can you believe this guy, His car has no widget?"
"No widget, how could he drive it without a widget?"
"He didn't even know it was missing, HAHA"
"Wow what a moron, wait till we get him to buy a new car that has a widget, he'll thank us"Meanwhile, I'm driving my car fine...
There's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Whether in fact the new system did it better.
I think the part that people have found demeaning is the couching of the changes made to 4th Ed in language that suggests they are inarguably "improvements" as opposed to "changes."
Sure, I would absolutely expect the folks working on the new edition to think it's cool; I'd be disappointed if they didn't. The point that rankles is that it was frequently stated in fairly explicit terms that "4th Edition rox and 3rd Edition sux."
Comparisons made to playing 3rd Edition being like fingernails on a chalkboard or comparable in fun value to chewing a mouthful of broken glass made by WotC staffers on the WotC website (I recall one dealing with swarms and another about high-level play) were taken as demeaning to people who liked 3rd Ed and its design goals and didn't appreciate being cast as ignorant for not agreeing with the absolute valuation of "improvements" to the game and their necessity because of the putative "obvious flaws" in the older version.
All that said, I'm running a 4th Ed campaign now and seeing how I like it. Wouldn't want to make ill-informed commentary about a game I've never played, after all.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hahaha, oh wow.MY TURN.
I don't care about you.
Also, this board needs to be shut down.
Let me elaborate: I don't care what you do in your game. You enjoy 4e, I enjoy 3e.
My ending statement? This thread has a potentiality to become a major flame war. If flame is what you want, go to EnWorld. 4e vs 3.whatever has been debated for over a year.
It's over man. Stop beating a dead horse. The verdict? Everyone wins, because everyone is happy with the game they are playing.
Tru dat!
|
|
As for WoW - well, I play WoW and can see some influence in mechanics and flavour, but playing a table-top RPG is not the same as playing a MMORPG. It is a social experience, not you sitting in a room with a screen and keyboard talking over Teamspeak. The fact that there is influence is hardly a big deal - the game takes its influence from all over.
Actually this was one of the intended goals of 4e and the DDI setup from day 1. They wanted to offer D&D online for REAL. in the form of the virtual tabletop. However this has been nixed, not due to bad sales possibility or anything, just overambitiousness at launch really. It may yet happen in the future, and it will then be gaming over the net with a teamspeak-esque setup, as a matter of fact there are people who have been doing for years and 4e probably has LOTS doing it now. Just saying.
Ironically, we were talking about just this yesterday with my group (one of our members is thinking of emigrating to Thailand, so the issue was pertinent). Notwithstanding the DDI proto-system, I was dead against us using it instead of meeting physically. If you physically can't get together (y'know, on a different continent) then that's a different issue. But as a player of MMORPGs I would not really want my game going that way if I could avoid it. I appreciate WotC's desire to steal a march on MMORPGs, given that they are in a competitive position, but it isn't a big need for me.
|
|
It would be also good (on both sides) if people didn't get so possessive about the different editions, and take it as "demeaning" that a new one has come along with the intention of improving on the previous version. I mean (other than being a money-spinner) that's the point, right? Personally, I have no problem with 3e being vastly superior to 2e - a system which seemed extremely clunky to me and which was very out of date by the time it was replaced. 4e is a bit more nuanced because it is such a radical departure - it isn't unfair to consider it a whole new game, it just depends on whether that is a problem for you - but the stuff which has caused hissy fits or depressed my players while playing 3e in the past has been extracted from 4e, so I can see that (1) the designers were on to something and (2) it will make my life easier as a DM. Superior to 3e? Maybe. Am I trying to insult anybody with it? No, emphatically not.
EDIT: What Mr Koelbl said.