|
Thought this was an interesting article over on Aintitcool.com ...
I'm not a 4E player, but I thought this was interesting, especially regarding 4E psionics and a new form of multi classing called Hybrids.
The psionics part was very interesting, especially in light of the ongoing conversations here on what a Pathfinder psionics system should or should not look like.
Anyway, read it if you are curious ...
Nah, the Essentials line coming out this fall is 4.5
They can name it whatever they want, but honestly, if these new boxed sets are new builds and new powers and new options for the existing races and classes that will be different from what's in the initial books...how is it NOT a 4.5?
The PH3 is a major rule shark jumping. "Well, I guess people didn't like the multi-classing feats so let's make gestalt rules for people to use instead!"
Psionics needs a tag line, I think it should be "Our Wizards are different." They intentionally made psionics a new set of rules solely because they could in complete aversion to everything they had been doing thus far in 4e. Divine spells? Powers. Arcane spells? Same rules as divine powers. Martial attacks? Same rules as spells. Psionic powers? Let's mix 'em up.
Interesting read, especially the comments below it. Almost 2 years later and people are still having out the edition wars. I don't play 4e, but I have to say it's pretty asinine to post 4e bashing comments in an article about a new 4e book.
I play RPGs, and I just happen to prefer 3.5/PF. If someone else prefers a different system, that's their prerogative.
Opinion of PH3 preview(spoilered for possible flammable materials):
I do have to wonder about the rules expansions for 4e, apparently now they're actually multi-classing(Hybrids)? Maybe soon they'll release a rules expansion where you get trade in Powers for actual Class Features.
But seriously, the Hybrid system sounds a lot better than what they were doing prior. Should be interesting to see how it works out.
Maybe its a 4.5 experimental release like tome of battle was?
I do like hybrids better then multiclassing (3.5 or 4E), but when combining both you have even more choices to make a unique character. As to psionics, I also agree why invent something new, but I will have to play with it to understand if it truely is a great departure from current mechanics, or just a different way to look at them.
The same debate over psionics is being discussed in regards to Pathfinder supporters as to a preference on a system.
All the concepts in PHB3 have been in the DDI online tool for at least 6 months of more, so they come as no major shock to someone that has that type of access (most do), or can suscribe to DDI on any given month to have access to all the current material.
As to comments to D&D 4.5, and pathfinder 3.7, does that imply the release of the advanced player guide for pathfinder will it be 4.2? What does it mean? Games evolve.
As to rules bloat, how can 4E even compare to the complexity of 3.5 or pathfinder?
I understand some people do not like 4E, so I am not going to re-hash any arguments to support one over the other. Because you will find the systems are very similar in most aspects.
But if it is not your cup of tea, then have fun playing 3.5 or pathfinder. I was just taken back by all the negative comments.
As to rules bloat, how can 4E even compare to the complexity of 3.5 or pathfinder?I understand some people do not like 4E, so I am not going to re-hash any arguments to support one over the other. Because you will find the systems are very similar in most aspects.
But if it is not your cup of tea, then have fun playing 3.5 or pathfinder. I was just taken back by all the negative comments.
Welcome to our planet. That feeling you have right now? That's that niggling temptation to destroy it.
But on the subject, I like what they're doing with 4e (gasp! I like Pathfinder too, oh the conflicting feelings!) and psionics. I wouldn't consider it a 4.5 or whatever. Glad to see monks are pretty nice now, and I absolutly love hybrids. Looking forward to seeing more of that.
Pointing out why you don't like a game system isn't edition warring. Saying "if you like game system 'x', you're dumb" is edition warring. That having been said, I'd sincerely like to know how often people post Pathfinder news at the WotC 4e message boards. Does that kind of thing tend to happen only in one direction? I mean, if I wanted to know what is going on with 4e, I'd go to that message board (or to Eric Noah's).
People peddling that crap here shouldn't be surprised many of us don't like 4e. If we liked 4e, Pathfinder probably wouldn't be able to stay in business.Having said that, my comments about this looking like 4.5 weren't a criticism, just an observation of the substantial rule changes.
I do appreciate the position Paizo boards take on allowing people to discuss all versions of D&D. And if I come accross as overly negative in regards to pathfinder, or 4E, then please let me know. I like both systems for different reasons.
And I think people liking 4E is great for Pathfinder business, in regards to introducing people to the core concepts. My opinion is long term players tend to gravitate to more complex systems, and then may diverse to different systems, go back to more abstract, then start the whole cycle over if you are lucky enough to find a good group of players.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
OKAY, SERIOUSLY, SHUT THE F%%# UP ABOUT THE EDITION WARS. GO FIND SOME PLACE ELSE TO HAVE THIS STUPID F@~+ING DEBATE FOR THE 982ND TIME.
GOOD GOD, AM I SICK OF THIS S%$%. IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS, YOU EITHER LIKE IT, OR DON'T. NO ONE CARES HOW YOU FEEL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND, SO JUST KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
Sigh. It seems like every time a new expansion comes out with a number attached (Adventurer's Vault II, PHBIII, etc.), people who know little about the 4e system want to claim rule bloating and the approach of 4.5.
There is a reason I don't go over to the Pathfinder RPG threads and make blanketed statements about certain rules or products. The reason is: I don't know enough about PFRPG to present any quality arguments.
The hybrid system is not a replacement of the 4e multiclass system, but a new set of options. In fact, one could make a hybrid character with multiclassing feats (i.e. using both sets of options).
The Essentials line is not 4.5, as I don't need to replace my current books with the Essentials in order to get the official current game. They have made no statements that they plan major overhauls of basic systems.
Again, keep in mind the Hybrid rules were planned from the beginning - they just didn't feel they were ready when 4E was launched
Really? Gestalt rules wern't ready 2 years ago? I am pretty sure they released UA for 3rd edition 4 years before they released 4e.
The changing of rules for Psionics is rule bloat. Demonstrably. Arcane casters, Divine casters, and martial classes all work the same, but psionics suddenly have different rules? Right. "Our Wizards are different."
Every one of these new options is a new rule, so there are quite a lot of new rules being added. Plus, these new rules are the kind of thing which can create problems when rule X interacts with rule Y.
Interestingly, I've been playing the game since it has been out and allowed every single option, including those presented in Dragon magazine, and I have not experienced any major "rules" conflicts.
...SHUT THE f@~~ UP...
I think the pony is going to have a coronary.
Every one of these new options is a new rule, so there are quite a lot of new rules being added. Plus, these new rules are the kind of thing which can create problems when rule X interacts with rule Y.
I haven't noticed any such conflicts. I think your unfamiliarity with the system you're criticizing might be deflating your arguments a bit.
These rules are in the PHB so, while it is accurate to call them optional (because every rule in the game is optional), they are no more optional than any other rule in the core books.
That doesn't make this suddenly a 4.5. None of the game's core rules from previous books have been invalidated, barring some errata that is freely available online. I'm not sure what the point behind all the 4.5 cries is, anyway. Would WotC updating their game be a bad thing, somehow?
Again, keep in mind the Hybrid rules were planned from the beginning - they just didn't feel they were ready when 4E was launchedReally? Gestalt rules wern't ready 2 years ago? I am pretty sure they released UA for 3rd edition 4 years before they released 4e.
The changing of rules for Psionics is rule bloat. Demonstrably. Arcane casters, Divine casters, and martial classes all work the same, but psionics suddenly have different rules? Right. "Our Wizards are different."
Where you see "rules bloat" I see a cool new mechanic that makes psionics unique and very attractive from a system standpoint.
What is the Essentials line?Nah, the Essentials line coming out this fall is 4.5
The Essentials line is a series of upcoming products designed specifically to target those new to the hobby. They are going to be very entry-level in their scope (though the rules will be the same), and reportedly will begin with a new red box starter set, in the spirit of the original red box. The essentials products will contain player options both new and old, so that everyone has a reason to check them out. This is part of WotC's year-by-year strategy (year 1, launch the game; year 2, bring in lapsed players; year 3, expand the hobby).
Where you see "rules bloat" I see a cool new mechanic that makes psionics unique and very attractive from a system standpoint.Again, keep in mind the Hybrid rules were planned from the beginning - they just didn't feel they were ready when 4E was launchedReally? Gestalt rules wern't ready 2 years ago? I am pretty sure they released UA for 3rd edition 4 years before they released 4e.
The changing of rules for Psionics is rule bloat. Demonstrably. Arcane casters, Divine casters, and martial classes all work the same, but psionics suddenly have different rules? Right. "Our Wizards are different."
I agree, I feel the psionics do add a nice mechanic to the classes. I'm not sure what the point of the hostility is, but it doesn't really matter I guess. A lot of time and energy is being spent arguing points back and forth about 4e this or 3e/pathfinder that. I don't even think the OP had anything to do with any of that. Depending on what you like, there are virtues to both systems. Be happy that you have pathfinder to play if you loved 3e, and if you didn't be happy you have 4e to play. For me 4e works well for my needs, but...I wouldn't kick Pathfinder out of bed (that sweet, sweet, harlot)
Where you see "rules bloat" I see a cool new mechanic that makes psionics unique and very attractive from a system standpoint.Again, keep in mind the Hybrid rules were planned from the beginning - they just didn't feel they were ready when 4E was launchedReally? Gestalt rules wern't ready 2 years ago? I am pretty sure they released UA for 3rd edition 4 years before they released 4e.
The changing of rules for Psionics is rule bloat. Demonstrably. Arcane casters, Divine casters, and martial classes all work the same, but psionics suddenly have different rules? Right. "Our Wizards are different."
Then you have missed the point. There is no reason to make psionics unique. Indeed, the game is designed for everything to be standardized for ease of use. Making psionics unique creates an unnecessary and illogical rules exemption.
Making psionics unique creates an unnecessary and illogical rules exemption.
Can you give me something specific? How are unique rules for psionics illogical?
Again, keep in mind the Hybrid rules were planned from the beginning - they just didn't feel they were ready when 4E was launchedReally? Gestalt rules wern't ready 2 years ago? I am pretty sure they released UA for 3rd edition 4 years before they released 4e.
The changing of rules for Psionics is rule bloat. Demonstrably. Arcane casters, Divine casters, and martial classes all work the same, but psionics suddenly have different rules? Right. "Our Wizards are different."
Gestalt rules are different from hybrid as I understand, as the former allows your to add two classes together (full power from each class), where hybrid allows you to choose from two classes (similar to taking half from each) and combine into one. A hybrid class has the same amount of powers as a standard class, while multiclassing in 4E allows you to subsitute a power from you core class, with one from the multiclass. Even when combined with hybrid build, the resulting character has the same amount of powers as a core character class. So hybrid and multiclass are tools to further customize your class.
As to psionics, it is a trade on encounter powers, to augment you at-wills powers.
Every character gets so many at-will, encounter, utility, and daily powers per level as core character mechanics.
Making psionics unique creates an unnecessary and illogical rules exemption.Can you give me something specific? How are unique rules for psionics illogical?
Because it goes against game design. Martial == Divine == Arcane != Psionics. Wait, what? It makes no sense at all.
Because it goes against game design. Martial == Divine == Arcane != Psionics. Wait, what? It makes no sense at all.Making psionics unique creates an unnecessary and illogical rules exemption.Can you give me something specific? How are unique rules for psionics illogical?
To you maybe, but I see nothing wrong with this at all. To each his own I suppose...
Then you have missed the point. There is no reason to make psionics unique. Indeed, the game is designed for everything to be standardized for ease of use.
Yes, previous classes definitely followed a more standardized pattern than psionics classes do. Clearly, however, the designers wanted to stretch the limits of what the powers mechanic could do, and they did so in creating the psionics classes. That doesn't mean the system is no longer standardized - the psionics system still fits within the at-will power framework; in the respect that it removes the need for encounter powers, it actually simplifies things. The only extra bit you need to keep track of is how many PP you have left during each encounter. That's not really a monumental task.
The game is "designed" for whatever the designers want it to be designed for. Allowing your supposed design precepts to straight-jacket you against what would otherwise be a fun and interesting mechanic is a mistake.
Because it goes against game design. Martial == Divine == Arcane != Psionics. Wait, what? It makes no sense at all.Making psionics unique creates an unnecessary and illogical rules exemption.Can you give me something specific? How are unique rules for psionics illogical?
Again, specifics. How does it go against game design? Just by being different? Each class is unique in its own way anyways. In this specific case, an entire type of power is handled differently. I don't know if this is illogical or goes against game design, but it does provide something unique.
I personally like different mechanics so I'm quite happy with the Psion. And possibly other classes as well. I do wonder how a psion multiclass or hybrid would work, however I can't check it out until my player returns my PH3.
Making a single class more complicated or different doesn't bother me because it doesn't change that the system is still as simple as it was before.
Edit: I would suggest that they way the wizard received daily and utility powers is another example of a mechanic that works differently from the norm.
Because it goes against game design. Martial == Divine == Arcane != Psionics. Wait, what? It makes no sense at all.Making psionics unique creates an unnecessary and illogical rules exemption.Can you give me something specific? How are unique rules for psionics illogical?
Except you skipped right over Divine classes without noting that they, as a power source, receive their own unique subsystem - every Divine class has Channel Divinity powers, and no other power source has access to these powers. They function on their own unique mechanic (you can have multiple CD powers, but only one can be used per encounter).
I think you might need to reconsider some of your assumptions as to what exactly the design precepts of 4e are.
I think it's a creative approach to the psionics classes,
instead of going with the standard way they're structured
from PHB to PHB 2 in respect to at-wills/encounters/dailies,
now you have a different setup that gives you more options,
which to me, makes things interesting. I'm really interested
in trying them out, I think it'll give them a very unique feel
to how they're played in game.
Again, specifics. How does it go against game design? Just by being different? Each class is unique in its own way anyways. In this specific case, an entire type of power is handled differently. I don't know if this is illogical or goes against game design, but it does provide something unique.Because it goes against game design. Martial == Divine == Arcane != Psionics. Wait, what? It makes no sense at all.Making psionics unique creates an unnecessary and illogical rules exemption.Can you give me something specific? How are unique rules for psionics illogical?
Classes may be unique, but power designs were all standard not just for spellcasters but for melee characters as well.
Because it goes against game design. Martial == Divine == Arcane != Psionics. Wait, what? It makes no sense at all.Making psionics unique creates an unnecessary and illogical rules exemption.Can you give me something specific? How are unique rules for psionics illogical?Except you skipped right over Divine classes without noting that they, as a power source, receive their own unique subsystem - every Divine class has Channel Divinity powers, and no other power source has access to these powers. They function on their own unique mechanic (you can have multiple CD powers, but only one can be used per encounter).
I think you might need to reconsider some of your assumptions as to what exactly the design precepts of 4e are.
That's a class ability. They get a standard power out of it.
Classes may be unique, but power designs were all standard not just for spellcasters but for melee characters as well.
I think you're working off either a definition of "standard" that is far too narrow (as it includes the idea that every class must have encounter powers, but does not include every other variation between classes and powers that exists in the game) or is far too nebulous.
That's a class ability. They get a standard power out of it.
Standard in what sense? It's certainly not the same as other encounter powers, since those can be used once per encounter per power, whereas CD powers can be used once per encounter per all CD powers.
This is, I think, a pretty pointless argument. The psionics system is awesome and unique, and it really doesn't matter one way or the other whether it violates any one person's preconceptions about how 4e is supposed to be designed.
Classes may be unique, but power designs were all standard not just for spellcasters but for melee characters as well.I think you're working off either a definition of "standard" that is far too narrow (as it includes the idea that every class must have encounter powers, but does not include every other variation between classes and powers that exists in the game) or is far too nebulous.
That's a class ability. They get a standard power out of it.Standard in what sense? It's certainly not the same as other encounter powers, since those can be used once per encounter per power, whereas CD powers can be used once per encounter per all CD powers.
This is, I think, a pretty pointless argument. The psionics system is awesome and unique, and it really doesn't matter one way or the other whether it violates any one person's preconceptions about how 4e is supposed to be designed.
That is true, when you consider each type of class has its set of features based on class, like divine channeling, ki, spirit companion, pets, rage, stances, forms, shapeshift, runes, augments, etc.
|
1. What Sebastian said.
2. The 4e psionics model is clearly intended to offer an analogous approach to augmenting powers that the 3e psionics system did. Obviously, in the context of the 4e ruleset, it looks slightly different but it is clear that is what it is supposed to do (and is totally consistent with the 4e approach of taking the essence of what happened in previous editions and bringing it into the 4e game in generally creative ways). As such, it is totally consistent with what has come before.
3. Rules-bloat - hello, but how do these companies make money? By writing books, many of them with rules in. What's new. In any case, I have generally found the rules-heavy books in 4e to be better quality than those in 3e, but that may just be my personal preference.
4. Gestalt characters (as the rules make clear) are much trickier to get right than the multiclass characters in the PHB. As such, as I understand, they held back on releasing the rules because it was felt that the "entry-level" PHB was not the right place for them. Plus, they wanted to take a step back from the "anything goes" multiclassing rules in 3e (which caused more problems than they solved for that edition).
Classes may be unique, but power designs were all standard not just for spellcasters but for melee characters as well.I think you're working off either a definition of "standard" that is far too narrow (as it includes the idea that every class must have encounter powers, but does not include every other variation between classes and powers that exists in the game) or is far too nebulous.
Classes have At-Will Powers, Encounter Powers, and Daily Powers. Each work as the name suggest. Psionics changes this for the only possible reason of "Our wizards are different."
Standard in what sense?
In the sense that is a power that works using the same rules as every other non-psionic power. Where is that blasted rolling eye smiley.
It's certainly not the same as other encounter powers, since those can be used once per encounter per power, whereas CD powers can be used once per encounter per all CD powers.
So your counter argument is: CD Encounter powers are an encounter power. That's pretty weak.
Classes may be unique, but power designs were all standard not just for spellcasters but for melee characters as well.I think you're working off either a definition of "standard" that is far too narrow (as it includes the idea that every class must have encounter powers, but does not include every other variation between classes and powers that exists in the game) or is far too nebulous.Classes have At-Will Powers, Encounter Powers, and Daily Powers. Each work as the name suggest. Psionics changes this for the only possible reason of "Our wizards are different."
Standard in what sense?In the sense that is a power that works using the same rules as every other non-psionic power. Where is that blasted rolling eye smiley.
It's certainly not the same as other encounter powers, since those can be used once per encounter per power, whereas CD powers can be used once per encounter per all CD powers.So your counter argument is: CD Encounter powers are an encounter power. That's pretty weak.
Okaaaaaaay, that's the last of that argument.
"Would WotC updating their game be a bad thing, somehow?" Did I say it was? No,I didn't. You sure are awfully defensive, do you have something to be defensive about?
Please, leave that tactic at the door. You were the one who first busted out the term "rule bloat", which is generally agreed to have a negative connotation.
If you want to have a discussion on the merits of a given product, let's. Let's also not make it any sillier a discussion than it has to be.
|
|
Well I for one am looking forward to using the hybrid class system. Seems my cup of tea. Psionists, well for me their Sci-fi not fantasy. Never liked them in ANY edition of D&D.
Bloat; aka an ongoing revenue stream that allows a company to continue producing products. Of course bloat can be viewed as optional additions to a game that you, as the purchaser, make a conscience (and informed?) decision to buy (or not).
Yes 4e as hit on a formula (like Rolemaster did) that makes the generation of new classes a little easier than say 3.5e. But we (collectively) want such things, Pathfinder will add cool classes like Witch etc with the upcoming players book - bloat, by definition yes, but good bloat. If people were truly appalled by bloat then (a) extra books wouldn't sell and (b) they would ditch the D&D model RPG in favor of a points based game where infinite "classes" can be made, limited only by the imagination. As luck would have for WotC and Paizo humans are on a whole lazy and want "canned goods".
S.