LillithsThrall has convinced me to try 4e again.
If I had my way (and I hate to throw more fuel on this particular fire), I'd like to see it handled much in the same way that updates in WoW are - the subscription fee pays for a constant stream of updates, many of which make significant changes to the game based on experience as that game evolves. Now, this has some feasibility problems, especially in that the changes to the game are largely handled by the game in WoW, whereas a human DM needs to handle them in D&D, but the groundwork being laid by D&D Insider is certainly making this particular avenue of escape from the edition treadmill a little more practical.
Most of the players in my group don't care how much errata we have because they have DDI subs. Unfortunately, I have a mac and I can't be bothered to jump the electronic hoops necessary to run DDI on my mac; and I like reading physical books anyway. I'd hate to see DDI become a necessity, but I suppose it would be great for a lot of players.
I've seen the Hybrid as one of the players in our group runs one. Nothing to be really concerned about in my experience. What was created was a fighter/ranger. Pretty much just another Melee Striker in my experience, on par with the parties fighter, a little more mobile and hits a little harder but a little less staying power and AC not quite as good - my cleric is hauling this guys ass out of the fire on a regular basis.
Glad to hear it. I wonder how many of my players will want to play hybrids in my next game...
Oddly enough, as a 4E hater, I kind of like the PHB3. The ability to use what is effectively an encounter power more than once in a single combat, rather than having a power that just doesn't work in one combat or another answers one of the serious problems I had with the system when it first came out. If anyone ever convinces me to try the game again, I will probably play something psionic. More at will powers and the ability to boost them to encounter powers (and to choose which ones I do or do not boost) is exactly the kind of option I like. If this option had existed when they first came out with the system my group might be playing it instead of Pathfinder.
On a related note, I was taken back at first in regards to encounter, utility and dailey powers appearing to be too few (or too rigid in scope) to use over a normal gaming day, but I found it was my bias from 3.5, in regards to spell casting, that fueled the fire. Seriously, a 3.5 spell caster just has more options to play with. And on the other hand, I liked how it enchanced melee type characters, although I still do not like how certain melee powers are limited to certain weapons.
I finally came to the conclusion to play 3.5 or 4E based on what I like, and will migrate to whatever system my friends prefer, as that is the driving force, versus the system.
But I can understand rolling my eyes at all the content wizards releases in regards to 4E and keeping up (if that is considered bloat or maintaining profitability). If it wasn't for DDI, I would be teatering on the edge in regards to how much I would be willing to purchase.
In the same sense, DDI is an expirement, because it allows you to generate thousands of builds, and when players start talking, and they tell two friends, and so on, and so on ... It doesn't take too long to find out what is broken, and as long as any game developer responds to fix it then I am content.
Last night I went to the new DnD Encounters being hosted at my local FLAGs (Favourite Local Area Gaming Store). I got thrown for a bit of curve as we had 11 players show up and there was 1 DM.
The DM and I know each other and have gamed 4e before (though I had not GM'd 4e in over a year). The DM asked if I would take half the players. I agreed and had to get up to speed in fifteen minutes on the adventure (luckily just the first encounter) for the night.
I had a group of five players that had never played 4e before. Three had played 3.5 and one of those had watched once some people play 4e. Two had never done pen and paper roleplaying before.
The good stuff was that the adventure, "Haluster's Aprentice", came with six pre-made characters. The bad stuff was that one of the characters involved rules from the PH2 (Ranger with Beast Option) and two involved rules from the PH3 (Psion and Monk).
I was lucky in that I had purchased a copy of PH3 on Monday and had scanned the psionic rules and was able to handle this wrinkle but I thought it was odd to have that as a character option for their new weekly Forgotten Realms based introduction adventure. It made PH3 and PH2 be 'Core' for me as a GM; so, I knew how to handle the pre-made characters that I was handed. Still, I can understand the reason from a marketing point of view and this is why I understand 'Dark Sun' and Athas will be the next site for the next mini-campaign in 12 weeks from now.
On the good side, I had the rules of the cards and basic mechanics explained for all the players in roughly fifteen minutes and was into running the adventure. All five the players were seasoned MtG players and the At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies with powers that you read off the back of the character cards made it easy for them to know what they could do and when.
Did PH3 make a new and more rule bloated system then say having the Ranger's animal companion or Warlock's Curse? I didn't notice and the players didn't notice. I doubt they would even know there was this hundred message thread and wonder on why this was a controversy because everything flowed smoothly from their point of view and they had fun.
That's two brand new players to pen and paper roleplaying and three more people that had a fun first time experience doing 4e. You can't ask for better than that and it cost those people nothing but taking a couple of hours (6 PM to 8:30 PM and I was slow getting up to speed as I wasn't expecting to run things).
I got to say that I like Wizards approach to marketing as it definately worked on that first night. We even had some Warhammer players on the next over table coming over to check out what game we were playing and having fun.
BTW I play every Saturday in a Pathfinder game and enjoy the new Oracle class that was brought out as a new class for the Advanced Player's Guide player test. I am also curious to see what the Pathfinder crew put in the new DMG they are producing as the Pathfinder Core rule book has pretty much all the material/rules from the old OGL DMG. I also look forward to the Bestiary 2 but then I like all types of RPGs.
Most of the players in my group don't care how much errata we have because they have DDI subs. Unfortunately, I have a mac and I can't be bothered to jump the electronic hoops necessary to run DDI on my mac; and I like reading physical books anyway. I'd hate to see DDI become a necessity, but I suppose it would be great for a lot of players.
If I had my way (and I hate to throw more fuel on this particular fire), I'd like to see it handled much in the same way that updates in WoW are - the subscription fee pays for a constant stream of updates, many of which make significant changes to the game based on experience as that game evolves. Now, this has some feasibility problems, especially in that the changes to the game are largely handled by the game in WoW, whereas a human DM needs to handle them in D&D, but the groundwork being laid by D&D Insider is certainly making this particular avenue of escape from the edition treadmill a little more practical.
Well, conveniently, as long as your players are using the Character Builder, you don't need to worry much about errata. Yeah, there are a handful of (normally pretty obvious) monster changes, and the skill DC chart, but other than that the vast majority of updates/errata is for player material.
The threads themselves don't bother me directly, it is just that it always seems that, in threads in these forums and elsewhere, I'm not going to get away with reading the thread without my game of choice being insulted by someone who really dislikes 4th Edition/Pathfinder/Wizards of the Coast/Paizo. I would count myself lucky if a poster doesn't decide to insult anyone (including me) for playing the hated game just because how often that pops up.I promise you that if you go to the WotC forums to discuss 4e, I won't follow you to post bad things about 4e.
I try to stay out of 4e forums (this case was an accident).
What I'd like to know is why people who are pro-4e are constantly peddling that crap in forums which aren't about 4e.
I would first suggest that you click the triangle next to the D&D 4th Edition section of the boards on the main page to minimize it out of view. It would not only remove it out of immediate viewing, but it should also remove any posts from the 4th edition from the list of recent posts. Makes it very hard to accidentally stumble into any 4e thread, even if their names don't say that they are 4th edition.
As to why pro-4e people come here. I would have to believe that it is because they still like Paizo, even though the products Paizo makes are not directed toward them. Maybe even they enjoy the community, for some reason.
As to answer that question, I believe that you are among the best able to so as you seem to be an anti-4e person who has decide to peddle this in the 4e forum. Despite the dislike for the system that the forum and the thread, you came and sent this here anyway. I have to say that it doesn't seem like any of the pro-4e posters were just "constantly peddling that crap in forums which aren't about 4e." I would suggest that you attempt to treat fellow forum-goers with more respect.
As to why pro-4e people come here. I would have to believe that it is because they still like Paizo, even though the products Paizo makes are not directed toward them.If they like Paizo, then it seems to make sense that they'd come to Paizo boards to discuss Paizo products.
I don't really discuss Paizo products (much), but I come here cause of the Paizo community section, which of course includes the 4e discussion Paizo has graciously provided (which of course they didn't need to do, but they did and I appreciate that). I come here now more then the WoTC forums. The attitudes seem to be much better here IMO.
If they like Paizo, then it seems to make sense that they'd come to Paizo boards to discuss Paizo products.
And no one else could possibly have anything of value to add to the community. Real charmer.
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.
If you don't like people discussing 4E on this messageboard:
(a) don't click on the 4E forum (wow, is that hard to figure out)
(b) convince Paizo to take this forum off their board
Seriously, you're post makes no sense at all.
And why are they excited about the new rules? Looks to me that the reason is that they are no longer content with the old rules and the reason is that they are starting to see the flaws in the old rules.
These are all new options that the 4E gaming base is almost universally excited about.
Are you excited about the Advanced Player's Guide for Pathfinder? If so, does that mean that you don't like Pathfinder any more?
I never meant to give you the impression that I like 4e. I'd rather claw my eyes out with a rusty garden fork.
Then why are you on a 4E forum? Can't help yourself?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Quoth Charlie Brown "Good grief."
I mean, come on. The dude shows up, posts a pretty heavily qualified IMO type opinion with a minor pot shot against 4e. Lord knows the edition warriors can't let a minor pot shot against 4e stand unanswered, so the 4e Hero Corps swoop in and, surprise, surprise, when confronted, the guy gets a little more aggressive in his dislike of 4e. Then, he basically backs off and says "oh yeah, this thread didn't start out in the 4e section, so I'll just leave unless people keep responding to me."
And what happens?
You keep responding to him?
Hooray, edition warrior, this one goes out to you.
For Christ's sake, just ignore the f%*!ing pot shot in the first place and have a conversation about 4e with the people who want to talk about 4e (myself included). And when someone who doesn't like 4e offers to leave because they just don't have anything nice to say - LET THEM F&#@ING LEAVE. These 4e threads would be a lot better if you could just act like adults and ignore the barbs that are designed to get under your skin.
Nothing must be used at all times. That's what rule 0 is about. But that doesn't mean that there is no core. And with it being core, the GM has to say 'no' to core rules, not just 'no'. That increases conflict and misunderstandings.
No, it doesn't. People do that. Core does not mean the same thing as it did in the past. It is no harder to say no now than it has been in any edition.
Your point?
That point was directed more at the general conversation on rules bloat. The designers stayed close to the base mechanics for a while, but they always planned to expand on those mechanics in different ways. The PHB3 psionics, Dark Sun themes, and the upcoming Gamma World game are examples of stretching the game so it doesn't become stagnant.
As to why pro-4e people come here. I would have to believe that it is because they still like Paizo, even though the products Paizo makes are not directed toward them.If they like Paizo, then it seems to make sense that they'd come to Paizo boards to discuss Paizo products.
Well a lot of what we talk about on the 4E section of the forum is essentially about Paizo products. A fair number of us are converters or using others conversions of Paizo material into 4E.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For Christ's sake, just ignore the f&!!ing pot shot in the first place and have a conversation about 4e with the people who want to talk about 4e (myself included). And when someone who doesn't like 4e offers to leave because they just don't have anything nice to say - LET THEM f&!!ING LEAVE. These 4e threads would be a lot better if you could just act like adults and ignore the barbs that are designed to get under your skin.I can only assume that they don't want this argument to stop.
That is a more charitable assumption than I would make...
It's a lost cause, sooner or later someone will want thier fifteen minutes of fame and post "The Great Discovery". Posting a combo that specifically gets nerfed by WOTC? That's the Nobel Prize of Munchkining!
Pretty much any real cool combo that gets found by the optimizers gets nerfed by WotC errata in a fairly timely manner. In fact if you do have an obscure game breaking combo you had best guard that secret and never breath a word of it - if your babbling on about it high and low its going to come to WotCs attention and you can pretty much bank on your combo being nerfed.
Well as long as it gets nerfed they can have their nobel prize. My interest is that the designers keep on top of things and make sure that balance is maintained. In this regard the Munchkins are actually doing me a favour by correcting balance problems, for the most part before they ever become a factor at my table since chances are the nerf hammer will have come down and corrected most of the problem area's of, say the Shaman, before one of the players even gets around to playing a Shaman.
So its true that a DM can be the play balancer for any table - but honestly I'd rather the designers do this sort of lifting for us so that unbalanced classes and such don't often even come up. At my table we've not had an issue in this regards for quite some time - we're just not playing with the newest material at high enough level quickly enough for such issues to crop up. Instead we get stuff like I'm hearing that there is a Divine power thats broken but long before we get to the level where its available I read in the errata that its been fixed. In the end I'm very happy with the way WotC is handling this - play balance issues don't crop up at our table and thats the way I like it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Pretty much any real cool combo that gets found by the optimizers gets nerfed by WotC errata in a fairly timely manner. In fact if you do have an obscure game breaking combo you had best guard that secret and never breath a word of it - if your babbling on about it high and low its going to come to WotCs attention and you can pretty much bank on your combo being nerfed.
Funny story about that - one of my players had an entire feat (or maybe it was a power) deleted out form under him between character updates. He had an ability that let him retain a warlock encounter power by taking damage equal to the level of the power. He leveled his character and suddenly, the ability was no longer available. It was just missing from his character sheet and couldn't be found anywhere in the charater generator.
Funny story about that - one of my players had an entire feat (or maybe it was a power) deleted out form under him between character updates. He had an ability that let him retain a warlock encounter power by taking damage equal to the level of the power. He leveled his character and suddenly, the ability was no longer available. It was just missing from his character sheet and couldn't be found anywhere in the charater generator.Pretty much any real cool combo that gets found by the optimizers gets nerfed by WotC errata in a fairly timely manner. In fact if you do have an obscure game breaking combo you had best guard that secret and never breath a word of it - if your babbling on about it high and low its going to come to WotCs attention and you can pretty much bank on your combo being nerfed.
The feat you're thinking of is Sacrifice to Caiphon. Speaking as a star-pact, Student of Caiphon warlock player, I can assure you it is very much still there. It was changed recently to only apply to warlock encounter powers, but the requirements for the feat itself were not changed. Your player may be experiencing a bug, but I'd urge him to double-check. My Character Builder still has the feat included, so it's definitely not a universal problem.
Sebastian's gotten much angrier than he used to be.
And I like it.
i play 4e, and i buy paizo products. i just bought an a$$ton of gamemaster cards, if you dont have them, i cant recommend the face cards enough. they are the cats meow. i really hope that they do alot of those types of cards.
i also buy dungeon tiles and minis from wotc. both companys have great things to have at the game table that dont have anything to do with rules.
get together, drink beer, role dice. because, if your going to sit in your basement and pretend to be an elf, you might as well have some friends over.
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.
You're wrong and you should feel bad!
There is certainly plenty of stuff I'd change if I had a chance to revise the whole edition, but I imagine its that way for everyone. :) The 82 page errata seems a lot heftier than it actually is, though - and I'm actually pretty happy with the Wizard these days. It's big initial weakness was At-Wills, and it has had some solid options these days.But yeah, Expertise? I want to smack whatever designer came up with that and have continued to keep it in the system. Terrible idea born out of backlash to a largely nonexistent problem, poorly executed several times over. I'm less bothered by the defense feats, but still dislike any 'must have' feats floating around in the game.
I think the error they made here was in aiming to have the feats be a little to weak.
When they decided that they were looking for feats that would have a strength of about +1 to hit they closed off to much design space and essentially limited the amount of new and cool feats they could create that fell within that power level. Down the road this becomes an issue because its hard to fill splat books with dozens of new feats and make them both interesting and as weak as is required.
They should have seen this coming and chosen a slightly more powerful base point for feat power - maybe make it so the average feat was meant to be about the equal of an encounter power. In this way they would have allowed them the kind of design space needed to fill splat book after splat book with feats.
As a side bonus they'd open up more design space to use feats as stand ins for class abilities and such. One could for example use a feat to get an encounter power that hones ones character more in a specific direction or to focus the character down a specific archtype.
On the other hand I do respect why they where trying to keep the feats weak - that aspect is important if the goal is to try and and make it so that a fighter that spends his feats on combat stuff is not to much better then the fighter that uses all their feats for skill focus and skill training. Make the feats better and its more difficult to make it so that these two fighters can adventure together.
I think the error they made here was in aiming to have the feats be a little to weak.
There is certainly plenty of stuff I'd change if I had a chance to revise the whole edition, but I imagine its that way for everyone. :) The 82 page errata seems a lot heftier than it actually is, though - and I'm actually pretty happy with the Wizard these days. It's big initial weakness was At-Wills, and it has had some solid options these days.But yeah, Expertise? I want to smack whatever designer came up with that and have continued to keep it in the system. Terrible idea born out of backlash to a largely nonexistent problem, poorly executed several times over. I'm less bothered by the defense feats, but still dislike any 'must have' feats floating around in the game.
Eh, I'm happy with the power level of most feats. I like not having to think about them too much.
I tend to be in the 'expertise should be built right into the game' camp, but I'd be almost as happy if WotC stunted PC AC advancement as much as attack and NAD advancements are stunted. (Seriously, why would anyone want PCs in general to become more comparatively defensive as they gain levels?) I'd also appreciate if WotC came right out and said "Heroic/Paragon/Epic tiers are supposed to be like Normal/Nightmare/Hell difficulty, in terms of optimization."
Eh, I'm happy with the power level of most feats. I like not having to think about them too much.I tend to be in the 'expertise should be built right into the game' camp, but I'd be almost as happy if WotC stunted PC AC advancement as much as attack and NAD advancements are stunted. (Seriously, why would anyone want PCs in general to become more comparatively defensive as they gain levels?) I'd also appreciate if WotC came right out and said "Heroic/Paragon/Epic tiers are supposed to be like Normal/Nightmare/Hell difficulty, in terms of optimization."
I'm unclear if your getting my point. I'm actually happy with the power level as well and I suspect for much the same reason, but I don't think that power level is a realistic option unless the plan is to only do a handful of splat books.
Because the reality on the ground was always that there were going to be a zillion splat books (unless the game flopped) the power level chosen simply ceased to be really viable, there is just not enough interesting one can do within the design space available for such fairly weak feats. The result has been feats have a tendency to simply get better as books come out or there is an attempt to make a feat really good but only in a limited sphere of applications. This however should be raising red flags in terms of game design and balance because anything that is very potent but only over a limited sphere is a recipe for munchkinism.
I'm not saying we are there yet and with the way WotC nerfs manically we probably won't get this issue to badly but the choice of making the feats weaker was the wrong choice in conjunction with the fact that they'd also need to fill book after book after book with feats - and have those feats be interesting enough that the player base would go out and buy those books.
In sum the weaker feats are whats best for the game if they where going to stop making splat books after year two but the reality is that they have painted themselves into a corner with the power level of the feats as they are and the only way out of this corner is the introduction of 'power creep'.
I'm contending that 'power creep' is the worst of both worlds - and better for all concerned if they had just made the feats stronger to begin with. As it stands your likely going to have to both think about them and deal with the fact that newer feats are often just better then older feats. Annoying any way you look at it.
I'm unclear if your getting my point. I'm actually happy with the power level as well and I suspect for much the same reason, but I don't think that power level is a realistic option unless the plan is to only do a handful of splat books.
Eh, I'm happy with the power level of most feats. I like not having to think about them too much.
I think that no matter what power level they had originally chosen for feats, fitting these zillion feats into it would have become impossible. If the original power level had been a bit higher, they'd still eventually splurge into 'overpowered' and 'underpowered' territory. So personally, I'd point my finger at the zillion feats as the ultimate problem.
But eh, whatever.
I understand you concern and even agree with you. Its absolutely the case that a player that focuses on combat feats can't be allowed to get so out of hand that one that does not focus on combat feats can no longer adventure with them.
On this we see eye to eye. Still if one were able to stack all these +1 to hit feats on top of each other we'd still have this problem. I think the real babysitter in this regard is the rules around stacking bonuses.
If you don't like people discussing 4E on this messageboard:(a) don't click on the 4E forum (wow, is that hard to figure out)
(b) convince Paizo to take this forum off their board
Seriously, you're post makes no sense at all.
This post didn't start in the 4e boards, it was eventually moved here. So for those of us 3.e/PF guys at the very start of the thread who made a few comments, that's why. I was even a little puzzled why it didn't start in these boards.
I'll keep it short. For all those who are saying "4.5! Rulez bloat!" even I can see this is not the case. It's just some new game options to play around with. A ".5" revision would be if the whole system got revised, as we saw in 3.5. This is not the case. More toys to play with isn't a bad thing, and that's precisely what PH3 is; more toys, more fun.
I just wanted to clear my end a little bit, since I did post around the start of the thread with a slightly snarky comment. No harm intended, please enjoy the new book, it does sound like it has some pretty neat stuff in it.
/threadjack
If you don't like people discussing 4E on this messageboard:(a) don't click on the 4E forum (wow, is that hard to figure out)
(b) convince Paizo to take this forum off their board
Seriously, you're post makes no sense at all.
This post didn't start in the 4e boards, it was eventually moved here. So for those of us 3.e/PF guys at the very start of the thread who made a few comments, that's why. I was even a little puzzled why it didn't start in these boards.
I'll keep it short. For all those who are saying "4.5! Rulez bloat!" even I can see this is not the case. It's just some new game options to play around with. A ".5" revision would be if the whole system got revised, as we saw in 3.5. This is not the case. More toys to play with isn't a bad thing, and that's precisely what PH3 is; more toys, more fun.
Well, the reason I am snickering to myself "tee-hee...4.5...tee-hee", is that the "new options" include Psionics rules that don't work like any other power source, all the rest of which work the same. Psionics has always had a 'different' system, usually abuseable/broken, and it was one of the few things that 4E's 'Power Source' system could actually fix....and they changed it for Psionics...to what seems to me to be a more "flexible" (i.e. abuse prone) version of a Power Source.
....tee-hee...
Well, the reason I am snickering to myself "tee-hee...4.5...tee-hee", is that the "new options" include Psionics rules that don't work like any other power source, all the rest of which work the same. Psionics has always had a 'different' system, usually abuseable/broken, and it was one of the few things that 4E's 'Power Source' system could actually fix....and they changed it for Psionics...to what seems to me to be a more "flexible" (i.e. abuse prone) version of a Power Source.....tee-hee...
If they had done psionics earlier then it might have made sense to slot them into the more standardized way of doing powers but as it stands its just a bit to late to go down that route. There simply is an upper limit to what one can do with powers. There are only so many effects and combinations of effects one can have especially considering that everything needs to be of roughly the same power and the different classes need to feel different.
I'm not sure how many good combinations of pushing and pulling and adding buffs to friends or debuffs or negative conditions to enemies there are though I'd make a rough guess at maybe 150 possible combinations that actually have a different look and feel. I figure by this point they have been over the options in fact probably several times (with minor twists) for each class and have reached the threshold of what can be done with the classes without adding some significant new twist to the mechanics. Not to say that there are not powers that don't already have such twists - Druid has some as does Barbarian and anyone with divine powers has powers that use slightly different rules.
The Barbarian maybe is the closest to this already. It has powers that say 'if your raging then add a ton of bonuses to this power' which is essentially a different form of enhancement mechanic but is over all very similar in the sense that the psion says I use my psionics to enhance power X while a Barbarian says I rage to enhance power X.
While it may be that the powers are abusable I'm not the least concerned in this regards - WotC will errata any errors they may have made here so thats just a non-issue. I've not seen a real, in the flesh, successful munchkin build at my table in a long time. It just does not come up.
Quoth Charlie Brown "Good grief."
I mean, come on. The dude shows up, posts a pretty heavily qualified IMO type opinion with a minor pot shot against 4e. Lord knows the edition warriors can't let a minor pot shot against 4e stand unanswered, so the 4e Hero Corps swoop in and, surprise, surprise, when confronted, the guy gets a little more aggressive in his dislike of 4e. Then, he basically backs off and says "oh yeah, this thread didn't start out in the 4e section, so I'll just leave unless people keep responding to me."
And what happens?
You keep responding to him?
Hooray, edition warrior, this one goes out to you.
For Christ's sake, just ignore the f#*~ing pot shot in the first place and have a conversation about 4e with the people who want to talk about 4e (myself included). And when someone who doesn't like 4e offers to leave because they just don't have anything nice to say - LET THEM f#*~ING LEAVE. These 4e threads would be a lot better if you could just act like adults and ignore the barbs that are designed to get under your skin.
+1
I think it is appropriate to respond to a statement if it miss-represents a system or mechanic, but at the same time we have to be wise when to avoid endless arguments over a single point, especially when you realize neither party is going to change their opinion.
Enough said, I will have more to state, once I play the PHB3 classes some more.
the "new options" include Psionics rules that don't work like any other power source, all the rest of which work the same. Psionics has always had a 'different' system, usually abuseable/broken, and it was one of the few things that 4E's 'Power Source' system could actually fix....and they changed it for Psionics...to what seems to me to be a more "flexible" (i.e. abuse prone) version of a Power Source.
We've had a bit of limited experience with 4e's psionics system, and it didn't seem broken or abusive to me. I'm sure someone will find exploits with the system, however, it seems to me that such exploits will generally fall into the typical problem of poorly written powers, rather than an overall broken system.
One nice thing about 4e is that the entire system is very "modular." You don't like the psionics? Just drop the psionic power source. It's already been rumored (confirmed?) that 4e Dark Sun is going to drop the divine power source. No Clerics, Paladins, Avengers, Invokers, etc. You'd probably have a hard time doing that in 3rd edition without making massive changes to the rules (especially regarding healing) In 4e? No problem.
It's already been rumored (confirmed?) that 4e Dark Sun is going to drop the divine power source.
This is confirmed. And yeah, removing a power source completely has basically no effect on the playability of the game. If you don't like divine/arcane/psionic/shadow/jellybeans, you can just excise them without really feeling any consequences.
It's already been rumored (confirmed?) that 4e Dark Sun is going to drop the divine power source.This is confirmed. And yeah, removing a power source completely has basically no effect on the playability of the game. If you don't like divine/arcane/psionic/shadow/jellybeans, you can just excise them without really feeling any consequences.
I'm actually rather glad to read this honestly (about Dark Sun). I'm not heavily invested in 4e, but am looking forward to the Dark Sun Campaign stuff, and plan to pick it up around its release. Leaving the divine power source in would be pretty ingeniousness to the setting honestly. I am curious how they will handle the defiler/preserver aspect. Any word on this yet?
Characters who use the Arcane power source will have an at will ability called Arcane Defiling. It's an at-will, free action power which allows you to re-roll attack or damage rolls when you use a daily power.
However, when you use it, all allies within 20 squares take damage equal to half their surge value. As a visual effect, plants in the area wither and die.
It's already been rumored (confirmed?) that 4e Dark Sun is going to drop the divine power source.This is confirmed. And yeah, removing a power source completely has basically no effect on the playability of the game. If you don't like divine/arcane/psionic/shadow/jellybeans, you can just excise them without really feeling any consequences.
Not trying to start anything, but shouldn't there be some kind of consequences? By removing a fairly large chunk of the system, and everything still running smooth, doesn't this add to the "everything plays the same" argument? I'm not questioning the edition, so much as questioning this editorial decision by the developers.
Again, not trying to start a fire. Not faulting the system, it just seems odd to me that a significant component can just be dropped and nothing changes. It'd be like yanking your alternator out of your car and it running fine. In other games(plural) that I've played, any time a significant component is either removed, or at least severely hindered, such as no healing magic in Dragonlance during the War of the Lance era, there is a major impact on overall gameplay.
Maybe it's a sign of the strength of the system, and I'm lookin at it backwards.
EDIT: after giving it some thought, I guess it's not all that different from there being no Jedi during the Rebellion Era in Star Wars.
Thanks to all Power Sources having Leader Role (the healer-types for those who don't know 4e), you don't NEED the Divine Power Source. I think it fits into the setting since the original Dark Sun didn't have Paladins, and Clerics worshipped the elements or Sorcerer Kings because there were no gods. With the way the mechanics of 4e work, you can drop Divine Powers and the game still works.
Not trying to start anything, but shouldn't there be some kind of consequences? By removing a fairly large chunk of the system, and everything still running smooth, doesn't this add to the "everything plays the same" argument?
That's a valid question, and the answer is: maybe? The system is designed in a "modular" fashion, so removing a power source (or adding one) doesn't cripple the game. It does change the feel of the game substantially. Most of the Divine characters, regardless of their role (striker, defender, leader, controller) are good at healing and buffs/debuffs. The drawback is, as you have mentioned, that because of the modular nature of the game, there's some repetition between classes. For example, look at the leader classes (cleric, warlord, bard, shaman). each of them has a healing ability that works basically the same way: minor action, target guy gets back healing surge + 1d6 hp. However, they each perform that action in their own special way: the cleric gets some bonus healing, the warlord gets to shift the target around, the bard give the target some temporary hp in addition to the healing, and the shaman (I can't remember). So, some redundancy, but with minor adjustments that make a big difference in the way a class feels on the table.
I'm more excited about Darksun than anything in all of D&D for a while now. Best part they release on my Birthday so I think I'll be getting the books from someone in my family or atleast a trip to pick them up at a store. The only book they could release to make me more excited would be an authentic exact reprint of the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia... Now that would be something.
why dont you just buy the original rules cyclopedia?
why dont you just buy the original rules cyclopedia?
Good stuff (I have the 2nd edition material) but the short answer for me is 3rd edition was better and it was better enough to leave behind the 2nd edition campaign settings - even great ones like Dark Sun. Since I'm very happy with 4th there is no real chance of me going back to 2nd.
There is also a great deal of curiosity about what will be done with Dark Sun and there is some significant chance that the campaign setting will actually mesh very well with 4E as Dark Sun was always a little 'over the top' in its look and feel and 4E, with its cinematic style, may well compliment this very well. Maybe not of course but we won't know until we get the books