I note that ShinHakkaider's frothing attack on Scott Betts has had seven people so far flag it as a favorite. Is this the level to which Paizo has sunk? Even if you don't like Scott's posts on 4e, a personal attack on the man is in your favorites? I'm disgusted that the people on this site have sunk to this.
To quote Scott:
Really? Really?!
|
Of course, The 4E Mutual Appreciation Society failed to notice Scott's slam on Hama in his very first post.
Double standards, infull, upfront, nude and horny.
No, I just think it's a shame that people want to "thumbs-up" other people for personally abusive posts. Feels like message board harrassment to me. I didn't think Scott's post was abusive anyway, maybe lacking in tact, but certainly not fizzing with the hostility of ShinHakkaider's. Maybe he should have been more abusive, to get those favorites rolling in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, The 4E Mutual Appreciation Society failed to notice Scott's slam on Hama in his very first post.
Double standards, infull, upfront, nude and horny.
It was far from a slam, and for those that play 4E and enjoy it, there is a mutual appreciation of the game. What people don't like is Scott will not back down from an argument. And regardless of the poster, we all have our moments.
You would all be cheering him on if he only played Pathfinder, and spoke about 4E in derogatory terms any chance he gets. Then he truely would be your favorite.
But keep on fueling the fire, if that is what you enjoy. If Hama has an issue with Scott, or vice versa, then let them work it out.
We all have our moments where we let ourselves get caught up and post things we probably shouldn't. The best thing to do for both sides is accept that no one is perfect and focus on the posts worth focusing on.
|
Of course, The 4E Mutual Appreciation Society failed to notice Scott's slam on Hama in his very first post.
Double standards, infull, upfront, nude and horny.
It was far from a slam, and for those that play 4E and enjoy it, there is a mutual appreciation of the game. What people don't like is Scott will not back down from an argument. And regardless of the poster, we all have our moments.
You would all be cheering him on if he only played Pathfinder, and spoke about 4E in derogatory terms any chance he gets. Then he truely would be your favorite.
But keep on fueling the fire, if that is what you enjoy. If Hama has an issue with Scott, or vice versa, then let them work it out.
If somebody calls out a poster's opinions as "silly", it's a slam. It's not "well I disagree", it's not "I doubt that's correct", what Scott did was pure, 100% flame.
The fact that Scott's fanaticism drives him to attack positive opinions about 4e is so hilarious that I still think this thread is some hallucination of mine.
|
@ Scott: Dude, there will allways be people who will dislike 4th editon. There will always be those who will openly hate it. There will always be those who don't give a damn. And of course those who like it and can't get enough of it. As soon as you get over the fact than not everybody will like your favorite system for whatever reason and learn to ignore their comments you vehemently disagree with, the better will this all be.
Sometimes i think that when you see somebody type 4th edition you get in some kind of defensive mode for no reason. You will not change anybodys mind. Not like that. Be polite and considerate, and maybe you will.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I note that ShinHakkaider's frothing attack on Scott Betts has had seven people so far flag it as a favorite. Is this the level to which Paizo has sunk? Even if you don't like Scott's posts on 4e, a personal attack on the man is in your favorites? I'm disgusted that the people on this site have sunk to this.Let's not blame all of Paizo. Remember, there's a very easy way to see which members of the community have decided to support personal attacks against someone they disagree with.
Personal Attack?
A personal attack would be calling a poster stupid or ignorant.
I favorited his post because he showed great restraint in dealing with a person that likes to troll the forums not understanding why people don't like what they like.
1. It has an MMO feel, a slight one, but still it has it. Nothing wrong with that. It kidna suits the game
3. I am sorry all you 4E lovers/defenders out there, but it does not feel like D&D. At all. It is a great game, but it is not D&D in the sense of what D&D was for the past 36 or some years.
I'd be curious to hear some specifics about what made you think these?
I've never really understood the MMO argument, although it obviously comes up a lot - in my mind all RPGs feel a bit like MMOs but I just presumed that's because MMOs were trying to replicate the RPG feel. If they're any good at it an RPG should feel like an MMO, imo.
I'm surprised about the second though. I had the same opinion from reading the 4th edition books when they came out, but it disappeared as soon as I actually played the game (at least once I got used to the mechanics). It's been my opinion that 4th edition reads like something else, but the actual play of the game doesnt feel any different to me than any other RPG (I dont have much experience with D&D from 2nd edition onwards, but have played a bunch of other systems extensively). What were the features which you thought it had which didnt appear in earlier editions? Or what did it lack?
I've never really understood the MMO argument, although it obviously comes up a lot - in my mind all RPGs feel a bit like MMOs but I just presumed that's because MMOs were trying to replicate the RPG feel. If they're any good at it an RPG should feel like an MMO, imo.
That seems to be the source of contention. I don't mind MMOs, but I don't want my tabletop experience to feel the same as the experience I get in front of a computer. I play both types of games for different reasons. 4E and 3.x/Pathfinder are the same thing. They are both good games, but they require completely different mindsets to enjoy. I never felt that going between 3.x and 2nd edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
4E can be fun, but it is not like other editions of D&D. 3.x may have been different from 2nd ed, but it didn't change the basic roles of the classes.
"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. "
-Gary Gygax, 2004
Again, everyone here who thinks 3e was a perfectly accepted happy no-problems transition and embodies everything about D&D...leave the Paizo forums! Go talk to other people! Go to Dragonsfoot, where they refuse to use 3e and instead call it "The Edition That Shall Not Be named."
Go talk to some OSR folk, or some guys who are old school without using the OSR stuff. Talk to people who started at 1st and ended at 1st. Talk to guys who opened with the Red Box and never went beyond.
Ask them if they agree on 3e being the true embodiment of D&D.
...Or, ask Gygax. Who thought 3e represented comic-book superheroes more then a fantasy RPG. Who thought 3e focused on nothing but combat and character power. Who, in other words, repeated all the same complaints you have about 4e, but said them about 3e.
|
|
Coming back from the second session of 4th edition, it was fun, again, but it reinforced my opinion even further. But i'll reiterate. I. HAD. FUN. PLAYING. 4TH. EDITION.
@ Steve:
I have played WoW, LOTRO, Lineage 2, DDO and some other MMOs but those others i have played briefly.
When i play 4th edition i just feel like on a raid. I use my powers and try to do something to complement the overall victory. I don't know, maybe it is just the way i see it, but to me it plays like an MMO. And as much as i like certain MMOs, i do not want my tabletop experience to be the same.
Actualy, this time it felt more like warhammer then like an MMO. But like a small squad warhammer. Too much emphasis on combat for my taste.
I KNOW that the game can be played with emphasis on roleplay, but it has everyting to do with the GM and not much to do with the rules which are, for my taste, too vague when it comes to roleplaying.
2. When i play 3rd edition (Pathfinder), it still feels like it felt when i played 2nd editon. That perfect imbalance of classes is there. Everybody is goood at what they do, and what they do is not the same. That difference is what makes for a good party. Now everybody does practicaly the same thing, it is just labeled differently. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is fun, bur for my taste, it is too much of a departure from the design philosophies of previous editions which were much more similar. Compare 2e and 3e. Then compare 3e and 4e.
I'm sorry, but it just no longer feels like D&D to me anymore. It is a good game when not compared to it's predecessors, but it is very unlike any previous incarnation of D&D.
I dont have much experience with D&D from 2nd edition onwards, but have played a bunch of other systems extensively
That i guess would be the main reason. If you haven't played 2nd edition untill 3rd came out and then played 3rd untill pathfinder came out...you probably would not understand why it no longer feels like D&D.
@ Cirno:
Gygax was a bitter old man who hated what people did with 'his game' even when he was with TSR....when the forced him out and had that nasty law suit...it pretty much had him say nasty things about any edition of D&D that has been released after he left.
Trust me when I say that 99% of D&D players out there would hate to be in a game Gygax ran....that his not being involved in the hobby anymore was probably not only the best thing to ever happen for D&D but RPGs in general.
Gygax's comments are the ultimate example of nerdrage.
Nuff said...i grealy appreciate what Gygax did for all of us...but that was spoken out of bitterness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4E can be fun, but it is not like other editions of D&D. 3.x may have been different from 2nd ed, but it didn't change the basic roles of the classes."The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. "
-Gary Gygax, 2004
Again, everyone here who thinks 3e was a perfectly accepted happy no-problems transition and embodies everything about D&D...leave the Paizo forums! Go talk to other people! Go to Dragonsfoot, where they refuse to use 3e and instead call it "The Edition That Shall Not Be named."
Go talk to some OSR folk, or some guys who are old school without using the OSR stuff. Talk to people who started at 1st and ended at 1st. Talk to guys who opened with the Red Box and never went beyond.
Ask them if they agree on 3e being the true embodiment of D&D.
...Or, ask Gygax. Who thought 3e represented comic-book superheroes more then a fantasy RPG. Who thought 3e focused on nothing but combat and character power. Who, in other words, repeated all the same complaints you have about 4e, but said them about 3e.
With all due respect to Gygax, I'm frankly more interested in hearing from current developers, not someone who ceased to have an active role a long time ago. I know he still has a strong influence, but since he's not the one actually developing the system at this point, his opinion is not the one that ultimately matters.
Also, I never said the transition from 2nd ed to 3.x was flawless, just that the core mechanics behind the different classes remained largely intact, therefore the flavor of the classes themselves didn't really change. Since the basic flavor of the aspect that players are most familiar with didn't change, the other mechanical changes were more easily tolerated. This allowed the majority of players to transition after a relatively small amount of complaining.
|
|
Double standards, infull, upfront, nude and horny.
Let just ignore the fact that the same posters pretty much have had at least two 4E threads locked. i'm no saint when it comes to posting. Yet neither am I going into every PF thread looking for an excuse for a fight. Could Scott post have been more diplomatic in presentation yes. I saw nothing in any of them where he slames anyone. in the end I'm not ther poster acting liking a sterotypical anti-4E fan. And chances are because of the same posters this thread will also get closed. In the end the harcore anit-4E crowd is not doing Pathfinder or Paizo any favors. None at all. Your chasing away anyone who would be interesting in PF yet likes 4E. Your giving the Paizo community a negative reputation.
|
|
It was far from a slam, and for those that play 4E and enjoy it, there is a mutual appreciation of the game. What people don't like is Scott will not back down from an argument. And regardless of the poster, we all have our moments.You would all be cheering him on if he only played Pathfinder, and spoke about 4E in derogatory terms any chance he gets. Then he truely would be your favorite.
But keep on fueling the fire, if that is what you enjoy. If Hama has an issue with Scott, or vice versa, then let them work it out.
A great post. Too bad it will fall on deaf years. I bet the same things will happen in more upcoming 4E threads unless the mods put a stop to it.
The level of visciousness in 4E threads ebbs and flows. About all the mods can do when it flows is let both sides get it out of their system while keeping it from becoming outright civil war.
When i play 4th edition i just feel like on a raid. I use my powers and try to do something to complement the overall victory. I don't know, maybe it is just the way i see it, but to me it plays like an MMO. And as much as i like certain MMOs, i do not want my tabletop experience to be the same.
Cheers. What I meant, I guess, was why Pathfinder doesnt feel like that? Is it that you're doing something else as well when you're playing pathfinder?
2. When i play 3rd edition (Pathfinder), it still feels like it felt when i played 2nd editon. That perfect imbalance of classes is there. Everybody is goood at what they do, and what they do is not the same. That difference is what makes for a good party. Now everybody does practicaly the same thing, it is just labeled differently. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is fun, bur for my taste, it is too much of a departure from the design philosophies of previous editions which were much more similar. Compare 2e and 3e. Then compare 3e and 4e.
I'm sorry, but it just no longer feels like D&D to me anymore. It is a good game when not compared to it's predecessors, but it is very unlike any previous incarnation of D&D.
I dont have much experience with D&D from 2nd edition onwards, but have played a bunch of other systems extensivelyThat i guess would be the main reason. If you haven't played 2nd edition untill 3rd came out and then played 3rd untill pathfinder came out...you probably would not understand why it no longer feels like D&D.
Maybe - although I played a lot of AD&D, and my experience with 4th edition is closer to that than it is when I play 3.5/pathfinder. If you started with 2nd edition, maybe we just have a different baseline. Did you play much AD&D?
|
|
The level of visciousness in 4E threads ebbs and flows. About all the mods can do when it flows is let both sides get it out of their system while keeping it from becoming outright civil war.
Agreed except lately it seems pretty bad. I'm not asking for a perfect forum> yet with some posters it's anything an everything as an excuse to crap on 4E. While also being made fun of for defending 4E.
Maybe - although I played a lot of AD&D, and my experience with 4th edition is closer to that than it is when I play 3.5/pathfinder. If you started with 2nd edition, maybe we just have a different baseline. Did you play much AD&D?
I played a lot of every edition until 4th (I have played some 4th and it is a fine game, but not one I enjoy). For me the biggest difference in going from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th, was that I was ready to go from 2nd to 3rd. 2nd had gotten to the point where there was so many different optional subsystems (NWP, kits, psionics, CBoH, S&P, etc) that every time you joined a new group there was a quiz about what was allowed. With 3rd it was what books do you allow, but that didn't really change the game play (you still had feats, skills, prestige classes, etc). So for me when 4th was announced I was willing to accept a 1st to 2nd edition rules change. That wasn't what we got (until Pathfinder came out) and so I moved on.
One thing I do think WotC did way better was marketing 3rd edition. With 3rd there were able to bring many of the gamers who had stop buying product back to the game. I don't think anyone thinks that from a sales stand point WotC hasn't made money on 4th edition, however it does feel like 4th hasn't meet the sales expectations. Does that mean they aren't making money? Of course not (if it wasn't making them a profit the line would have stop printing completely). And I am almost 100% positive there is no way they announce 5e anytime soon. I would expect them to do something more along the lines of mothballing it for 5 to 10 years and then doing a huge relaunch. 40th anniversary in 6 years for example. But that is wild speculation based on the small number of products released this year. Hell, for all we know they could be gearing up to go all digital next year.
Maybe - although I played a lot of AD&D, and my experience with 4th edition is closer to that than it is when I play 3.5/pathfinder. If you started with 2nd edition, maybe we just have a different baseline. Did you play much AD&D?I played a lot of every edition until 4th (I have played some 4th and it is a fine game, but not one I enjoy). For me the biggest difference in going from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th, was that I was ready to go from 2nd to 3rd. 2nd had gotten to the point where there was so many different optional subsystems (NWP, kits, psionics, CBoH, S&P, etc) that every time you joined a new group there was a quiz about what was allowed. With 3rd it was what books do you allow, but that didn't really change the game play (you still had feats, skills, prestige classes, etc). So for me when 4th was announced I was willing to accept a 1st to 2nd edition rules change. That wasn't what we got (until Pathfinder came out) and so I moved on.
One thing I do think WotC did way better was marketing 3rd edition. With 3rd there were able to bring many of the gamers who had stop buying product back to the game. I don't think anyone thinks that from a sales stand point WotC hasn't made money on 4th edition, however it does feel like 4th hasn't meet the sales expectations. Does that mean they aren't making money? Of course not (if it wasn't making them a profit the line would have stop printing completely). And I am almost 100% positive there is no way they announce 5e anytime soon. I would expect them to do something more along the lines of mothballing it for 5 to 10 years and then doing a huge relaunch. 40th anniversary in 6 years for example. But that is wild speculation based on the small number of products released this year. Hell, for all we know they could be gearing up to go all digital next year.
I didnt have any experience with the 1st - 2nd change, nor the 2nd - 3rd or even 3rd - 4th really. I was just wondering if Hama was including AD&D in 'all previous editions' and whether that hypothetical exclusion is why my experience is different from his.
In my opinion AD&D - 4th is a smaller leap than AD&D - pathfinder. Largely (I think) due to the fact that there was so much in AD&D with no mechanics - in Pathfinder when I want to account for 'something happening' I go looking for the rules for it. With AD&D and 4th edition I kind of feel like, if there's no rule which springs to mind, I'm expected to just make something up which covers it.
Maybe - although I played a lot of AD&D, and my experience with 4th edition is closer to that than it is when I play 3.5/pathfinder. If you started with 2nd edition, maybe we just have a different baseline. Did you play much AD&D?I played a lot of every edition until 4th (I have played some 4th and it is a fine game, but not one I enjoy). For me the biggest difference in going from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th, was that I was ready to go from 2nd to 3rd. 2nd had gotten to the point where there was so many different optional subsystems (NWP, kits, psionics, CBoH, S&P, etc) that every time you joined a new group there was a quiz about what was allowed. With 3rd it was what books do you allow, but that didn't really change the game play (you still had feats, skills, prestige classes, etc). So for me when 4th was announced I was willing to accept a 1st to 2nd edition rules change. That wasn't what we got (until Pathfinder came out) and so I moved on.
One thing I do think WotC did way better was marketing 3rd edition. With 3rd there were able to bring many of the gamers who had stop buying product back to the game. I don't think anyone thinks that from a sales stand point WotC hasn't made money on 4th edition, however it does feel like 4th hasn't meet the sales expectations. Does that mean they aren't making money? Of course not (if it wasn't making them a profit the line would have stop printing completely). And I am almost 100% positive there is no way they announce 5e anytime soon. I would expect them to do something more along the lines of mothballing it for 5 to 10 years and then doing a huge relaunch. 40th anniversary in 6 years for example. But that is wild speculation based on the small number of products released this year. Hell, for all we know they could be gearing up to go all digital next year.
That is actually some very good points. Especially the being ready part. The success of PF has shown quite clearly that there is still a market for quality 3.x based material. Not wanting to share the profits anymore, WoTC decided to go a different direction, underestimating the effect that doing so while the OGL was still going strong would have. I don't think WoTC can afford to completely mothball 4E, but I could see them going into maintenance mode until the marketing opportunities are better, and the market in general when it comes down to it. The managers seem to be realizing that directly competing against PF and other OGL derivatives is a losing proposition in this economy.
|
|
MMO = RPG = pen & paper game. Doh. Considering MMO's stole wholesale from P&P RPGs why does this shock people? If I have first played Secret of the Silver Blades THEN played 1e AD&D I would be saying that 1e AD&D had just ripped off the awesome SSI game. All MMO's and RPG computer games do is take the pen & paper out...
3.5e plays amazingly like D&D Online, does that mean that 3.5e plays like an MMO?
Rarely I rise to use strong language, but comparing an MMORPG and a P&P RPG and not expecting to see similarities is moronic.
If it makes those who think I was commenting directly to them feel better, I like morons and interact with many on a daily basis,
S.
MMO = RPG = pen & paper game. Doh. Considering MMO's stole wholesale from P&P RPGs why does this shock people? If I have first played Secret of the Silver Blades THEN played 1e AD&D I would be saying that 1e AD&D had just ripped off the awesome SSI game. All MMO's and RPG computer games do is take the pen & paper out...
3.5e plays amazingly like D&D Online, does that mean that 3.5e plays like an MMO?
Rarely I rise to use strong language, but comparing an MMORPG and a P&P RPG and not expecting to see similarities is moronic.
If it makes those who think I was commenting directly to them feel better, I like morons and interact with many on a daily basis,
S.
DDO is also directly based on the 3.5 ruleset and struggled considerably until it went partially free to play. I personally don't care for DDO because while better than most at incorporating elements beyond raw damage skills, it still falls flat compared to what I can get at the table or in a PBP. If I am going to play an MMO, I would rather play one that has it's own world, play style, rules, and is set up to recognize the limits of coding and hardware to begin with than one that tries to mimic a play style or rule set that simply doesn't work when coding and hardware requirements impose severe limits. I suppose if I enjoyed dungeon crawls more, I could enjoy the similarities more, but I don't generally care for dungeon crawls.
I didnt have any experience with the 1st - 2nd change, nor the 2nd - 3rd or even 3rd - 4th really. I was just wondering if Hama was including AD&D in 'all previous editions' and whether that hypothetical exclusion is why my experience is different from his.
In my opinion AD&D - 4th is a smaller leap than AD&D - pathfinder. Largely (I think) due to the fact that there was so much in AD&D with no mechanics - in Pathfinder when I want to account for 'something happening' I go looking for the rules for it. With AD&D and 4th edition I kind of feel like, if there's no rule which springs to mind, I'm expected to just make something up which covers it.
Honestly that is something I wonder if we lost in the transition from 2nd to 3rd was the ability to adjudicate a situation as a DM, because let's face it in 1st and 2nd you had to. The funny part is that in 3rd/PF/4th it is actually easier to do since you can always say roll a d20 and add something to it.
One thing you did miss in 2nd was an amazing amount of rules that worked all in slightly different ways. I think for a lot of us we wanted a internally consistent rules set.
I'd be curious to hear some specifics about what made you think these?I've never really understood the MMO argument, although it obviously comes up a lot - in my mind all RPGs feel a bit like MMOs but I just presumed that's because MMOs were trying to replicate the RPG feel. If they're any good at it an RPG should feel like an MMO, imo.
I'm surprised about the second though. I had the same opinion from reading the 4th edition books when they came out, but it disappeared as soon as I actually played the game (at least once I got used to the mechanics). It's been my opinion that 4th edition reads like something else, but the actual play of the game doesnt feel any different to me than any other RPG (I dont have much experience with D&D from 2nd edition onwards, but have played a bunch of other systems extensively). What were the features which you thought it had which didnt appear in earlier editions? Or what did it lack?
I think for one, it appears as a video game in it's illustration and design of powers and so forth. When you play Diablo, WoW, Guild Wars, etc. you get to choose powers that look like those described in 4E's books (minus the mini-illustrated icon). That visualizaion, right off the bat, gets people's minds into the video game mode in my opinion.
Then you get into Powers and their usages. Encounter powers can often feel like re-charge powers with a little timer. They work consistantly all day long, as if your spamming a specific ability every battle (which is what it does) but this is also linked to re-charge powers in MMOs. You also have certain powers linked to specific fighting styles and weapons (Rangers with Two-weapons, Barbarians with two-handed weapons, etc...) which can lead one to feel like going down a specific "power-tree", yet another common thing in MMOs.
Sprouting from the very basic designes of 4E's powers (which can appear magical in effect) and that every class has access to them is what puts alot of people off. They don't like the fact that a Fighter is doing something extraordinary in which he didn't spend his precious feats on or can do every battle (or every turn). Also take into account the over-all edition Nerf the Wizard class received in 4E. The fact that he can't end encounters with 1 or 2 specific spells, doesn't have a huge plethora of instant-fix spells, and spells that completly humble the most impressive beasts and you have a lot of PO'ed gamers of 3E and prior.
Then take into account how each class is fit into a "Role", something that hasn't happened in a long while. Espically with 3e/v3.5 crazy Multiclassing/PrC shenanigans. 3E is the creation of the "level-dip" and it's a big factor in why I strictly adhere to the Multiclass restrictions in my games. It practically started Min/Maxing. So when you take those options away (or limit them to 1 multiclass and hybrids), you get the feeling that you can't "express" your character's quirks. Thus hindering role-playing.
But what they don't see is that you don't need rules to role-play. I don't feel I need ranks in Craft to be a blacksmith (unless your specifically attempting to gain an advantage of smithing outside of combat) or to be a Dancer, taking ranks in Perform: Dance for flavor.
3E is the creation of the "level-dip" and it's a big factor in why I strictly adhere to the Multiclass restrictions in my games. It practically started Min/Maxing.
This is the only part from your post I would seriously question. I haven't played a lot of 2nd edition, but multiclassing and min-maxing was just as big of a problem in it as it was in 3.x. The prestige classes were a poor fix to the problem, though fine in limited circumstances, but no worse than anything that was devised in 2nd edition. The rest of your post I pretty much agree with.
3E is the creation of the "level-dip" and it's a big factor in why I strictly adhere to the Multiclass restrictions in my games. It practically started Min/Maxing.This is the only part from your post I would seriously question. I haven't played a lot of 2nd edition, but multiclassing and min-maxing was just as big of a problem in it as it was in 3.x. The prestige classes were a poor fix to the problem, though fine in limited circumstances, but no worse than anything that was devised in 2nd edition. The rest of your post I pretty much agree with.
2e/AD&D saw the Dual-Class and Multi-class of certain things. For one, I believe it wasn't as easy to play a dual-class character in that once you reached a certain level, that was it. You didn't level past a certain point (level 10 or 12 or some-such). And you didn't take a Kit that went further into your dual-class or role either. It was new territory for the idea and there were things in place, but not to the crazy extent 3e/v3.5 did.
In v3.5, you could viable have a human cleric 1/ barbarian 2/ fighter 4. This would net you 3 + Cha. modifier turn attempts per day, Rage 1/day, uncanny dodge, and 3 bonus fighter feats (7 total) by level 7 in addition to 1st level spells and domain powers. Compare that to the human Paladin (who cannot multiclass) of 2 smite evils (max 7 damage without the Charging Smite feature), 2 1st level spells, 3 + Cha. modifier turn attempts, and 4 feats total. And you see why Multiclassing has huge advantages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Diffan: I can see where layout and format changed the mentality of what people saw in the effect.
Whereas;
Channel Energy (Su)
Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channel energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect. A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.
and
Channel Divinity: Turn Undead Cleric Feature
You sear undead foes, push them back, and root them in place.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Close burst 2 (5 at 11th level, 8 at 21st level)
Target: Each undead creature in burst
Attack: Wisdom vs. Will
Hit: 1d10 + Wisdom modifier radiant damage, and you push the target a number of squares equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier. The target is immobilized until the end of your next turn. Increase damage to 2d10 + Wisdom modifier at 5th level, 3d10 + Wisdom modifier at 11th level, 4d10 + Wisdom modifier at 15th level, 5d10 + Wisdom modifier at 21st level, and 6d10 + Wisdom modifier at 25th level.
Miss: Half damage, and the target is not pushed or immobilized.
Though they have almost the exact same effect; attack vs undead, resisted by will, holy damage, increases damage with level, limited number of uses (1/fight or #/day), modified by charisma, uses a holy symbol, and does less damage on a save/miss.
The visible layout, with a color code, and only mechanics with a nugget of flavor makes others see video game. So if all abilties were presented in the text format of all the older books, people may not think of a video game feel.
@Sunshadow. Yes they existed in 2nd, but there was only so much numbering that could be done. Some combos were a little more effective (Ftr/Clr or Wiz/Thf), but you payed for them (limited level progression, and slower rate of leveling due to splitting between two classes) and got very little mechanical reward. If you decided to be an Elven Ftr/Thf at level 1, that's what you were the whole game, whether taking Thief at 1st was a good idea or not.
@the general thread. As a fan of 4E, I understand the 4E defenders tendencey to leap to the defense. I love the community on these forums, and these are the only forums I visit (heck, I sit around refreshing all day at home and work for updates), but when it's hard to find one rules thread where at least one person doesn't feel like they have to make 1 comment about 4E is difficult. Yes, it's irritating. I don't like a lot of different systems (namely multiple success required systems, Shadowrun I'm looking at you), but I don't feel the need to bring it up every time there's a rules discussion where it isn't involved. Yet there it is, someone starts a thread about not liking... um, certain skill combos (e.g. jump in acrobatics), and it's not long before someone has to insult 4E for no reason. It's irritating, I don't insult the things I don't like about 3.5/PF, why do so many here feel they should insult 4E?
comparison between the turn undead....
Though they have almost the exact same effect; attack vs undead, resisted by will, holy damage, increases damage with level, limited number of uses (1/fight or #/day), modified by charisma, uses a holy symbol, and does less damage on a save/miss.The visible layout, with a color code, and only mechanics with a nugget of flavor makes others see video game. So if all abilties were presented in the text format of all the older books, people may not think of a video game feel.
Pretty much, yea. That and the Game-ish terminology used for 4E's powers. When the term "squares" are brought up for powers and the effects your characters can do, it diminishes the believability of the Player. It, as they say, breaks the 4th wall. It loses the reaslism that your actually doing something on a battlfield with grass and terrain and makes it more into a flat map, with a grid and squares, which in turn makes it more like a game.
I prefer the gamer terminology myself, as it helps me figure out how it'll work on our battle-map. It's a tool I've been using ever since the PHB 3E came out in 2000 and a great tool it is. I use it so much I needed to laminate the darned thing so Beer and Pop and stuff wouldn't ruin it.
Anywho, the effects of those powers can be just as real and impressive in the minds eye with or without the terminology used, but I think this has more to do with the player than the system itself. If a player likes to think in terms of feet rather than squares, that's ok too. I just feel it simplifies the math so you have more time gaming than the "5' per square.....11 squares.....55'.....ok now radius 10'...." and instead we get burst 1 (9 square block) within 10 squares (distance from caster). Simple and to the point.
I agree, I've been using a dry erase and grid based rules since I had rules for them presented in the 2nd Ed. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics. I've had to convert feet to squares for quite some time, and am happy that 4E just preempted the conversion and did it themselves.
Something else also hit me as I was going over comparisons between v3.5 and 4E and that is the lack of Charts. Until Essentials came along and reinvented the wheel (er...i mean class chart) it was something very distinguishing between the two editions, or for that matter 4E and everything else previously. Simply put, Gamers love their charts and D&D people espically.
The beauty behind the Chart is something that helps a player categorize what they're attaining at each specific level. It gives thim a visual goal that they'll obtain when they reach that next plateau. You sort of look at it and say... "I can't wait til I get to level X! I'm gonna take such-and-such feat and that'll work with blah-blah spell and I'll be able to afford yadda-yadda magic weapon!" With no visual aids for the players in this regard, it's depreciates the value of leveling up. They flip to the book and say...."So I pick one more power....from these 37? And if I pick the wrong one, it'll cost me a whole level until I can retrain it?" Of course i'm emphasiszing v3.5's leveling to 4Es and often times I already have a pre-made build in place for my 4E characters but I can see this happening.
One last thing that I feel needs addressing on the 4E = MMO/video game feel is how role-playing aspects of the game are freed from the iron grasps of rules. I'm not sure I stressed my point about not needing rules to give my character flair or pizzaz. Those I do with how I role-play him/her, not the feats, powers, or skills that character takes as a whole. There are avenues that a player can take through 4E mechanics that influence a more "role-play" experience, but they often don't drastically weaken the character or serve no purpose other than showing your work (something I feel 3e/v3.5 has a heavy emphasis on).
The whole square vs feet is actually pretty telling of the comparison in general. In 3.x, they laid out the rules fairly clearly, but tried to maintain the illusion of something akin to real life physics providing a consistency that 4E doesn't bother to even try to pretend to care about. This is true throughout the design of both systems. 4E comes right and says, "Here is the basic outline of some basic rules; the rest is, quite literally, up to you." Most other table tops try to develop at least some logic to support their reasoning.
One thing that just struck me is the role that organized play had on the emphasis of written down rules. The 3.5 cleric and druid both have enough references to the fact that they derived their powers from some other being that I wonder if the developers expected DMs to use that rping aspect to contain the mechanical strengths built in to make other boring classes more appealing. If that was the case, than the rise of organized play, not the development of 3rd edition is actually a better candidate for being the catalyst of turning the focus from rp to written rules. The RPGA would have had far greater need for consistent, written rules that didn't rely on rp factors to balance themselves out than the game developers would have.
One last thing that I feel needs addressing on the 4E = MMO/video game feel is how role-playing aspects of the game are freed from the iron grasps of rules. I'm not sure I stressed my point about not needing rules to give my character flair or pizzaz. Those I do with how I role-play him/her, not the feats, powers, or skills that character takes as a whole. There are avenues that a player can take through 4E mechanics that influence a more "role-play" experience, but they often don't drastically weaken the character or serve no purpose other than showing your work (something I feel 3e/v3.5 has a heavy emphasis on).
Except that the difference between relying on DM fiat and relying on what someone else can/will code means that rping in both circumstances is basically the same. You can talk all you want, but aside from formally picking up the related skills, it does you exactly as much good as the DM/programmer is willing/able to allow. 3.x put an emphasis on mechanics that put tangible effects because without those tangible effects, and their accompanying tangible limits, it tends to devolve into a personality contest, and who can convince the other that it is not worth arguing about. A lot of the reason there were so many house rules, both official and unofficial, at the end of the 2nd edition era, was that people were starting to realize some codification may be required.
One can argue whether 3.x went too far, but there was a reason it was developed the way it was. 4E may well be benefitting from the fact that players who want the more predictable environment have another system that gives them that without having to argue for major changes to 4E, leaving 4E to those who genuinely enjoy the pure free lancing style.
|
It was far from a slam, and for those that play 4E and enjoy it, there is a mutual appreciation of the game. What people don't like is Scott will not back down from an argument. And regardless of the poster, we all have our moments.You would all be cheering him on if he only played Pathfinder, and spoke about 4E in derogatory terms any chance he gets. Then he truely would be your favorite.
But keep on fueling the fire, if that is what you enjoy. If Hama has an issue with Scott, or vice versa, then let them work it out.
You are right, the fact he will NOT back down is precisely what I have a problem with.
He responds to every silly little anti-4E comment, instead of letting the comment die unnoticed.
This drags the edition war into the thread fully, resulting in a long, off-topic argument.
He's not the only guilty party. But he's one of them.
And no, I would not be cheering him on if he did the same for Pathfinder.
You know what?you're right me calling you a douche was uncalled for. It was base and rude and you didn't deserve that. I apologize to both you and to the community at large.
It's appreciated.
Maybe leave it there, though?
This discussion isn't going to be further served by you guessing at what my reasons for participating might be. I promise you, no matter how much you try and tell me that I'm only here to call people silly, at the end of the day the real reason I'm here is to talk about D&D.
I KNOW that the game can be played with emphasis on roleplay, but it has everyting to do with the GM and not much to do with the rules which are, for my taste, too vague when it comes to roleplaying.
It is definitely true that the DM needs to include role playing elements in the game for them to be, well, in the game.
What 4E is really good at in terms of role play is in supporting the Dungeon Master that actually tries to design a story where the emphasis is off combat. That does not mean that any given DM will actually make such a scenario nor does it mean that his players would be happy with him if he did, but should he choose to go down that path and should his players encourage this then the system will support the effort.
And no, I would not be cheering him on if he did the same for Pathfinder.
Would you raise an objection to him? Or me, I suppose, since apparently we're still talking about me.
And, to extend the point, would you raise an objection to those who did cheer him/me on?
Let's not deceive ourselves, here. It isn't so much that I like to defend my game of choice that drives people bananas (and, really, the desire to defend something someone enjoys is only considered offensive in Bizzaro World); it's that I like to defend my game of choice and that game of choice is 4e, and 4e shouldn't be defended.
Pathfinder is defended on these forums all the time. Vociferously. In dogpiles. And that's fine. A lot of those defenses have merits, and criticisms should be answered.
But do us a favor: let us do the same. We're Paizo fans. We're here because we like the same company you do. If you're going to leap into argument with the other side, keep it civil. Don't resort to personal insult. Don't spend fifty posts discussing how much you are or aren't a fan of Person X's posting style. Discuss the game, discuss the issues, discuss your opinions, and don't be alarmed when people disagree with you, especially if your position is not particularly strong.
|
|
It was far from a slam, and for those that play 4E and enjoy it, there is a mutual appreciation of the game. What people don't like is Scott will not back down from an argument. And regardless of the poster, we all have our moments.You would all be cheering him on if he only played Pathfinder, and spoke about 4E in derogatory terms any chance he gets. Then he truely would be your favorite.
But keep on fueling the fire, if that is what you enjoy. If Hama has an issue with Scott, or vice versa, then let them work it out.
You are right, the fact he will NOT back down is precisely what I have a problem with.
He responds to every silly little anti-4E comment, instead of letting the comment die unnoticed.
This drags the edition war into the thread fully, resulting in a long, off-topic argument.
He's not the only guilty party. But he's one of them.
And no, I would not be cheering him on if he did the same for Pathfinder.
On the other hand, inaccuracies abound in the discussion of 4e, especially here (Paizo). Why exactly should Scott (or anyone) have to back down, just to make people who don't like 4e feel better? True, I see some of this stuff, compose a post, and then more often than not don't post it, because I can't be bothered with a lot of the aggro. But does it annoy me any less? I doubt it. That Scott has a higher tolerance for conflict is maybe just him, but as far as I can tell calling him "passive-aggressive" (as ShinHakkaider does) is lazy shorthand for his not not backing down in face the lazy thinking.
If somebody calls out a poster's opinions as "silly", it's a slam. It's not "well I disagree", it's not "I doubt that's correct", what Scott did was pure, 100% flame.
This is an example of someone reading something in a post that wasn't actually there. I didn't call Hama's opinion silly. I was commenting on his preemptive apology, and noting that there's really no sense in apologizing for one's own opinion. One should always have a certain amount of pride in one's opinion; else, why would one hold it if it were not worth defending? So no, Hama's opinion wasn't silly. I was saying that, if his opinion were silly/offensive/bad/evil, no amount of apologizing upfront would matter.
It was a bit of a tangent, and I apologize if that set off your "Uh-oh, Scott posted something!" alarms.
The fact that Scott's fanaticism drives him to attack positive opinions about 4e is so hilarious that I still think this thread is some hallucination of mine.
Gorbacz, you're the one who preemptively shows up in threads where 4e is mentioned to opine the Paizo forums equivalent of "inb4 the Scott". I'm sure you feel that's hilarious and insightful every time you bring it up, but it's easily seen as a personal attack and doesn't give you a lot of room to maneuver in this particular discussion.
|
|
Would you raise an objection to him? Or me, I suppose, since apparently we're still talking about me.
Yes.
And, to extend the point, would you raise an objection to those who did cheer him/me on?
Yes.
*good points I don't have time or brainpower to address*
I do enjoy your posting style, it is similar to my own. But I do get burnt out on it.
On the other hand, inaccuracies abound in the discussion of 4e, especially here (Paizo). Why exactly should Scott (or anyone) have to back down, just to make people who don't like 4e feel better?
I think my point was more "Don't take the bait". Let the flame die, instead of feeding it fuel.
On the other hand, inaccuracies abound in the discussion of 4e, especially here (Paizo). Why exactly should Scott (or anyone) have to back down, just to make people who don't like 4e feel better? True, I see some of this stuff, compose a post, and then more often than not don't post it, because I can't be bothered with a lot of the aggro. But does it annoy me any less? I doubt it. That Scott has a higher tolerance for conflict is maybe just him, but as far as I can tell calling him "passive-aggressive" (as ShinHakkaider does) is lazy shorthand for his not not backing down in face the lazy thinking.
You are perhaps too charitable, but this is basically my thought process.
The fact that there is aggro at all (and dear lord is there ever aggro) is a problem.
I think my point was more "Don't take the bait". Let the flame die, instead of feeding it fuel.
I don't see an "argument" over D&D as a fire, really. Ideally, we should be able to have a discussion of the actual issues surrounding any given topic without it getting personal. The idea of edition wars as a plague on the community really only begins when the discussion leaves the topic at hand and becomes about personal insult (or, often, perceived personal insult).
This is a passionate community, and we get into arguments over really unimportant stuff all the time. I'd like for the community to be able to discuss things like D&D (4e or otherwise) without the real flames showing up. It would be nice to see leveler heads all around.
And, yes, myself included.
When i play 4th edition i just feel like on a raid. I use my powers and try to do something to complement the overall victory. I don't know, maybe it is just the way i see it, but to me it plays like an MMO. And as much as i like certain MMOs, i do not want my tabletop experience to be the same.
So you are playing 4e with a DM that sucks. How is that 4E's fault?
I KNOW that the game can be played with emphasis on roleplay, but it has everyting to do with the GM and not much to do with the rules which are, for my taste, too vague when it comes to roleplaying.
Now I am confused. You seem fully aware that the failure lies with your DM, that your DM is to blame, but you still attack 4E because of it?
Perhaps you should just put "With my DM, ..." before all your inflammatory assertions - they would be much less likely to spark flamewars.
So you are playing 4e with a DM that sucks. How is that 4E's fault?
Beyond that, it sounds like what Hama is saying is that both 4e and MMOs are team efforts ("I use my powers and try to do something to complement the overall victory") and that makes 4e feel like an MMO. But you could say the same about nearly every cooperative tabletop roleplaying game, and clearly Hama doesn't think that they all feel like MMOs.
I mean, when I would play 3.5, I'd use my special abilities to help ensure the party's collective victory. Didn't everyone? Except jerks who hated their party?
|
|
I don't see an "argument" over D&D as a fire, really. Ideally, we should be able to have a discussion of the actual issues surrounding any given topic without it getting personal. The idea of edition wars as a plague on the community really only begins when the discussion leaves the topic at hand and becomes about personal insult (or, often, perceived personal insult).
This is a passionate community, and we get into arguments over really unimportant stuff all the time. I'd like for the community to be able to discuss things like D&D (4e or otherwise) without the real flames showing up. It would be nice to see leveler heads all around.
And, yes, myself included.
I don't see "4E is an MMO" as an argument worth discussing. ;) I think ignoring the obviously spurious statements would be a great improvement to level headedness.
Unfortunately, few people seem to agree with me.
I don't see "4E is an MMO" as an argument worth discussing. ;)
I don't either, but I consider the individual aspects of the game which lead the person to say something like "4e is an MMO" to be worth discussing. It's just a matter of hunting down what those aspects might be, first.
Frankly, though, I should be ignoring this right now. I have a game to run tomorrow night, and the House of the Beast isn't going to prep itself!