|
No, I know that it requires an in-game minute. I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing your implication that you actually have to spend a real-life minute talking in-character in order to make a Diplomacy check. That is not supported by the rules, just as spending 8 hours pantomiming and describing how your character works a forge isn't required to craft a longsword.
If you want to make a diplomacy check to alter someones attitude it does.
If you want to make a diplomacy check to...I don't know, follow some DM fiat or alternate rule...sure.
I have no idea what your point is, or what you think this conveys that is of value to your argument.
|
|
Good for them it's their loss. Wasting space on the competitor who steals sales and promotes the opposing product.You're deluding yourself if you think 4e and Pathfinder are opposed. And, really, how is 4e stealing sales - from Paizo's own website, no less! - if 4e is such a terrible game compared to Pathfinder?
In a word: Brand.
The fact that it is even a competition is a pathetic indictment of the product. It's like Frisbee vs Flying Disc Manufactures.
Dungeons and Dragons is "the" name. If you have "The" name and you aren't dominating the market...seriously, Kleenex vs every other maker of tissues...
IMO from what I've seen 4th edition is the kiddy board game of D&D with little cardboard figures, and candymaps for people that can't imagine a scenerio without a board in front of them. The artwork looks nice but the prices they charge for their skinny books is outrageous. I have read 100's of comments bashing 4th edition so why should I want to play it especially after owning the pathfinder books or Gary Gygax's amazing 2nd edition? At least they fill their books with your moneys worth of pages. If you want to go out and blow all kinds of money on 4th editions multiple book scheme then go right ahead I won't be the one to stop you.
....so you admit you like the artwork, thats a start!
IMO from what I've seen 4th edition is the kiddy board game of D&D with little cardboard figures, and candymaps for people that can't imagine a scenerio without a board in front of them.
Your opinion is fascinating. Just for interest, some of us with imaginations also like the game (though not as a boardgame and I dont use the cardboard figures).
The artwork looks nice but the prices they charge for their skinny books is outrageous.
I think RPG books are ridiculously cheap, personally. Nonetheless, if you think they are too expensive you would be rational to not buy them. If I think they're good value, it would be rational for me to buy them.
We can both agree there's no such thing as an objective 'value' for a leisure resource, right? Other than the market price, I guess..
I have read 100's of comments bashing 4th edition so why should I want to play it especially after owning the pathfinder books or Gary Gygax's amazing 2nd edition?
I don't think you should - how one forms preferences is not a rational nor objective endeavour. If the posts you've read is enough for you to decide you dont want to play it, you shouldnt play it. Far be it from me to call you ridiculous for having a preference.
At least they fill their books with your moneys worth of pages. If you want to go out and blow all kinds of money on 4th editions multiple book scheme then go right ahead I won't be the one to stop you.
Thanks, I was concerned you may be heading off to get an injunction. I appreciate your restraint.
I have read 100's of comments bashing 4th edition so why should I want to play it especially after owning the pathfinder books or Gary Gygax's amazing 2nd edition?
Wait a second, Gary didn't write 2nd edition. That's David "Zeb" Cook's edition. My 2e books are in storage, but I'm pretty sure.
I have read 100's of comments bashing 4th edition so why should I want to play it especially after owning the pathfinder books or Gary Gygax's amazing 2nd edition?Wait a second, Gary didn't write 2nd edition. That's David "Zeb" Cook's edition. My 2e books are in storage, but I'm pretty sure.
I know. All true Gygax fans should be playing Lejendary Adventure now.
Good for them it's their loss. Wasting space on the competitor who steals sales and promotes the opposing product.You're deluding yourself if you think 4e and Pathfinder are opposed. And, really, how is 4e stealing sales - from Paizo's own website, no less! - if 4e is such a terrible game compared to Pathfinder?In a word: Brand.
The fact that it is even a competition is a pathetic indictment of the product. It's like Frisbee vs Flying Disc Manufactures.
Dungeons and Dragons is "the" name. If you have "The" name and you aren't dominating the market...seriously, Kleenex vs every other maker of tissues...
I buy most of my discs from Innova.
On topic, I think Scott's point was that if Paizo is directly opposed to D&D they wouldn't sell 4e books on the site.
In the 1960s, Gygax created an organization of wargaming clubs and founded the Gen Con gaming convention. In 1971, he helped develop Chainmail, a miniatures wargame based on medieval warfare. He co-founded the company Tactical Studies Rules (TSR, Inc.) with childhood friend Don Kaye in 1973. The following year, he and Dave Arneson created Dungeons & Dragons, which expanded on his work on Chainmail and included elements of the fantasy stories he loved as a child. In the same year, he founded The Dragon, a magazine based around the new game. In 1977, Gygax began work on a more comprehensive version of the game, called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax designed numerous manuals for the game system, as well as several pre-packaged adventures called "modules" that gave a person running a D&D game (the "Dungeon Master") a rough script and ideas on how to run a particular gaming scenario. In 1983, he worked to license the D&D product line into the successful Dungeons & Dragons cartoon series.
wiki
In 1986, after a long dispute over control of TSR, Gary Gygax resigned from the company. In 1989 2nd edition was released. So what was your point again?
I'm not going to put chocolate syrup on my eggs and bacon. I don't need some 4th edition, some Pathfinder, and some 3.0 to play some D&D. The people that go there are ridiculous.
Don't knock it til you've tried it. The best drink I ever had was bourbon, a bit of simple syrup, some lime juice, and a healthy amount of Tabasco served over ice with a - you guessed it - chocolate-dipped strip of bacon as garnish.
I have read 100's of comments bashing 4th edition
I can't count how many comments I've read bashing Pathfinder. Does that mean I use the comments of random internet people with wildly inflamed opinions to help me form my own view of a game?
Hell no.
If you want to make a diplomacy check to alter someones attitude it does.
Again, it requires one in-game minute.
Not a full out-of-game minute spent play-acting your character's diplomacy skills.
There is nowhere in 3.5 or 4e where you are required to spend any prescribed amount of real-world time to accomplish something in-game.
In 1986, after a long dispute over control of TSR, Gary Gygax resigned from the company. In 1989 2nd edition was released. So what was your point again?
I think he just really really likes Gygax despite apparently not having any real idea what editions of the game he was involved with or being able to tell you what his accomplishments were without copy-pasting from Wikipedia.
But hey man it's Gygax and name-dropping him makes you sound in-the-know! Gygax gygax!
|
|
Good for them it's their loss. Wasting space on the competitor who steals sales and promotes the opposing product.You're deluding yourself if you think 4e and Pathfinder are opposed. And, really, how is 4e stealing sales - from Paizo's own website, no less! - if 4e is such a terrible game compared to Pathfinder?In a word: Brand.
The fact that it is even a competition is a pathetic indictment of the product. It's like Frisbee vs Flying Disc Manufactures.
Dungeons and Dragons is "the" name. If you have "The" name and you aren't dominating the market...seriously, Kleenex vs every other maker of tissues...
I buy most of my discs from Innova.
On topic, I think Scott's point was that if Paizo is directly opposed to D&D they wouldn't sell 4e books on the site.
Paizo was D&D until they were spun off and cut out. Paizo sells all products on the website, because it makes this a one stop website for gamers, as opposed to other single product websites.
Paizo has to do whatever they can to attract gamers, because they aren't a "name".
Dungeons and Dragons is the name in the same way "Thermos" is the name.
If you have the name and you aren't the clear market leader, it isn't due to marketing. It's due to quality.
As I said, the fact it is even close is amazing and your frisbee analogy is an excellent example of superior product overcoming brand. In the 80's Whammo had a 90% market share. In the 90% that slipped to 70% and it was bought by a large toy manufacturer who ran the brand into the ground since it wasn't a primary focus.
Sound familiar?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the 1960s, Gygax created an organization of wargaming clubs and founded the Gen Con gaming convention. In 1971, he helped develop Chainmail, a miniatures wargame based on medieval warfare. He co-founded the company Tactical Studies Rules (TSR, Inc.) with childhood friend Don Kaye in 1973. The following year, he and Dave Arneson created Dungeons & Dragons, which expanded on his work on Chainmail and included elements of the fantasy stories he loved as a child. In the same year, he founded The Dragon, a magazine based around the new game. In 1977, Gygax began work on a more comprehensive version of the game, called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax designed numerous manuals for the game system, as well as several pre-packaged adventures called "modules" that gave a person running a D&D game (the "Dungeon Master") a rough script and ideas on how to run a particular gaming scenario. In 1983, he worked to license the D&D product line into the successful Dungeons & Dragons cartoon series.
wiki
Wikipedia is absolutely right.
Paizo has to do whatever they can to attract gamers, because they aren't a "name".
I would dispute that. I doubt the number of gamers visiting the site would drop significantly if they stopped offering 4th edition product (though their profit presumably would).
I don't think they sell 4th edition as some kind of necessary step in getting gamers to their site. Paizo may not have been a "name" (though I'm not convinced that was ever really true, even before Pathfinder) but they definitely are now.
|
|
Paizo has to do whatever they can to attract gamers, because they aren't a "name".I would dispute that. I doubt the number of gamers visiting the site would drop significantly if they stopped offering 4th edition product (though their profit presumably would).
I don't think they sell 4th edition as some kind of necessary step in getting gamers to their site. Paizo may not have been a "name" (though I'm not convinced that was ever really true, even before Pathfinder) but they definitely are now.
And they don't want to make the mistake WoTC made by isolating themselves.
If people who like 4e come buy product here, Paizo gets a skim off of it and a gamer now knows they can come to a site that supports all publishers.
All win.
You go to Wizard, you only get Wizard. So you won't go there unless you are going specifically for Wizard.
This works if you are "The Brand". Not so much when you were only a few years ago a 3PP for "The Brand"
Hubris is bringing down Goliath, and Paizo has watched it happen. The model they are running is working. Why mess with it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4th Ed? Let me count the ways
1. The book is cheaply made, so cheaply made that the ink comes off the pages if you rub it too hard.
2. Of the limited races available, three are related to elves. That's overdoing it a little bit, no? Also, not only is the "dragonborn" simply a silly idea that panders to power gamers, they look laughable. And the idea that they would have a breath weapon as opposed to a bite or a claw attack is absurd. Since they were adding the tiefling anyway, how about the aasimar? And as for a monster class, they could have done something better than the dragonborn. They already have with the half-orc.
3. The classes lost are not worth the classes gained. Who ever heard of DND without druids and bards? Instead, what did we get, the Warlord? Please! What place does a tactical leader have in a roaming band of adventurers? Frankly, with the people I play with, if somebody "ordered" one of their PC's to attack, I don't think it would be the NPC that would be getting the smackdown. Warlords are for military and tactical units, not loosely confederated treasure hunters.
4. It doesn't matter what you play, the characters end up the same. Your warrior class characters end up having the same armor class and damage potential as your arcane class characters. It's like they are all fighters who just do different types of damage. The classes are sort of like 1% and 2% milk--sure, the composition is slightly different, but they pretty much taste the same. BOOOOORRRRING!
5. The skills have been simplified to an alarming degree, again making characters homogeneous. I've personally never talked to a player who wants LESS options for making their character, so I'm not sure what the purpose was of that.
6. The alignment system desperately needs a revamp and always has (either that or needs to be eliminated entirely), but the revamp they did made the system even more nonsensical. They have removed most of the choices, so once again, the characters are the same.
7. I never really liked prestige classes because you have to spend time at lower levels making choices for skills, feats, etc. that you may not really want to get the prestige class you want, but this game makes a player's choices even more limited because you get shoehorned into a very small number of character paths.
8. Multiclassing is destroyed in this edition. What's the fun in THAT? And again, because of this, characters end up all looking the same.
9. I have no issue with the use of miniatures and maps in games, I use them when I run, but the requirement that they must be used smacks of a marketing ploy to me. I can't wait to see how many "must have" dungeon tile, game mat, and miniature sets come out after this.
10. Finally, my problem with this edition is that it doesn't seem to show any regard for DND players, those of us that have supported and loved this game for over 30 years. It seems to be attempting to attract an audience of video game enthusiasts with a faster pace and a dumbed-down presentation, as if to imply that people who play games like WOW are too stupid to understand anything more detailed(which is incredibly insulting). I think it is a huge mistake. I think that video gamers who don't already play RPG's will continue to play video games, and I think DND lovers will continue to play DND--3rd and 3.5 edition, that is.
Paizo has to do whatever they can to attract gamers, because they aren't a "name".I would dispute that. I doubt the number of gamers visiting the site would drop significantly if they stopped offering 4th edition product (though their profit presumably would).
I don't think they sell 4th edition as some kind of necessary step in getting gamers to their site. Paizo may not have been a "name" (though I'm not convinced that was ever really true, even before Pathfinder) but they definitely are now.
And they don't want to make the mistake WoTC made by isolating themselves.
If people who like 4e come buy product here, Paizo gets a skim off of it and a gamer now knows they can come to a site that supports all publishers.
All win.
You go to Wizard, you only get Wizard. So you won't go there unless you are going specifically for Wizard.
This works if you are "The Brand". Not so much when you were only a few years ago a 3PP for "The Brand"
Hubris is bringing down Goliath, and Paizo has watched it happen. The model they are running is working. Why mess with it?
As a customer of WoTC, I don't really see them being 'brought down' - though there is a shift to online content which is annoying to people like me and which might make it appear they are closing up shop if you dont have a DDI subscription, I guess.
Nonetheless, Paizo is an online store as well as an RPG company whereas WoTC is purely in the business of producing material. In general terms the policies appropriate for a publisher arent going to translate well to those required to run a successful retail outlet in a niche market.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4th Ed? Let me count the ways
Why are you interested in counting the ways other people have suggested are reasons you won't like the game?
1. The book is cheaply made, so cheaply made that the ink comes off the pages if you rub it too hard.
You probably shouldnt buy them then.
2. Of the limited races available, three are related to elves. That's overdoing it a little bit, no? Also, not only is the "dragonborn" simply a silly idea that panders to power gamers, they look laughable. And the idea that they would have a breath weapon as opposed to a bite or a claw attack is absurd. Since they were adding the tiefling anyway, how about the aasimar? And as for a monster class, they could have done something better than the dragonborn. They already have with the half-orc.
My brother loves dragonborn for some reason. He's not a power gamer though so I guess I should tell him he's doing it wrong, huh?
3. The classes lost are not worth the classes gained. Who ever heard of DND without druids and bards? Instead, what did we get, the Warlord? Please! What place does a tactical leader have in a roaming band of adventurers? Frankly, with the people I play with, if somebody "ordered" one of their PC's to attack, I don't think it would be the NPC that would be getting the smackdown. Warlords are for military and tactical units, not loosely confederated treasure hunters.
You probably shouldnt play in a group with a warlord then and should rather choose a bard or a druid. (The way the rules let you - this 'extensive research' you've conducted is beginning to appear somewhat sketchy).
4. It doesn't matter what you play, the characters end up the same. Your warrior class characters end up having the same armor class and damage potential as your arcane class characters. It's like they are all fighters who just do different types of damage. The classes are sort of like 1% and 2% milk--sure, the composition is slightly different, but they pretty much taste the same. BOOOOORRRRING!
That isn't actually true. Nonetheless, if you think it's going to be boring you probably shouldnt play the game. How interesting is it to tell other people that you're not going to?
5. The skills have been simplified to an alarming degree, again making characters homogeneous. I've personally never talked to a player who wants LESS options for making their character, so I'm not sure what the purpose was of that.
No doubt WoTC were interested in pleasinig a larger market than players you've spoken to.
6. The alignment system desperately needs a revamp and always has (either that or needs to be eliminated entirely), but the revamp they did made the system even more nonsensical. They have removed most of the choices, so once again, the characters are the same.
You're right to use the phrase 'once again', but sadly not in the way you think you are.
7. I never really liked prestige classes because you have to spend time at lower levels making choices for skills, feats, etc. that you may not really want to get the prestige class you want, but this game makes a player's choices even more limited because you get shoehorned into a very small number of character paths.
Really? How many options do you have? What do you think would be the right number?
8. Multiclassing is destroyed in this edition. What's the fun in THAT? And again, because of this, characters end up all looking the same.
Except it isnt and they dont. Nonetheless, if it isnt fun for you you probably shouldnt play the game. Is it fun telling people you dont like the game you havent played?
9. I have no issue with the use of miniatures and maps in games, I use them when I run, but the requirement that they must be used smacks of a marketing ploy to me. I can't wait to see how many "must have" dungeon tile, game mat, and miniature sets come out after this.
After what?
10. Finally, my problem with this edition is that it doesn't seem to show any regard for DND players, those of us that have supported and loved this game for over 30 years. It seems to be attempting to attract an audience of video game enthusiasts with a faster pace and a dumbed-down presentation, as if to imply that people who play games like WOW are too stupid to understand anything more detailed(which is incredibly insulting). I think it is a huge mistake. I think that video gamers who don't already play RPG's will continue to play video games, and I think DND lovers will continue to play DND--3rd and 3.5 edition, that is.
I'm a DND lover who has been playing for over thirty years. Turns out some of us will continue to play the fourth edition.
What's the point in posting so many comments about a game you havent tried and arent interested in playing? What are you actually trying to achieve? I like it, so I play it. I'm not suggesting you should - you should eat your eggs however you like and I'll continue putting chocolate on mine. What's the problem?
Here's what's good about 4th edition:
--Having Daily, Encounter, and At-Will powers is a spectacular idea. It makes tons of sense to recharge some powers at different time increments. It's a great idea.
--Gaining Something at every level definitely serves to make the game more exciting, and in 4th edition, any level you don't gain a power, you at least get a feat.
--Making races matter more is good. Races now have no downsides, and you can take racial feats as you advance, so your race continues to affect you.
--Combining a lot of the skills seems like a good idea. No need to have so many.
--Making everything an attack may or may not be good, but it's definitely simpler. Spells are now an attack that goes something like Intelligence vs. Reflex. You make an attack based on intelligence vs. their reflex defense.
So those things might all be good, but there are so many bad things that I'm definitely going to keep playing 3.5. I'm not trying to dissuade you from fourth, I just think they've made a completely different game that I'm not personally as interested in.
Here's what's bad:
--Spells are gone. There, I said it. Vestiges and memories of spells remain, but for all intents and purposes they're gone. WOTC has pretty much made all classes identical in an attempt to make the game easier to play, and in order to do that, they had to make spellcasters like fighters. Basically all classes get powers (you pick from three or four at each level that you gain them), and those powers are usually some sort of battle ability, though some are for puzzle solving. Spellcasters get powers just like any other character. Fireball is an attack that affects a certain amount of space and does 3d6+Int mod damage. That's right, 3d6. Not 1d6/level. Spells are just a basic attack that don't improve an don't do anything interesting. Basically, warriors now make attacks that do X[Weapon] damage, and spellcasters attack too.
--Before, D&D was about imagination. We would cast stone to mud spells to weaken bridges to defeat enemies. We would polymorph mice to attack enemies. We'd teleport people off cliffs. It was all about coming up with the coolest strategies possible. Now you can't do that because there's only a couple abilities, and what they do is set in stone.
--Feats are pretty worthless. Whereas before you could create a cool character build with feats, using them to give your character an interesting combination of abilities, now they are just basic boosts. Almost every feat just gives you some bonus to something instead of cool abilities that allow you to do something special.
--There aren't even that many character builds available. In fact, each class comes with 2 suggested ways to build your character. Two! Just think how many different types of sorcerers and fighters you used to be able to make. Now, with the limited number of powers, there are very few options.
--The way saves work is ridiculous. There are a bunch of abilities that do something interesting, like a rogue can grab someone and immobilize them until that person saves. Here's the thing: saving is a 50/50 chance. It's not based on the rogue's strengths or skills or even your strength's or skills. You roll a d20, and a 10-20 makes you save. That's it.
--The game is pretty much an advanced strategy board game. About half of the abilities now allow you to shift position or slide opponents. The biggest part of the game is tactically positioning yourself and your enemies. You hit them, get to shift one square and slide them 4 squares. It's just about planning our where people end up. Where's the imagination in that?
Here's what should have happened:
--Keep spells, but make them at-will, encounter, or daily. Change their power to reflect how often you can cast them.
--Keep charts of what you gain when you level, but have racial charts as well, so you gain racial abilities as you go.
--Improve the fighting classes (rogue and ranger included) just like version 4 did, by giving them cool abilities as they level up.
In Conclusion, 4th edition came up with a lot of good fixes, but rather than applying them to 3.5 to create a spectacular game with lots of strategy and imagination, they created a new game, one that is purely tactical. This is a game for those who simply want to roll the dice and move the pieces, not spend all your time thinking about how it works or how cool a certain strategy would be.
Here's what's good about 4th edition:...
--Combining a lot of the skills seems like a good idea. No need to have so many.
...
The skills have been simplified to an alarming degree, again making characters homogeneous. I've personally never talked to a player who wants LESS options for making their character, so I'm not sure what the purpose was of that.
I'm not trying to dissuade you from fourth, I just think they've made a completely different game that I'm not personally as interested in.
There is nothing objectionable here. From what you've said, I think you should stick with 3.5.
In Conclusion, 4th edition came up with a lot of good fixes, but rather than applying them to 3.5 to create a spectacular game with lots of strategy and imagination, they created a new game, one that is purely tactical. This is a game for those who simply want to roll the dice and move the pieces, not spend all your time thinking about how it works or how cool a certain strategy would be.
I like 4th edition but I don't want to simply roll the dice and move the pieces. I think it's a great ruleset for running roleplaying games (my preference is to adapt Paizo adventure paths, as it happens - we're halfway through Age of Worms and I've done CoTCT and begun thinking about Kingmaker, upon request of my dragonborn loving brother).
Whilst you are the only person who can decide what games you're interested in - claiming to know what cohort of players 4th edition appeals to is just silly, especially if you've never played it. I still fail to understand why you're spending so much energy articulating the fact that you dont like the game. It's not objectionable, it's just puzzling.
4th Ed? Let me count the ways
I think the smart thing to do would have probably been to leave this thread alone. You are not going to do anything but reinforce our perception of you as a troll by continuing to post.
1. The book is cheaply made, so cheaply made that the ink comes off the pages if you rub it too hard.
The book (as though D&D is one book) is actually of very high quality. The ink problem is reportedly the result of a certain type of body chemistry in the oils on people's hands causing the ink to break down. I've never heard of anyone I know personally running into that problem, and they also reportedly fixed it in subsequent printings. It had nothing to do with the amount they wanted to spend on the book, though.
2. Of the limited races available,
There are 46 full player races available for 4e. Not at all limited.
Also, not only is the "dragonborn" simply a silly idea that panders to power gamers,
Dragonborn existed in 3.5. I'm sure you hate that edition, too, right? Also, I'm not sure how Dragonborn pander to power gamers, since Dragonborn are not mechanically stronger than any other race in the game (and are, arguably, mechanically inferior to certain races like Dwarves).
they look laughable.
Ah, yes. The "Your game is dumb because its guys have stupid faces!" attack.
And the idea that they would have a breath weapon as opposed to a bite or a claw attack is absurd.
Because you say so, right?
I love this. Half your stuff boils down to "Your game sucks because I think it sucks!"
I feel like I should be eating popcorn while watching you post.
Since they were adding the tiefling anyway, how about the aasimar?
Because they decided Tieflings would be a more popular choice.
And as for a monster class, they could have done something better than the dragonborn.
Dragonborn are a race, not a class. And I don't know why you say they're a "monster class", since their backstory has them written up as being about as civilized as any other humanoid race.
They already have with the half-orc.
Hey, yeah, it's pretty cool that you can play a half-orc in 4e huh?
3. The classes lost are not worth the classes gained.
You poor thing.
Who ever heard of DND without druids and bards?
Ernest Gary Gygax, co-creator of the original Dungeons & Dragons, a game whose only classes were fighting-man, magic user, and cleric, that's who.
For someone who loves to name-drop the guy, you don't know anything about what he's actually responsible for.
Stop posting, and go clean your room.
Instead, what did we get, the Warlord?
Yeah, he's pretty rad.
Please! What place does a tactical leader have in a roaming band of adventurers?
Yeah, who ever heard of a small band of heroes traveling with a brilliant tactical mastermind?
Oh, wait. Everyone.
Frankly, with the people I play with, if somebody "ordered" one of their PC's to attack, I don't think it would be the NPC that would be getting the smackdown.
Oh, so your players are self-important twelve year-olds? That explains a lot.
Warlords are for military and tactical units, not loosely confederated treasure hunters.
Sure. But a guy whose primary function in a band of adventuring monster killers is to strum his lute and sing a verse or two? Totally appropriate.
4. It doesn't matter what you play, the characters end up the same. Your warrior class characters end up having the same armor class and damage potential as your arcane class characters.
Is that so?
I'll be sure to tell that to the party Sorcerer, whose armor class is awful compared to the Fighter. Oh, but his damage dealing is way better. He just occasionally has an attack backfire on him, and he can't really lock monsters down the way the Fighter can. But he can strike from a distance, and has a pretty big variety of different types of damage he can bring to bear. He can only take a couple of hits before going down though. The Fighter can tough it out for way longer.
Should I keep going, or have you had enough?
It's like they are all fighters who just do different types of damage.
Sure, if you cover one eye and hold a jug of water in front of the other, and are deliberately trying to troll everyone here, then I guess maybe it could look something like that.
The classes are sort of like 1% and 2% milk--sure, the composition is slightly different, but they pretty much taste the same. BOOOOORRRRING!
I'm sorry that you and milk have such a rocky relationship.
5. The skills have been simplified to an alarming degree, again making characters homogeneous.
Yeah, man, what we need are more skills! Like in the original D&D! Man, they had all sorts of skills back then! How could anyone have ever created interesting characters without loads of skills?
If you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. D&D didn't even have a real skills system until partway through 2nd Edition AD&D, I believe. So, again, your post is a joke.
I've personally never talked to a player who wants LESS options for making their character,
Then I'm happy to inform you that 4th Edition features (currently) 46 races, 62 class choices, 551 paragon paths, 108 epic destinies, 3,083 feats, 3,171 items to find, craft, or purchase, 323 rituals, and 8,448 powers.
A player who wants character options cannot do better than 4th Edition.
6. The alignment system desperately needs a revamp and always has (either that or needs to be eliminated entirely), but the revamp they did made the system even more nonsensical. They have removed most of the choices, so once again, the characters are the same.
Yes. They removed neutral good, so now good characters and evil characters are the same.
It should not be this easy to tear into your post.
7. I never really liked prestige classes because you have to spend time at lower levels making choices for skills, feats, etc. that you may not really want to get the prestige class you want, but this game makes a player's choices even more limited because you get shoehorned into a very small number of character paths.
You'll be happy to know that prestige classes do not exist in 4th Edition, and have been replaced by paragon paths and epic destinies, most of which have few or no prerequisites.
8. Multiclassing is destroyed in this edition. What's the fun in THAT? And again, because of this, characters end up all looking the same.
A character who wants to multiclass in 4th Edition can take multiclass feats to gain powers and features of other classes. If they want to further advance as the other class, they can then pick up one of its paragon paths. Or they can build a hybrid character, which receives half its features and powers from one class, and half from the other. These hybrid classes can be further customized through hybrid talent feats and, if you want to go down that route, the hybrid paragon path option.
So I don't think you really know what you're talking about. But please, keep posting. This is actually kind of fun.
9. I have no issue with the use of miniatures and maps in games, I use them when I run, but the requirement that they must be used smacks of a marketing ploy to me. I can't wait to see how many "must have" dungeon tile, game mat, and miniature sets come out after this.
I've never bought dungeon tile sets. I own a Chessex battle mat (WotC has never sold a blank one). I have plenty of minis, but I also have a lot of cardboard counters that came with recent D&D products, which I'm actually starting to prefer as a DM - they're easier to transport, way cheaper, and have a much higher chance of actually representing the exact monster I'm using.
So if this is all a marketing ploy, maybe you should send your resume in. It sounds like you could give them a few pointers on being a callous, faceless corporation.
10. Finally, my problem with this edition is that it doesn't seem to show any regard for DND players, those of us that have supported and loved this game for over 30 years.
I've been playing D&D since I was 8. While that's certainly not 30 years, I guarantee you that there are tons of people who have been playing since the 70's who love 4th Edition.
Besides, you've demonstrated pretty handily that you have almost no familiarity with the D&D of olde, so I don't think you have any room to be offended on behalf of other people, here.
It seems to be attempting to attract an audience of video game enthusiasts with a faster pace and a dumbed-down presentation, as if to imply that people who play games like WOW are too stupid to understand anything more detailed(which is incredibly insulting).
No, you thinking that you can write a post like this and get away with it is insulting.
I think it is a huge mistake. I think that video gamers who don't already play RPG's will continue to play video games, and I think DND lovers will continue to play DND--3rd and 3.5 edition, that is.
Speaking as someone who has been responsible for introducing more video gamers than I can possibly recall from memory to tabletop roleplaying, you are dead wrong. Every six months, at the Penny Arcade Expo - a video game convention - people line up out hallways and around corners to try out tabletop roleplaying for the first time. You have no idea what this generation of gamers wants, and you have no interest in finding out - your mind is made up, and you're better than those snotty whippersnappers anyway.
I have plenty of minis, but I also have a lot of cardboard counters that came with recent D&D products, which I'm actually starting to prefer as a DM - they're easier to transport, way cheaper, and have a much higher chance of actually representing the exact monster I'm using.
I've been using the tokens more as well. Easier to slip into a backpack and have a good variety. They rarely look anything like what my players are fighting. Then again, nobody has made a huge Stalin golem mini, so maybe I'm picking unusual critters for my game.
|
|
I know, $20 for a 96 page book is outrageous. I would never spend that monthly.
LOL I wonder if people who get into this hooby realize it's an expensive one. It's like the want tommorows gaming now at yesterdays prices. It's not going to happen. Kind of reminds me of a poster who posted on the Wotc boards complaining about the amount of releases and the money he was "forced" to spend on the books. I used to get every book from Paizo. Now beyond the core books, Campaing setting and Ultimate books I pick and choose what I need. I'm certainly not going to tell Paizo not to release books They want to make a profit like anyone else and that requires support for PF. Goodwill is great it does not pay the bills, salaries and rent.
As for your earlier posts about the SRD and Paizo business model I think we will have to agree to disagree. I rather they charge someting like 10-20$ to get more content. Free is great it does not guarantee sales all the time imo.
|
|
Speaking as someone who has been responsible for introducing more video gamers than I can possibly recall from memory to tabletop roleplaying, you are dead wrong. Every six months, at the Penny Arcade Expo - a video game convention - people line up out hallways and around corners to try out tabletop roleplaying for the first time. You have no idea what this generation of gamers wants, and you have no interest in finding out - your mind is made up, and you're better than those snotty whippersnappers anyway.
Agreed and seconded. One of the main reasons are hobby is in a slump because many peoplee have atopped playing traditonal table top rpgs and more online games and MMOs. If that was not a factor our hobby would not imo be in that much trouble. I play both an MMO and tabletop rpgs. I have also introduced people who play MMOs to tabletop rpgs. Before posters talk about what this generation of gamers wants thye should do their research first. I will be blunt many older gamers seem to be vey cluless on that. Why do people assume because they act a certain way then everyone else is a carbon copy of them.
I'd like to nominate the OP for "Best Drive-by Trolling Of The Year".
Seconded.
Although personally, I've quite enjoyed the resultant thread.
I wanted to adress the 4th edition setting products, but when I got back after sleeping, the thread had moved on. However, I did check the MM for little tm marks, and there weren't any. I guess I thought there would be, because I remember thinking it was stupid that MtG cards had them, and the names were very similar. Maybe they don't either. So, I guess I was wrong about the trademarks. That still doesn't change the other facts, namely that troll will never be IP, while firegrenadeslinger goblin might, and that that style of name is mindnumbingly ugly. I would have understood it if they did it for IP reasons, but if not, it's truly pathetic.
...troll will never be IP, while firegrenadeslinger goblin might, and that that style of name is mindnumbingly ugly. I would have understood it if they did it for IP reasons, but if not, it's truly pathetic.
I think it's just aesthetic differences. I like the fact that a party of trolls can easily have three or four different kinds of troll. In contrast, I find the 'template' approach of 3.5/PF doesnt work for me (not that it's analogous, but it's a similar kind of concept).
Editions of D&D...
Differences from Dungeons & Dragons-The game rules were reorganized across three hardcover rulebooks (the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual) rather than one boxed set (of three books, Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, and The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures), and a series of supplemental booklets.
Supplemental rules cut included hit locations.
The Chainmail-based combat system was completely abandoned.
Many details in class abilities were altered and clarified.
Character classes (Bard, Illusionist and Ranger) that had only appeared in magazine publication were added to the game.
Alignment is broken down into two polarities, "ethics" being Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, and "morals" being Evil, Good, or Neutral, so there are now nine alignments: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil.
Character classes from Original Dungeons & Dragons supplemental material (Paladin, Thief, Assassin, Monk and Druid) are added in the core rules.[3]
Fighting Men are renamed Fighters.
The relationship between race and class is changed. In the original Dungeons & Dragons, Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit are considered classes, where in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons the players select races and classes independently.
Differences from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons-Half-orcs are removed from the Player's Handbook.
Character classes are organized into four groups: Warrior (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger), Wizard (Mage, Specialist Wizard), Priest (Cleric, Druid), and Rogue (Thief, Bard).
Assassins and Monks are removed from the game as character classes.
"Magic-users" are renamed "mages".
Illusionists are made into a subtype of the Wizard class, along with new classes specializing in the other seven schools of magic (which were first introduced in Dragonlance Adventures).
Bards are made a normal character class, rather than the multiple-classed character that they are in 1st Edition, although they still possess elements of fighters, thieves, and mages.
Rangers are changed dramatically, both thematically and mechanically, from a heavily armored, commando-style survivalist and "giant-class" monster hunter, to a much more nature oriented, lightly armored, two-weapon-wielding, Druid influenced nature warrior.
Proficiencies are officially supported in the Player's Handbook and many supplements, rather than being an optional add-on.
Attack matrices are replaced with a mathematical formula involving a character stat called "THAC0" (To Hit Armor Class 0), and the table printed only once in the Dungeon Masters Guide is reprinted in the second edition Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide.
References to "segments" (individual units of time representing one phase of initiative, or 6 seconds of game-time [simulated time]) are removed from the game; instead, actions are given an "Initiative Modifier". "Melee rounds" are unchanged, representing one minute of game-time, with a "turn" representing ten rounds (ten minutes). An optional alternative where one "melee round" represents 12–15 seconds of "game-time" is presented in the Player's Option: Combat & Tactics book, first of the so-called 2.5 Edition.
Other changes are made to combat including the function of weapon speed, initiative, and surprise rules.
Priest and Druid spells are organized into themed "spheres" that are similar to the wizard spell schools that had been introduced in Dragonlance Adventures, with access to spheres being determined by the priest's class and deity.
Descriptions of artifacts (unique magic items) are removed from the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Many utilities, including tables for random generation of dungeons, are removed from the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Exchange rates for the low-valued coins are doubled; it now takes only 100 copper pieces or 10 silver pieces to make one gold piece.
Coin weights changed from 10/lb (1st edition) to 50/lb. (second edition).
The hardcover Monster Manual was initially replaced by the looseleaf binder-format Monstrous Compendium; but this was eventually replaced by the hardcover Monstrous Manual.
Fiendish and angelic creatures (demons, devils, daemons, devas, solars, etc.) are removed from the game, as are spells that allowed such creatures to be summoned or controlled. These creatures were later renamed and modified in the Monstrous Compendium supplement on the Outer Planes.
Psionics are no longer included in the Player's Handbook, though they later appeared in their own supplement.
Maximum level is standardized at 20 rather than varying by class.
Magic resistance is changed so that a mage above 11th level would not impose a 5% penalty per mage level above 11th on an unwilling subject the mage is casting a spell on.
Differences from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition-The game system converted to the d20 System, which standardized task resolution to a roll of a 20-sided die ("d20"), adding or subtracting relevant modifiers, and then comparing the result to a "Difficulty Class" (DC) in order to determine the outcome.
THAC0 is replaced by a bonus to attack rolls. Armor Class (AC) operates as the Difficulty Class for attack rolls, and therefore increases (rather than decreases, as in 2nd edition) as defensive capabilities increase.
Ability scores follow a single table and give standardized bonuses. Ability scores are no longer capped at 25.
Saving throws are reduced from five categories (based on forms of attack) to three (based on type of defense): Fortitude (Constitution-based), Reflex (Dexterity-based), and Will (Wisdom-based), and also go up instead of down.
"Non-weapon proficiencies" are replaced by skills, and become a fundamental part of the game rather than an optional one, with class abilities such as thieving skills being translated directly into skills. All characters are given a pool of points to spend on a wide range of specific skills to further define a character.
Special abilities known as "feats" allow greater customization of characters. Fighters are no longer differentiated simply by weapons, roleplay and equipment selection, but rather by the number of feats they possess relative to other characters.
Magic item creation is simplified, requiring a prerequisite feat, spells, and monetary and experience costs, replacing the obscure rules of earlier editions.
Barbarians, monks, and half-orcs return to the Player's Handbook as basic character types.
Class groups are removed. "Mage" is renamed to "wizard," with "specialist wizards" being simply wizards that specialize in one school of magic, and "thief" is renamed to "rogue." The bard class is no longer considered a type of rogue.
"Priests of a specific mythos", also known as specialist priest classes, are eliminated (except druid), though some make their return in the form of prestige classes or through other options such as feats.
The sorcerer class is added to the game as an arcane caster that uses magic naturally, instead of through study.
Multi-classing and dual-classing as per previous editions is removed. In the new multiclassing system, multi-classing functioned similar to dual-classing had previously, except that a character could gain a level of any character class upon gaining a level instead of only gaining levels in the second class. Multi-classing is made available to all races, although easier for humans and half-elves, and characters with multiple classes of differing levels are penalized.
Prestige classes are added, representing special training or membership in an organization outside the generic scope of core classes. Entry into prestige classes requires characters to meet certain prerequisites. Assassins make their return here, as well as blackguards (fallen paladins) and several others.
Any combination of race and class is now permitted, with the exception of some prestige classes. (In 2nd Edition, characters of some fantasy races/species are not allowed to belong to some character classes.)
Priest spell spheres are removed from the game; each spellcasting class now has its own specific spell list (although wizard and sorcerer share a list). Instead, clerics gain domains that allow them to use bonus spells and abilities based on their deity's area of influence, as well as the ability to swap out prepared spells for curative spells.
Initiative is changed to a cyclic system where the order of resolving actions is determined once per encounter and then repeated, and actions are resolved on the players turn. In previous editions the order is redetermined each round and many actions do not resolve on the player's turn but at the end of the round.
Diagonal movement and range are simplified. Each square of diagonal distance is equivalent to 1.5 squares of orthogonal distance, rounded down.
The system for multiple attacks is changed so that, when making multiple attacks in the same round, later attacks are generally less accurate than earlier attacks.
Differences from Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition-This revision was intentionally a small one (hence the name change of only "half an edition"), small enough so that the basic rules are nearly identical and many monsters and items are compatible (or even unchanged) between those editions. In fact, some players, disliking some changes 3.5 made, use some 3.0 rules as house rules. Official errata for many of the most popular books are available for download as D&D v.3.5 Accessory Update Booklet.[11]
Barbarians receive more and improved class features, especially regarding barbarian rage.
Bards receive more skill points and bardic music abilities.
Druids can cast summon nature's ally spells spontaneously in place of any prepared spells, just like clerical spontaneous casting of cure/inflict wounds spells. Their abilities are also reworked and animal companions are improved, but restricted to one, having become a class feature, making animal companions akin to familiars in this regard.
Monks had a major rework of their class features, some balancing unbalanced aspects, others improving old abilities.
Paladins can summon their mounts, instead of finding them; they can also smite more often.
Rangers receive more skill points and new class abilities, though fewer hit points, and is able to choose between being a dual wielding melee specialist (which all rangers are forced into in 3.0), or an archery specialist.
New spells are added, and numerous changes are made to existing spells, while some spells are removed from the updated Player's Handbook.[11]
Spontaneous arcane spellcasters can change a few of their spell choices in later levels.
New feats are added and numerous changes are made to existing feats.
Several skills are renamed or merged with other skills.
Monsters gain feats and skills the same way as PCs, usually resulting in more skill points and feats for every monster.
The chapter on combat in the Player's Handbook is modified to increase focus on grid-based movement and combat.
Differences from Dungeons & Dragons v3.5-Specific changes in moving to the 4th Edition include:
Revision of saving throws and defense values. Fortitude, Reflex and Will are now static defense values which the attacker rolls against in the same way physical attacks roll against Armor Class. "Saving throw" now refers to rolls made at the end of one's turn in order to end certain ongoing detrimental effects; saving throw rolls generally have no bonus and a DC of 10.
Changes in spells and other per-encounter resourcing, giving all classes a similar number of at-will, per-encounter and per-day powers. (This applies to all classes, in contrast to previous editions where each spell is cast on a daily basis while non-casters are more likely to receive combat and non-combat bonuses than any specific powers.) Powers have a wide range of effects including inflicting status effects, creating zones (such as a stinking cloud), and forced movement, making combat very tactical for all classes but essentially requiring use of miniatures. Powers are typically used with particular types of equipment; for example, powers for the fighter class receive bonuses for certain types of weapons, while rogue powers usually require rogue weapons such as daggers and crossbows, and more magical classes can use implements (such as wands) with their powers to add their enhancement bonuses in the same way weapons do for weapon powers.
In the first Player's Handbook, the Warlock and Warlord are included, while the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer and Monk are not present. Of those classes, the first four have been published in Player's Handbook 2, while the Monk class appears in Player's Handbook 3.
Characters at 11th level choose a "paragon path," a specialty often (but not always) based on their class, which defines some of their new powers through 20th level. At level 21, an "epic destiny" is chosen in a similar manner. In many respects, the paragon path and the epic destiny replace the prestige class system of 3.5.
Core rules extend to level 30 rather than level 20, bringing "epic level" play back into the core rules (level 21+ play had last been explicitly written into core rules in the black-covered "Master" rule set of classic D&D).
The multiclassing system is revised. Rather than splitting levels between multiple classes, characters properly belong to only one class but may choose feats to gain abilities from other classes. Hybrid characters combine selected features from two classes. Eleventh level characters with sufficient multiclass feats can use "paragon multiclassing" to gain additional powers from another class in lieu of picking a "paragon path."
Standardized level-based bonus increases. Attack rolls, skill checks and defense values all get a bonus equal to ½ level, rounded down, rather than increasing at different rates depending on class or skill point investment. This bonus also applies to ability-score checks (such as Strength checks).
Revision of the healing system. Each character has a number of daily "healing surges" based on their class and Constitution score. Spending a healing surge usually heals a character for slightly under ¼ of a character's maximum hit points. Generally, characters can only spend a healing surge during combat by using a special once-per-encounter "second wind" action; however, certain powers allow additional surges to be spent (by the character using it or another character), and characters can spend any number of their healing surges while taking a 5 minute "short rest" outside of combat. Finally, players recover full hit points after a (once daily) 6 hour "extended rest".
Elimination of skill points. Each skill is either trained (providing a fixed bonus on skill checks, and sometimes allowing more exotic uses for the skills) or untrained, but in either case all characters also receive a bonus to all skill rolls based on level.
Many non-combat spells (such as Knock, Raise Dead, Tenser's Floating Disc, and Water Breathing) are replaced by rituals, which are not class-specific but require a feat (given to certain classes for free) and a skill check to perform. All rituals have a financial cost in the form of material components, such as herbs and alchemical reagents. Item creation feats are also replaced by rituals.
Elves are split into three races (excluding half-elves) rather than numerous subraces. Eladrin (not to be confused with the quite different monster of the same name in previous editions) are more civilized and magical, while regular "elves" are agile forest dwellers rather than city builders, and the evil subterranean drow are largely unchanged in flavor. All three elven races are considered fey.[16] Gnomes are also considered fey.
The Dungeon Master's Guide officially supports leveling monsters down and up to allow for easier encounter design and flexibility. Many monsters have their mechanics redesigned to help differentiate them from others. Some monsters are designed to work well in group fights whereas others can be used as a solo monster versus the players' party.[17][18]
Distances previously measured in feet are now measured in 5-foot squares; a diagonally adjacent square is considered to be 1 square away, so effect areas are generally square rather than circular or cone-shaped. The 5-foot step, usually taken to avoid attacks of opportunity, is replaced with a type of movement called shifting. Normally a character can shift one square as a move action, but some powers can allow shifting a greater distance or as part of another action.
I am a patient man, but I'm not that patient.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Editions of D&D...
Differences from Dungeons & Dragons-The game rules were reorganized across three hardcover rulebooks (the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual) rather than one boxed set (of three books, Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, and The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures), and a series of supplemental booklets.
Supplemental rules cut included hit locations.
The Chainmail-based combat system was completely abandoned.
Many details in class abilities were altered and clarified.
Character classes (Bard, Illusionist and Ranger) that had only appeared in magazine publication were added to the game.
Alignment is broken down into two polarities, "ethics" being Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, and "morals" being Evil, Good, or Neutral, so there are now nine alignments: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil.
Character classes from Original Dungeons & Dragons supplemental material (Paladin, Thief, Assassin, Monk and Druid) are added in the core rules.[3]
Fighting Men are renamed Fighters.
The relationship between race and class is changed. In the original Dungeons & Dragons, Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit are considered classes, where in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons the players select races and classes independently.Differences from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons-Half-orcs are removed from the Player's Handbook.
Character classes are organized into four groups: Warrior (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger), Wizard (Mage, Specialist Wizard), Priest (Cleric, Druid), and Rogue (Thief, Bard).
Assassins and Monks are removed from the game as character classes.
"Magic-users" are renamed "mages".
Illusionists are made into a subtype of the Wizard class, along with new classes specializing in the other seven schools of magic (which were first introduced in Dragonlance Adventures).
Bards are made a normal character class, rather than the multiple-classed character that they are in 1st Edition, although they...
Wikipedia is probably right again.
Ya know, I was going to post on all of what Superslayer said...but I feel any sort of rebuttal is moot. He's going to like, think, and say what and how he feels and any amount of counter-opinion will probably fall on deaf ears.
If people have so many problems with 4E then It's probably in their best interest NOT to play that edition. For me, AD&D/2E is probably the worst piece of rubbish to be considered an actual RPG so I don't play it. I don't try to spout this over on Dragonsfoot nor do I inject this on other sites (or this site's) forums that are dedicated to AD&D/2E because it bears little meaning.
Much of what Superslayer is personal preference but I'd have to say 90% of it is wrong or misguided. So after his little rant, I hope he can see that it won't change a thing save maybe make him feel better. But whatever, as they say "Haters gonna hate".
|
|
So after his little rant, I hope he can see that it won't change a thing save maybe make him feel better.
Unfortunately it may have a couple of other consequences:
1) It may convince a person who may have enjoyed D&D4e to not give it a try. Thay may already be playing Pathfinder anyway, or if not may still not go on to play Pathfinder, so whilst 4e loses a player PF does not necessarily gain a player. So a potential loss to someone's enjoyment and the hobby.
2) Antagonise someone who was thinking of playing Pathfinder, or who currently does, to actually choose not to because they preceive (incorrectly or not) that the fans of the game are being insulting and abusive to a game they enjoy.
I personally tend to fall into the latter category - I am not that much of a 4e fan, but I do play it and I still harbour a tad of bitterness toward Paizo for diminishing the 3.5 player base that can be enflamed by insults toward 4e so that I consider boycotting Pathfinder.
But then my nerdrage subsides as I remind myself that Paizo has tried to keep 3.x alive in the manner they see fit (even if that means accelerating the slow death of 3.5) and the company people themselves are quite accepting of 4e and it is a minority of inconsiderate Paizo fans and 4e haters that are responsible for these sorts of rants, not Paizo. So of course I see the light and continue to play PF in the shape of PFS.
|
I wanted to adress the 4th edition setting products, but when I got back after sleeping, the thread had moved on. However, I did check the MM for little tm marks, and there weren't any. I guess I thought there would be, because I remember thinking it was stupid that MtG cards had them, and the names were very similar. Maybe they don't either. So, I guess I was wrong about the trademarks. That still doesn't change the other facts, namely that troll will never be IP, while firegrenadeslinger goblin might, and that that style of name is mindnumbingly ugly. I would have understood it if they did it for IP reasons, but if not, it's truly pathetic.
The mechanics for the troll are IP, via copyright. So, incidentally, are the permutations of the troll. What isn't IP is the general term "troll" as it is in common usage - but you still can't copy and publish any of the 4e monsters without express permission of WotC, irrespective, because of copyright. I'm amazed you even looked for the TM mark next to names in the MM - I mean, I'm actually pretty familiar with the Monster Manuals, as you might expect as a 4e DM, so if they were there I would have mentioned it. I hate to say it, since you might consider me "nasty" for pointing it out, but you have a staggering level of ignorance in respect of what is, and isn't, IP, what constitutes copyright versus trademark, and what is involved in obtaining either. Your aethetic judgement on whether the names are any good or not is up to you (and understandable) but your general level of paranoia over the motives of WotC has led you up the garden path here.
Here's what's bad:
--Spells are gone. There, I said it. Vestiges and memories of spells remain, but for all intents and purposes they're gone. WOTC has pretty much made all classes identical in an attempt to make the game easier to play, and in order to do that, they had to make spellcasters like fighters. Basically all classes get powers (you pick from three or four at each level that you gain them), and those powers are usually some sort of battle ability, though some are for puzzle solving. Spellcasters get powers just like any other character. Fireball is an attack that affects a certain amount of space and does 3d6+Int mod damage. That's right, 3d6. Not 1d6/level. Spells are just a basic attack that don't improve an don't do anything interesting. Basically, warriors now make attacks that do X[Weapon] damage, and spellcasters attack too.
Lets not forget that many of those spells have added effects that apply various penalties on their targets along with damage. Wizards (in particular) were never very good nor designed to be good at dealing straight damage. Even in v3.5 it was considered poor optimization and a general bad idea to create a wizard for blasting. I'm sure you'd know that though.
As for puzzle solving, a big problem was that the wizard represented the only source for figuring out problems as it pertained to the adventure. Now, they have to rely on others in their party for cooperation. Yea, I know wizards don't have anymore Instant-Win buttons....shame (*rolls eyes*)
And as for every attack is the same....did you read teh Player's Handbook? What part of Magic Missile (now and auto-hit dealing 2 + Intelligence modifier force damage) is like Cleave (1[W] + Str, if successful an adjacent enemy take Str mod damage)? Where does the comparison start aside from how it's formatted? Cuz I don't see it at all.....
--Before, D&D was about imagination. We would cast stone to mud spells to weaken bridges to defeat enemies. We would polymorph mice to attack enemies. We'd teleport people off cliffs. It was all about coming up with the coolest strategies possible. Now you can't do that because there's only a couple abilities, and what they do is set in stone.
This quote from you makes me think that you primarily played spellcasters and were accustomed to defeating many monsters all by your self or over coming obsticles with your spells alone. That's something that's prevalent in v3.5 because casters rule, warriors drool. Now, as wizards and other spellcasters are pulled away from super-hero comics, those players get mad. Sorry, we now have to work together instead of one man doing everything while we just sit at the table and observe.
--Feats are pretty worthless. Whereas before you could create a cool character build with feats, using them to give your character an interesting combination of abilities, now they are just basic boosts. Almost every feat just gives you some bonus to something instead of cool abilities that allow you to do something special.
Yes and No. Yes because in v3.5 Feats were used to fill all the major holes in character's ability to perform their roll. They were there to facilitate how you could play you character. NOW, they help make your class features better. They have the same amount of importance from earlier editions just in different ways. I'd go further, but it bears little relevance on your opinion.
--There aren't even that many character builds available. In fact, each class comes with 2 suggested ways to build your character. Two! Just think how many different types of sorcerers and fighters you used to be able to make. Now, with the limited number of powers, there are very few options.
Depends on what you have access to. The Fighter alone has 6 different "builds" that help fuel character imagination and guess what....they don't necessarily have to correspond to the powers you choose. It depends more on what weapons your wielding than what feature you took. You know, same as v3.5 fighters except less sucky.
--The way saves work is ridiculous. There are a bunch of abilities
that do something interesting, like a rogue can grab someone and immobilize them until that person saves. Here's the thing: saving is a 50/50 chance. It's not based on the rogue's strengths or skills or even your strength's or skills. You roll a d20, and a 10-20 makes you save. That's it.
Oh I'm sure your players had loads of fun being grappled for the entire battle, being under the influence of immobilizing poisons, or being confused whilst attacking your friends for the entire battle. Yea, those are fun times indeed.......... OR you could be taken out of the fight for a round or two and THEN come back to the fun and help your party.
--The game is pretty much an advanced strategy board game. About half of the abilities now allow you to shift position or slide opponents. The biggest part of the game is tactically positioning yourself and your enemies. You hit them, get to shift one square and slide them 4 squares. It's just about planning our where people end up. Where's the imagination in that?
This was the case in 3E when they introduced Flanking. Seriously if your Rogue in 3E wasn't flanking then he was performing horribly at his job. Shifting is just a simpler term for "taking a 5-ft. move plus Full-Round Attack". Positioning has ALWAYS been important in D&D (espically since 3E and 4E) so please don't try and say this is something new. In fact there were feats in 3E that helps a wizard/sorcerer's spells select what squares their spells would not effect as to make positioning easier for their allies.
Actually the positioning stuff in 4ED was one of the few things I actually liked.
I currently play a PF fighter specializing in Combat Maneuvers for this reason.
I wouldn't say that it makes it seem like a strategy board game, I think it improves combat by offering more than charge in and hit while casters lob spells.
Not to mention my rogue loves me.