...if intense political intrigue where one rarely, if ever, draws a sword is what you are after, D&D is not your game and it never has been.
Yeah I pretty much stopped reading when I got to this bit.
...because it's so damn right and my god my D&D years would've been all the better if the locally ran gamesdays could've wrapped their head around that simple fact
Which will be in Eberron, as has been stated as such multiple times.
Gnomes are in the Monster Manual as a playable character race, however they lack the "bells and whistles" of other classes at this time. ie the amount of Racial Feats, Paragon Paths, etc. that other races have, the Gnomes do not currently.
Keith Baker's made it quite clear that if gnomes have not "gotten their due" by the time the Eberron Player's Guide comes out (next year) then he'll do it. Zilargo's a big part of Eberron, as are gnomes.
DDI will likely include this sort of material for the gnome over the next few months. The Warforged is getting such a write-up on DDI this June, actually, and it's likely other PC-playable races from the Monster Manual will get a similar treatment eventually.
So, what if you're playing in an Eberron campaign right now and one of you is a Gnome or Warforged or Shifter or Artificier and shit, the 4e stuff isn't out for Eberron yet?
Don't switch.
3.5 characters and campaigns cannot be switched over to 4e.
They can't. Don't even bother trying. It's like saving a game of Morrowind and trying to change the game to Oblivion. 4e is a sequel, and trying to shoe-horn the rules-set into it mid-campaign is only going to queer things up. Characters do not convert over, the feel of combat is different, so your best bet to play 4e is to start a brand new campaign.
...if intense political intrigue where one rarely, if ever, draws a sword is what you are after, D&D is not your game and it never has been.
Yeah I pretty much stopped reading when I got to this bit.
...because it's so damn right and my god my D&D years would've been all the better if the locally ran gamesdays could've wrapped their head around that simple fact
I mean, don't get me wrong, you can still have political intrigue and diplomacy and all that in D&D.
Skills exist to do that, as do skill challenges in 4e.
But that is not the focus of the game, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be.
The game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Princes & Politics.
I mean, don't get me wrong, you can still have political intrigue and diplomacy and all that in D&D.
Skills exist to do that, as do skill challenges in 4e.
But that is not the focus of the game, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be.
The game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Princes & Politics.
Exactly. Even the setting itself is very much focused on conquering and feats of power rather than careful and measured diplomacy. It's high fantasy- and nations are more likely to solve their problems with swords and awesome magical effects than meeting around a table with translators and little etched signs saying "Thay".
I really should emphasize this point, as it is important:
You can't really convert your existing characters and campaigns to 4e. You can't. It doesn't work. Don't bother.
You can, if you want, but it's not going to go right. You'll be able to capture the spirit of the character ("I am Dwarf Rogue who throws hand-axes") but you will not be able to replicate what they could do in 3.5, or their magic items or prestige classes or any of those mechanica effects.
The easy solution to this problem? Don't do it! Don't switch your campaigns over. Complete them. Close the book on them, and start something new if you want. If you don't want to, if you want to play that one single campaign forever and aren't willing to go through the essential retcon it would take to switch things over to 4e, then don't switch!
Don't bother buying the books or the new edition, since all you really care about is playing the same campaign you've been playing for the past 8 years anyway.
The rest of us will be enjoying our shiney new thing, though.
Pony on
0
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I was about to come in here and praise all these insightful people, and then I realized they were all Pony.
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
You know, as someone whose main RP style is simulationist character/setting exploration, usually considers combat optional, didn't know anyone ever used miniatures for P&P until a couple years ago and still thinks 'tabletop' is a wargame-exclusive term, Dungeons & Dragons (and D20 as a whole) never caught my attention until it refocused itself as a tactical combat adventure RPG, like Diablo or Warcraft. Finally after twenty or so years it's gotten off the pot and accepted its system is built almost entirely around combat and dungeon crawling and thus should focus almost entirely around combat in dungeons. The only other option would be to replace its entire engine with something focusing equally on player-made character types and rewards for social interactions. I think refining itself to use its established class and experience system I think was the only realistic option, especially from a franchise standpoint.
I think the worst of the game's irresolute capabilities has been the last decade with the D20 open license, where players were encouraged to think D&D and D20 were 'do anything' systems that could be applied to any setting, and thus no other RP system had to be used for different styles of gaming. We ended up with a whole generation of RPers who weren't even aware of other RPGs, coming up with ways to recreate Fallout or Paranoia by cramming in Soldier, Scout, and Rogue classes and punching in feats every two levels that sounded good on paper.
Finally we might be able to have Dungeons and Dragons stick to doing its main thing and do it solidly, and let other systems to theirs.
Ok, a couple of my friends are worried about 4e because they see all these healing surges and think its kinda turned it into a nerf game. His argument being "why are battles scary now? Fireball! Healing surge. Lightning Bolt! Healing Surge."
Also: He doesn't like that all the classes are getting powers, thinks its going from"D&D to DBZ" When I mentioned that just swinging a sword was a little on the boring side he said that I "was doing it wrong."
I would love to convert them over to 4e since they're my primary circle of D&D friends, so, anyone care to present answers to these arguments?
Ok, a couple of my friends are worried about 4e because they see all these healing surges and think its kinda turned it into a nerf game. His argument being "why are battles scary now? Fireball! Healing surge. Lightning Bolt! Healing Surge."
Also: He doesn't like that all the classes are getting powers, thinks its going from"D&D to DBZ" When I mentioned that just swinging a sword was a little on the boring side he said that I "was doing it wrong."
I would love to convert them over to 4e since they're my primary circle of D&D friends, so, anyone care to present answers to these arguments?
I think it would help to point out that 4e characters won't be fighting 3.x monsters. They will be built for the system and will be just as capable. I'm sure there will be plenty to worry about. Secondly, isn't making the combat appropriately challenging the job of the DM and not the system?
As far as explaining Martial Exploits go, you could point out that it evens the playing field between casters and everyone else, and it allows for martial characters to be useful without having to focus all of their skills and powers toward maxing out one tiny aspect of combat (number of attacks, crit ranges, etc.)
OhtheVogonity on
Oh freddled gruntbuggly...thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
One healing surge per encounter, and it's not one guy throwing fireball. It's one guy throwing fireball and ten minions attacking with flaming implements of hurt. Oh, and the one guy can make the minions explode as fireballs every few rounds.
"You're doing it wrong"? Really?? Tell him to get off his high horse and stop judging a game before he has even played it. He also sounds like the angsty fighter-char player who complains about mages being OP. Offer him some cheese, so he's got something to go with his whine.
Edit: you could try running a quick game and limit him to Bo9S classes ONLY. That might get him a little more pumped about powers.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
I think Pony is saying that people on ENWorld are retards that are scared of change. :P
Reading those forums enrages me. People forget there was the same reaction when 3rd edition came out. "They are dumbing down D&D", "WotC are evil! Releasing a new edition instead of updating 2nd, they are just in it for the money(oh god i hate nerds that think like this)", "WotC is going to make D&D like diablo/a CCG/a board game.", etc
Pony is so right about D&D being a game centered around combat and loot. It always has been that way. Thats what RPG systems are for. That doesn't mean the roleplaying side suffers in any way if the rollplaying side is being improved. Even the skill system in 4th edition will be used by me as more of a pure mechanics thing. If a character was a master brewer before starting adventuring he will be able to make ales and such without having to sacrifice combat/adventuring pertinent skills to do so.
Well the internet is practically designed for snap-decisons. Well... snap-opinions, rather.
"Oh damn 4E is going to be a soul-sucking tabletop-MMO-wannabe that eats your parents and molests your dog. And that's for certain because we have, in fact, seen everything we could possibly need to see to validate that prediction beyond all doubt."
I actually read Enworld as mixed in reactions. It's nowhere near as positive as the 2.0 to 3.0 transition though.
I think the thing is, 4th is very different from 3rd and it's a much larger step than any previous edition. I'm almost willing to say it's a bigger step than 1st to 3rd was. So at the end it may well not be what people consider D&D.
I do think it's going to be a fun game and it's likely the game I will end up playing but I will miss some of the "Rules as Physics" and will be annoyed by some of the "Gamist" concessions. Of course, some of the others places I will happily embrace as it gets rid of annoying BS.
Yea, in some ways things are harder. Your healing surges are tied to every manner of healing but one we've seen. The exception is the Paladin who is allowed to use his healing surges on other people.
...........they know barring outside influence you can only healing surge once an encounter?
I didnt even know that part.
Yeah, you have to use your second wind to use a healing surge to heal yourself in combat. You can only use your second wind once per encounter(though I think I saw a warlord power that can restore this but he is the martial version of a cleric). Also, most healing spells I've seen use up healing surges as well. Adding that to the fact that monsters seem a lot more dangerous, combat should still be hard when it is supposed to be. What healing surges do is allow for less 2 hour days and makes the party hinge way less on a cleric or having a backpack full of wands.
Also, I think its more video gamey with the old system where the cleric would stand behind the fighters spamming cure spells like we were playing EQ. What fantasy novel have you read where thats the clerics role? Usually magical healing happens out of combat or during lulls. If the fighter hero gets injured he usually has to push past the pain and find some way to win other than having a healer tied to his back.
As far as 4E being "tabletop-MMO-wannabe", it pretty much looks like it will be. Whether or not that's a negative or a positive opinion you can decide for yourself.
Too much combat bores the shit out of me, both as a player and as a DM... but that's just me.
Edit: If the cleric can stand back like that there's something wrong with how the encounter is being run, imo. :P
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
...........they know barring outside influence you can only healing surge once an encounter?
I didnt even know that part.
Even better, every encounter in 4e is built under the assumption that there will be some chance of player death. Every single on of them by the raw is this way. In 3.x only every 4th encounter is assumed to have a chance of killing players at all.
As someone who played Neverwinter Nights persistent roleplaying servers, I have to agree heavily on the point that Clerics as the main source of healing is kind of suspension of disbelief breaking. When you step back and think about how that'd look (or if you don't have to imagine it in the case of NWN) it's far more MMO-esque than the 4E alternative.
I for one welcome our new healing surge overlords.
The idea of healing powers (clerical or otherwise) having a level of reliance on surges add a whole new tactical level for me- expend all your surges for whatever reason? No emergency Cure Moderate Wounds for you. And, of course, it's significant that resilient characters (additional surges from feats etc.) would be easier to heal, as you might expect.
Even better, every encounter in 4e is built under the assumption that there will be some chance of player death. Every single on of them by the raw is this way. In 3.x only every 4th encounter is assumed to have a chance of killing players at all.
This. This is the thing that 4e wins me over with. Those first three boring combats in 3.xe sucked so hard, and that fourth was a test to see if you ran over your spending limit on your spell credit cards.
In 4e, you've got a free license on what you want to do with your abilities, and only one real "Oh Shit!" button in your powerful Dailies. Once you've expended that, you're down to your encounter powers and at wills. It's a hard knock life for adventurers in 4e, and monsters haven't gotten any easier.
So just so I understand this, is the vancian magic system completely gone now and replaced with something akin to the SW:saga force power system where you just get X number of powers per encounter/day? Or do wizards get something akin to both? How does switching out/memorizing spells work?
So just so I understand this, is the vancian magic system completely gone now and replaced with something akin to the SW:saga force power system where you just get X number of powers per encounter/day? Or do wizards get something akin to both? How does switching out/memorizing spells work?
Everyone gets powers they can do at will, powers they can do per encounter, and powers they can do per day. It looks like memorization is just a wizard class ability that lets them switch out their daily power(s) for something in a slightly larger set.
Alright, for one, that Oakhurst adventure is poorly designed and does not take into account the changes of 4e. It's basically a 3.5-style adventure in 4e clothing.
I used a custom adventure of my own creation, which I will tidy up and upload for you. I used the sample characters that are available on the net, and some of the sample monsters too.
With regards to fears that 4e is going to turn D&D into basically a MMO-lite... don't worry about it.
Seriously. You don't need the randomized miniatures packs to play, right? So the fact that they sell them doesn't really affect your game. If they start selling random decks and boosters of power cards that you can't get in the books? Again, who cares! All the crunch will be available on the Rules Database anyway, and if it's not... were you really going to use them? I doubt it.
Just because the material exists, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Some fans of D&D, especially the younger generations, love the "gotta catch 'em all!" mentality and stuff like randomized miniature packs or the RPGA really appeals to them. That's not for everyone, nor does it need to be.
A lot of complaints I'm seeing online is that "wah wah wah, 4e is all about combat"
When has Dungeons & Dragons not been about opening the dungeon door and putting armored foot to monster ass? What game have you been playing?
Because let me tell you something, if intense political intrigue where one rarely, if ever, draws a sword is what you are after, D&D is not your game and it never has been.
If you've been playing it that way, that's fine, but really you've been using a monster truck to drive to work, so to speak. Sure, it'll do that, I guess, but that's not what it's for.
A lot of what I'm seeing online is over-reaction and interpretation based on snippets of info and interpretations of that info.
I remember when they made it clear that monsters weren't using creature-type based HD anymore, and had special monster classes (artillery, soldier, etc.) for them.
Oh, the crying and gnashing of teeth! "B-but versimilitude! Everything should use the same rules! What if I want to play a minotaur! I can't play minotaurs?!"
Calm down, man. Nobody's telling you that you can't play a Minotaur, or a Gnoll, or a Hobgoblin. The system's just been redesigned so that the monsters are not nearly as complicated as the player characters because they don't need to be.
That's an example of a really positive change to the game the fans online completely lost their minds over.
Another one? DDI.
So much bitching. So much usless bitching over this. DDI is just a tool. It's handy, I intend to use it, but really it's no different than say OpenRPG or MapTool or the dozen other programs just like it. Yes, it's got a monthly fee, but for that monthly fee you also get what is essentially half-price Dungeon and Dragon magazine subscriptions, and access to the Rules Database. Pretty sweet deal for only $10-$15 a month, I'd say!
But oh, the bitching! "Abloo abloo abloo, I don't want a laptop at my gaming table! I shouldn't need a computer to play D&D!"
You don't, jack-ass, just like you don't need miniatures either. But they are part of the game and it is assumed you have them, and if you don't like that, then what the hell have you been playing for the past decade?
I don't use miniatures. Never have. Not about to start. The 4e game I ran? Didn't use them there either, even though 4e, with all it's sliding squares back and tactical positioning, incorporates miniatures more than 3.5 did.
But we don't need them to play. I'll probably just plop a pad of graph paper into the center of the table in future games, and record tactical positions there if it gets confusing.
Which, by the way, it tends not to.
Every single thing about 4e is better than 3.5.
I challenge you to find one thing about 3.5 that was really positive that 4e lacks.
Something that actually has to do with the system itself, rather than "I already own the 3.5 books" or "I know 3.5 like the back of my hand".
That's just experience and materials pre-existing. Has nothing to do with the system. By that argument, 1st Edition is the best system, which is retarded.
So really, if anyone is that fussed up about 4e, give me an example of something that really concerns you about the game, or something about 3.5 you really love that's missing from the new game.
Give it a shot.
edited coz I reconsidered.
I do think that's a bit of a strong response to a polite question.
I do think that's a bit of a strong response to a polite question.
Try not to think of it as a personal attack, but rather a response to the rampant stupidity of D&D players on ENWorld and the Official D&D forums. Trying to dig out gems of information while reading those places makes one quite frustrated.
It's funny: Many of the posters at WotC & ENworld complain that 4e is the World-of-Warcraftizing of D&D. Yet in their whining and stupidity they have reduced their forums to be just like WoW's official boards.
I do think that's a bit of a strong response to a polite question.
Try not to think of it as a personal attack, but rather a response to the rampant stupidity of D&D players on ENWorld and the Official D&D forums. Trying to dig out gems of information while reading those places makes one quite frustrated.
It's funny: Many of the posters at WotC & ENworld complain that 4e is the World-of-Warcraftizing of D&D. Yet in their whining and stupidity they have reduced their forums to be just like WoW's official boards.
I was making a general statement of my frustration with the internet fanbase, and drawing a very clear line in the sand that if you've got serious greiviences with 4e, I want to see you air them. Show me something, anything, about 3.5 that you liked that 4e does not have? Show me something positive 3.5 had that 4e doesn't, and that bothers you.
Thus far, the only thing approaching legitimate I can see is people who liked Half-Orcs or Gnomes, since they aren't standard playable races anymore.
I generally like what I've seen of 4th so far, but I do worry a bit that it's going to become harder to run games without minis. I'm not saying it's impossible or anything, just that all the minutia of pushbacks and what generally seems like larger encounter size is going to make keeping track of things more difficult.
I've been playing with miniatures since 2nd edition, so I'm all for it, but my current group doesn't like to use them, so I'm interested to see just how much more complicated it is in practice.
Exarch makes a good point, and it's one that concerns me too. Even though I do most of my gaming online I'd like to be able to do some face to face without using scraps of paper or what few minis I have to hand.
Of course this is tiny in comparison to the things that I like about 4e so far.
Exarch makes a good point, and it's one that concerns me too. Even though I do most of my gaming online I'd like to be able to do some face to face without using scraps of paper or what few minis I have to hand.
Of course this is tiny in comparison to the things that I like about 4e so far.
Dry erase board and legos, it'll cost you say, ten dollars. I don't mean to sound rude with that suggestion, though, I've run games for players who prefer to do it without minis in 3.5 and WoD.
I do agree though, that 4e seems geared towards miniatures over anything else. This is my group's, and most groups that I know ofs play style though.
My group is all ex-wargames players, so they love having graphical representations - therefore I have a battlemat and a mini for each player, but for monsters I just use legos (I have a whole pile of them from when I was a kid.)
I, personally, feel that the more graphical a game gets the more fun people have, so they don't feel cheated about things like flanking etc. I think I'm going to run a board/mini-less 4e playtest and see what we get out of it.
Maticore on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited April 2008
Homiez dolls are fifty cents apiece at your local grocer and are perfectly suited for any miniature combat needs. If your paladin already looks like an obese Latino rapper, well, that's just a bonus.
seriously, I don't understand how people can rail so much against 'miniatures'. you don't need anything resembling official minis or their dungeon tiles to play the game. I use a chessex battle mat and little multicolored glass beads / coins / miscellaneous items lying about the house.
if I don't have access to them then I use graph paper and a good old pencil.
if I can't get ahold of some graph paper? I use a ruler on the table where one inch = one square.
there are legitimate complaints, and there are ridiculous ones.
I challenge you to find one thing about 3.5 that was really positive that 4e lacks.
Something that actually has to do with the system itself, rather than "I already own the 3.5 books" or "I know 3.5 like the back of my hand".
That's just experience and materials pre-existing. Has nothing to do with the system. By that argument, 1st Edition is the best system, which is retarded.
So really, if anyone is that fussed up about 4e, give me an example of something that really concerns you about the game, or something about 3.5 you really love that's missing from the new game.
Give it a shot.
Seriously. I can't mention 4th Ed. around one of my buddies because he's so stuck on 3.5 and he claims that the new system "isn't very good" based around one session of SW Saga Edition giving him a taste of the new way skills are being handled and he doesn't want to have to go back and rebuy all the books.
Ironically, he spends plenty of time complaining about how stupid it was of the people who balked at the transition from 2nd to 3rd.
@Arcanis: I use a white-board. It's easier to update and it's less stuff to carry. I never saw the appeal of minis.
Only problem is scale, and most times that's just with me being emo over the difference between the image of the map in my head, and the simplified 2d representation on the board.
I'll agree that the minis complaints are kinda silly. :U
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Posts
Yeah I pretty much stopped reading when I got to this bit.
...because it's so damn right and my god my D&D years would've been all the better if the locally ran gamesdays could've wrapped their head around that simple fact
Which will be in Eberron, as has been stated as such multiple times.
Gnomes are in the Monster Manual as a playable character race, however they lack the "bells and whistles" of other classes at this time. ie the amount of Racial Feats, Paragon Paths, etc. that other races have, the Gnomes do not currently.
Keith Baker's made it quite clear that if gnomes have not "gotten their due" by the time the Eberron Player's Guide comes out (next year) then he'll do it. Zilargo's a big part of Eberron, as are gnomes.
DDI will likely include this sort of material for the gnome over the next few months. The Warforged is getting such a write-up on DDI this June, actually, and it's likely other PC-playable races from the Monster Manual will get a similar treatment eventually.
So, what if you're playing in an Eberron campaign right now and one of you is a Gnome or Warforged or Shifter or Artificier and shit, the 4e stuff isn't out for Eberron yet?
Don't switch.
3.5 characters and campaigns cannot be switched over to 4e.
They can't. Don't even bother trying. It's like saving a game of Morrowind and trying to change the game to Oblivion. 4e is a sequel, and trying to shoe-horn the rules-set into it mid-campaign is only going to queer things up. Characters do not convert over, the feel of combat is different, so your best bet to play 4e is to start a brand new campaign.
I mean, don't get me wrong, you can still have political intrigue and diplomacy and all that in D&D.
Skills exist to do that, as do skill challenges in 4e.
But that is not the focus of the game, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be.
The game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Princes & Politics.
Exactly. Even the setting itself is very much focused on conquering and feats of power rather than careful and measured diplomacy. It's high fantasy- and nations are more likely to solve their problems with swords and awesome magical effects than meeting around a table with translators and little etched signs saying "Thay".
You can't really convert your existing characters and campaigns to 4e. You can't. It doesn't work. Don't bother.
You can, if you want, but it's not going to go right. You'll be able to capture the spirit of the character ("I am Dwarf Rogue who throws hand-axes") but you will not be able to replicate what they could do in 3.5, or their magic items or prestige classes or any of those mechanica effects.
The easy solution to this problem? Don't do it! Don't switch your campaigns over. Complete them. Close the book on them, and start something new if you want. If you don't want to, if you want to play that one single campaign forever and aren't willing to go through the essential retcon it would take to switch things over to 4e, then don't switch!
Don't bother buying the books or the new edition, since all you really care about is playing the same campaign you've been playing for the past 8 years anyway.
The rest of us will be enjoying our shiney new thing, though.
Amen, brother.
I think the worst of the game's irresolute capabilities has been the last decade with the D20 open license, where players were encouraged to think D&D and D20 were 'do anything' systems that could be applied to any setting, and thus no other RP system had to be used for different styles of gaming. We ended up with a whole generation of RPers who weren't even aware of other RPGs, coming up with ways to recreate Fallout or Paranoia by cramming in Soldier, Scout, and Rogue classes and punching in feats every two levels that sounded good on paper.
Finally we might be able to have Dungeons and Dragons stick to doing its main thing and do it solidly, and let other systems to theirs.
Also: He doesn't like that all the classes are getting powers, thinks its going from"D&D to DBZ" When I mentioned that just swinging a sword was a little on the boring side he said that I "was doing it wrong."
I would love to convert them over to 4e since they're my primary circle of D&D friends, so, anyone care to present answers to these arguments?
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
Also, by all appearances the total amount of healing surges in a day (and thus total available healing) is capped? No cheap wands of CLW.
I think it would help to point out that 4e characters won't be fighting 3.x monsters. They will be built for the system and will be just as capable. I'm sure there will be plenty to worry about. Secondly, isn't making the combat appropriately challenging the job of the DM and not the system?
As far as explaining Martial Exploits go, you could point out that it evens the playing field between casters and everyone else, and it allows for martial characters to be useful without having to focus all of their skills and powers toward maxing out one tiny aspect of combat (number of attacks, crit ranges, etc.)
"You're doing it wrong"? Really?? Tell him to get off his high horse and stop judging a game before he has even played it. He also sounds like the angsty fighter-char player who complains about mages being OP. Offer him some cheese, so he's got something to go with his whine.
Edit: you could try running a quick game and limit him to Bo9S classes ONLY. That might get him a little more pumped about powers.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Reading those forums enrages me. People forget there was the same reaction when 3rd edition came out. "They are dumbing down D&D", "WotC are evil! Releasing a new edition instead of updating 2nd, they are just in it for the money(oh god i hate nerds that think like this)", "WotC is going to make D&D like diablo/a CCG/a board game.", etc
Pony is so right about D&D being a game centered around combat and loot. It always has been that way. Thats what RPG systems are for. That doesn't mean the roleplaying side suffers in any way if the rollplaying side is being improved. Even the skill system in 4th edition will be used by me as more of a pure mechanics thing. If a character was a master brewer before starting adventuring he will be able to make ales and such without having to sacrifice combat/adventuring pertinent skills to do so.
"Oh damn 4E is going to be a soul-sucking tabletop-MMO-wannabe that eats your parents and molests your dog. And that's for certain because we have, in fact, seen everything we could possibly need to see to validate that prediction beyond all doubt."
I think the thing is, 4th is very different from 3rd and it's a much larger step than any previous edition. I'm almost willing to say it's a bigger step than 1st to 3rd was. So at the end it may well not be what people consider D&D.
I do think it's going to be a fun game and it's likely the game I will end up playing but I will miss some of the "Rules as Physics" and will be annoyed by some of the "Gamist" concessions. Of course, some of the others places I will happily embrace as it gets rid of annoying BS.
I didnt even know that part.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
That is actually some harsh stuff there.
Yeah, you have to use your second wind to use a healing surge to heal yourself in combat. You can only use your second wind once per encounter(though I think I saw a warlord power that can restore this but he is the martial version of a cleric). Also, most healing spells I've seen use up healing surges as well. Adding that to the fact that monsters seem a lot more dangerous, combat should still be hard when it is supposed to be. What healing surges do is allow for less 2 hour days and makes the party hinge way less on a cleric or having a backpack full of wands.
Also, I think its more video gamey with the old system where the cleric would stand behind the fighters spamming cure spells like we were playing EQ. What fantasy novel have you read where thats the clerics role? Usually magical healing happens out of combat or during lulls. If the fighter hero gets injured he usually has to push past the pain and find some way to win other than having a healer tied to his back.
Too much combat bores the shit out of me, both as a player and as a DM... but that's just me.
Edit: If the cleric can stand back like that there's something wrong with how the encounter is being run, imo. :P
Even better, every encounter in 4e is built under the assumption that there will be some chance of player death. Every single on of them by the raw is this way. In 3.x only every 4th encounter is assumed to have a chance of killing players at all.
I for one welcome our new healing surge overlords.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
This. This is the thing that 4e wins me over with. Those first three boring combats in 3.xe sucked so hard, and that fourth was a test to see if you ran over your spending limit on your spell credit cards.
In 4e, you've got a free license on what you want to do with your abilities, and only one real "Oh Shit!" button in your powerful Dailies. Once you've expended that, you're down to your encounter powers and at wills. It's a hard knock life for adventurers in 4e, and monsters haven't gotten any easier.
At least I know I did.
Players (casters and manifesters really) could make this a bit of a pain, but I thankfully never had many players who enjoy those classes.
Everyone gets powers they can do at will, powers they can do per encounter, and powers they can do per day. It looks like memorization is just a wizard class ability that lets them switch out their daily power(s) for something in a slightly larger set.
edited coz I reconsidered.
I do think that's a bit of a strong response to a polite question.
Try not to think of it as a personal attack, but rather a response to the rampant stupidity of D&D players on ENWorld and the Official D&D forums. Trying to dig out gems of information while reading those places makes one quite frustrated.
It's funny: Many of the posters at WotC & ENworld complain that 4e is the World-of-Warcraftizing of D&D. Yet in their whining and stupidity they have reduced their forums to be just like WoW's official boards.
Warrior | Mage
OK - fair enough
I was making a general statement of my frustration with the internet fanbase, and drawing a very clear line in the sand that if you've got serious greiviences with 4e, I want to see you air them. Show me something, anything, about 3.5 that you liked that 4e does not have? Show me something positive 3.5 had that 4e doesn't, and that bothers you.
Thus far, the only thing approaching legitimate I can see is people who liked Half-Orcs or Gnomes, since they aren't standard playable races anymore.
I've been playing with miniatures since 2nd edition, so I'm all for it, but my current group doesn't like to use them, so I'm interested to see just how much more complicated it is in practice.
LoL: BunyipAristocrat
Of course this is tiny in comparison to the things that I like about 4e so far.
SoogaGames Blog
Dry erase board and legos, it'll cost you say, ten dollars. I don't mean to sound rude with that suggestion, though, I've run games for players who prefer to do it without minis in 3.5 and WoD.
I do agree though, that 4e seems geared towards miniatures over anything else. This is my group's, and most groups that I know ofs play style though.
My group is all ex-wargames players, so they love having graphical representations - therefore I have a battlemat and a mini for each player, but for monsters I just use legos (I have a whole pile of them from when I was a kid.)
I, personally, feel that the more graphical a game gets the more fun people have, so they don't feel cheated about things like flanking etc. I think I'm going to run a board/mini-less 4e playtest and see what we get out of it.
if I don't have access to them then I use graph paper and a good old pencil.
if I can't get ahold of some graph paper? I use a ruler on the table where one inch = one square.
there are legitimate complaints, and there are ridiculous ones.
Seriously. I can't mention 4th Ed. around one of my buddies because he's so stuck on 3.5 and he claims that the new system "isn't very good" based around one session of SW Saga Edition giving him a taste of the new way skills are being handled and he doesn't want to have to go back and rebuy all the books.
Ironically, he spends plenty of time complaining about how stupid it was of the people who balked at the transition from 2nd to 3rd.
Only problem is scale, and most times that's just with me being emo over the difference between the image of the map in my head, and the simplified 2d representation on the board.
I'll agree that the minis complaints are kinda silly. :U