4E already released!

[Volourn]

"because almost all of them are ****,"

 

Thanks.

 

 

Anyways, 4E seems a tad silly. This whole powers thing is just garbage. Why cna't fighters stick with feats. Why do many classes have the ability to heal when injuring someone? Why are wizard spells no more than any olther classes' powers. It takes away the who point of spells, imo.

 

Ah well.. Only time I'll be playing 4E is any future D&D video games.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure the system is okay, and cna be found. But, from what i've read, it's worse than earlier D&D forms. That said, I had huge doubts about 3E; but it proved me wrong. Maybe 4E will, too. *shrug* It could grow on me.. like a fungus. L0L

Edited June 12, 2008 by Volourn

[Tale]

I'm glad that Tieflings have +2 Charisma, now. I'm dissapointed that they lost the +2 dexterity. I'm undecided whether to be more glad or more dissapointed. I definitely like their art, though.

[Magister Lajciak]

Whereas I agree with Mr. Sawyer on liking the explicit mention of power sources and their greater number in 4E, I think the 4th edition overall is a big step back from 3.5E not to mention the Pathfinder RPG. Just to be objective, though, I will mention what I do like about 4E from the previews (in no particular order):

 

1) The treatment of epic levels in 4E

2) Classification systems for: power sources, monster types and monster origins

3) The fact that every class gets something interesting every level

 

There might be some more positive stuff, but nothing else springs to my mind immediately. I suppose the fact that they might revive many older settings would count as positive too, except that I fear that they might butcher them to fit 4E paradigms, though they might be careful - we just don't know yet.

 

In any case, I have no doubt that 4E will be a huge commercial success, as most gamers will switch due to the sheer power of the D&D brand and others will switch because they will be unable to find groups that play other editions or games and simultaneously most new gamers that will join the game will inevitably join the newest edition. I think 5E might then mark a return to some 3.5E notions and draw back some of us, at whom 4E clearly was not targetted, but that is far away in the future.

[Magister Lajciak]

Just to counter all the haterade in here, I wanted to say that I'm really excited about running my 4th edition game, and that the new rules have excited my entire player group, two of which are first timers, and two of which are veteran PnP gamers.

 

I am running two 3.5E campaigns at the moment and we are all really excited about them too. One group consists of 3 D&D veterans and the other has 1 veteran PnP player, 1 veteran 2nd edition player/DM, and 4 first time PnP RPG players (though one has played Baldur's gate before and read many FR novels). I am also gradually introducing Pathfinder RPG elements into the games with an eye towards possible eventual full conversion (I am undecided whether I should convert a current campaign fully or wait until I start a new one to fully implement the rules).

 

I think 3/3.5 edition has brought more players into the game than any other (possibly apart from OD&D, which started from zero) and I keep on bringing new players to the game through this excellent edition and its variants (chiefly the Pathfinder RPG and my house rules). The alleged barriers to entry are just not there to the extent that they are made out to be by the WotC marketing department. The different resource management systems of different classes are an advantage, as players can start with playing a barbarian or a rogue or... and only know that they need to roll a d20 to determine the success of their actions, be they attacks or something else. The rest is handled by me as a DM or other players whom I assign for the first session or two to teach them which bonuses to apply to what rolls. Very quickly, they can do most things on their own. The alleged complexity putting off players just isn't a problem - I am not seeing it at least.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sorry, J.E.. You are wrong. There are arcane and divine power when it comes to the base classes in the PHB 3.5. How they access those powers differ, but irrelevant to the fact that there are only arcane and divine.

If you are going to play absurd word games, you should at least try to get it right. You chastised someone for declaring that 3.5 magic had different sources. You did this by referring to arcane and divine, which are types of magic, not sources of magic. Page 169 of the 3.5 PHB defines them as types, not sources. "Arcane" and "divine" don't even make sense as sources; they're adjectives. They're always listed as types. However, things like "demonic bloodline" and "magical spellbook" do make sense as sources. In fact, in Complete Arcane, the warlock's demonic link is referred to as a source. Complete Divine also distinguishes between different sources among the general group of "divine" types.

 

Complaining about using previously informal classifications that were already spelled out in 3E/3.5 is incredibly nitpicky. WotC already "made up" where a sorcerer's spells came from. They already "made up" where a druid's or bard's spells could come from. What's the big deal?

[Humodour]

I mostly like 4e. It's not 3e... but that's kind of the point.

[Sand]

What's the big deal?

 

The big deal is that now we are going to have a dozen or so sources of power, one for each class or 2 classes, and it will get to the point of ridiculousness.

 

We have one source of power for cleric. Another for Druid. Or a third for Bard, a 4th for fighter. A 5th for the psion, with a 6th for the wizard, and so for and so on ad nauseum. They should have gone the Monte Cook route with Arcana Evolved. One source of power with the only difference between the casting classes is how they accessed it.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Sand

[Darque]

Sand, please.

 

DnD has "always" made use of different "sources" for power... the fact they're formally doing it now is no big deal.

[steelfiredragon]

Sand, please.

 

DnD has "always" made use of different "sources" for power... the fact they're formally doing it now is no big deal.

Darque has spoken

[Magister Lajciak]

What's the big deal?

 

The big deal is that now we are going to have a dozen or so sources of power, one for each class or 2 classes, and it will get to the point of ridiculousness.

 

 

Why is it ridiculous? To me it makes sense that Psionicists tap their inner strength, while Wizards manipulate hidden energies of the universe, all the while Priests pray for their spells to powerful deities. These are all different sources of power and so they should be.

[Tale]

I got my books yesterday. I like what I see well enough. Maybe I'll try to find a group or whatnot.

[Tale]

The official D&D forums keep going down more often than a [sex metaphor].

[Sand]

Sand, please.

 

DnD has "always" made use of different "sources" for power... the fact they're formally doing it now is no big deal.

 

Official DnD 3.xx has at most 3 sources of power. Divine, Arcane, and Psionic. That is it. No more and no less. The only differences between the classes which use these power sources was how they were cast and accessed. If you use Arcana Evolved, best 3.xx variant out there, there is only one source for power.

 

Now with 4e we have Martial power source, Divine power source, Arcane power source, Primal Power source, Psioinc power source, Soul Power source, Shadow Power source, and so forth and so on.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Sand

[Joseph Bulock]

Sand, please.

 

DnD has "always" made use of different "sources" for power... the fact they're formally doing it now is no big deal.

 

Official DnD 3.xx has at most 3 sources of power. Divine, Arcane, and Psionic. That is it. No more and no less. The only differences between the classes which use these power sources was how they were cast and accessed. If you use Arcana Evolved, best 3.xx variant out there, there is only one source for power.

 

Now with 4e we have Martial power source, Divine power source, Arcane power source, Primal Power source, Psioinc power source, Soul Power source, Shadow Power source, and so forth and so on.

 

I've been very entertained by your argument that some ability flavor text is some how ruining D&D 4.0.

[Sand]

I've been very entertained by your argument that some ability flavor text is some how ruining D&D 4.0.

 

I don't consider it flavor text. Also it is just one of many things I dislike 4e.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Sand

[Jorian Drake]

I've been very entertained by your argument that some ability flavor text is some how ruining D&D 4.0.

 

I don't consider it flavor text. Also it is just one of many things I dislike 4e.

if you think that, then I guess you won't like the upcoming PCRPG-s based on 4.0 neither

[Magister Lajciak]

I've been very entertained by your argument that some ability flavor text is some how ruining D&D 4.0.

 

I don't consider it flavor text. Also it is just one of many things I dislike 4e.

if you think that, then I guess you won't like the upcoming PCRPG-s based on 4.0 neither

 

That is not necessarily the case. I also dislike a great number of things about 4e and will not buy the books nor will I run the game in PnP, but that does not mean that I will automatically dislike CRPGs based on 4e. The electronic medium is simply different. I am to a significant degree a simulationist DM, so 4e is not for me in PnP, but CRPG computer games, by necessity, come with the world pre-simulated already, so I won't have to do it with the sub-par (compared to 3.5e) tools that 4e provides for that. That does not mean I will prefer 4e CRPGs to 3.5e CRPGs and indeed I would hope for more expansion packs to NWN2, but it does mean that when there comes a point when only 4e CRPGs will be made I will not reject them on that basis alone.

[Jediphile]

I've been very entertained by your argument that some ability flavor text is some how ruining D&D 4.0.

 

I don't consider it flavor text. Also it is just one of many things I dislike 4e.

if you think that, then I guess you won't like the upcoming PCRPG-s based on 4.0 neither

 

That is not necessarily the case. I also dislike a great number of things about 4e and will not buy the books nor will I run the game in PnP, but that does not mean that I will automatically dislike CRPGs based on 4e. The electronic medium is simply different. I am to a significant degree a simulationist DM, so 4e is not for me in PnP, but CRPG computer games, by necessity, come with the world pre-simulated already, so I won't have to do it with the sub-par (compared to 3.5e) tools that 4e provides for that. That does not mean I will prefer 4e CRPGs to 3.5e CRPGs and indeed I would hope for more expansion packs to NWN2, but it does mean that when there comes a point when only 4e CRPGs will be made I will not reject them on that basis alone.

 

I agree. I dislike 3.X D&D and all its D20 tabletop ilk, but that does not stop me from playing and enjoying the KotOR games, which are based on the same rules.

 

Computer games need rules that are frequently simplistic and inflexible. Everything that happens in a computer game is planned beforehand, which means the writers have complete control over their story, and all the potential outcomes of the choices in the game are predetermined and known.

 

Tabletop RPG is different - that's why you have a GM to evaluate each situation and weight the relevance of the choices and factors involved, and adventures/modules for RPGs reflect that. They frequently have "what if this happens" sections in them to advice on unforseen choices and consequences. For example, TSL does not need to consider what happens if Atton tries to stab Kreia to death early in the game to prevent her from revealing his secret, because that cannot happen. But in an tabletop RPG, Atton - as a major character - should be played by a player in the game and so it does become a viable option even if it is an unanticipated one, and so is not covered by the descriptions. This is one reason why I will always prefer tabletop RPG to CRPGs, at least until the day science has advanced to the point where we get neural networks to substitute for GMs. CRPGs can be fun, but they are a substitute for the real thing, and their plots will always be fixed unlike a real RPG, where you truly can change how things evolve by your choices and how you influence others. I CRPGs, you can make only those choices that are already predetermined and planned by the developer. So we don't need a character profile for the motives and goals of Malak or Nihilus, because we can be certain we'll never get into a situation where the GM would need such information to find out how they would respond to an unforseen choice or event. In a true tabletop RPG situation, however, that would be possible and so such information would be required for the GM to be able to consult.

[Tale]

I really enjoy browsing my 4e set for some reason. I'm tempted to buy the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure. I have no idea why. Someone needs to hurry up and make a 4e PC game.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Tale

[Jorian Drake]

I really enjoy browsing my 4e set for some reason. I'm tempted to buy the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure. I have no idea why. Someone needs to hurry up and make a 4e PC game.

you should join a pnp group, it seems to interest you even if you don't admit it to yourself

[Tale]

I really enjoy browsing my 4e set for some reason. I'm tempted to buy the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure. I have no idea why. Someone needs to hurry up and make a 4e PC game.

you should join a pnp group, it seems to interest you even if you don't admit it to yourself

I actually have a friend who's talking about getting a Rifts game together I might join in on. Too bad it's not D&D 4e, though.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Tale

[Sand]

Another thing I hate about 4e, and this is clearly a game mechanic thing, and that is how they do multi-classing. Some of my favorite characters ended up being at least require 3 classes to properly build them, but with 4e you can only do 2, and you aren't really even getting class levels in the second class. Another thing I dislike about it is how they uberfy every race. No race has a drawback or weakness. Not a single one. I like the fact they got rid of ECLS, don't get me wrong there, but they upped the power of everyone instead of limiting the power of those with high ECLs to be scaled to those without ECLs. Lst thing I hate about 4e is how they way too simplified the armor and equipment. Also they got rid of the crafting system. I love the Craft skill. Every single character I played had ranks in Craft because I like characters who built their on equipment. That has been practically removed from the game.

[H]

Another thing I dislike about it is how they uberfy every race. No race has a drawback or weakness. Not a single one.

You mean everyone is overpowered?

[Jorian Drake]

[quote name='H

[Sand]

[quote name='H