| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| the ultimate wizard |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 06:57:32
HI!I AM NEW AT THE FORUM AND I HAVE HEARD MANY RUMORS ABOUT THE 4RTH EDITION IN FORGOTTEN REALMS AND HOW THE ART OF MAGE IS GOING TO BE USED. PLEASE INFORM IF YOU CAN.
THANKS A LOT! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Aulduron |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 05:57:00
quote:
And that's not a failure of the system -- it's a failure of the DM.
Exactly.
I remember playing "Against the Giants". We had 2 rangers, getting 1E damage bonuses, who killed a giant with each swing. It was like mowing grass.
Halfway through, our DM quit. I took it over, and changed the way they fought. I used every magic item against them. I gave the giants magic weapons and armor. The Fire Giant queen used her potion of control to make one of the (hasted) rangers kill the "untouchable" wizard, in one round. Then I killed both rangers. (I let them all rez).
We all had more fun, with the greater challenge. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 05:22:25
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
The example of the dragon brings up a very good example of how the combat system has been reasonably adjusted. In 4e, if you're less than 10th level and you find yourself face to face with a dragon... run. Run until you puke. Run while puking. Run until you pass out, puke, then get up and run again. If you try to kill it without fiteen of your buddies, you're likely going to die.
This is how it SHOULD be. Dragons are nasty, and rightfully so. They're big, inherently magical, infinitely smarter than you, and nigh-alien in their near ageless thought processes.
Run.
You know, this isn't the first time I've seen dragons heralded as a sign of how improved 4E is. And you know what? I don't buy it. In any edition, if the DM used half a brain while running a dragon, it's a scary encounter, even at 10th level. Back in 2E, I once had a guy telling me about how his 10th-level paladin utterly chewed up an adult red dragon. And I replied with "that wouldn't happen if I was running the dragon." This guy was bewildered by my statement. He simply did not understand what I was saying.
And that's not a failure of the system -- it's a failure of the DM. The only way a game system is going to fix that is by adding an arbitrary rule like "these kinds of dragons always have 20 more hit dice than the highest level PC". |
| Stonwulfe |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 02:12:23
quote:
Originally posted by Sleyvas
Yeah, I thought about that too, but the two-weapon fighting feat nor the two-weapon defense feat offer any power that you can activate dealing with two weapon fighting. Something just seems broken here. I'm still going through the book and I'm flipping from section to section, so maybe I missed something.... but this seems like one section of writers were making one section of rules and not talking with the others.
I've spent a lot of time reviewing the rules, in depth, and specifically from the perspective of a DM. Not just trying to understand the letter of the rules, but the intent behind them. Sometimes this is tiresome because wordings can be ambiguous or poorly conveyed, depending on the person's experiences roleplaying and their level of comfort with the system.
I understand how they've structured multiple weapon attacks, and I'll try to elucidate it here to the best of my abilities, something I should have perhaps addressed (and will ammend) in my review of the PHB in the other thread.
Specifically, in 3.X and previous editions, as you progressed in level you became 'faster' and 'more skilled', able to land multiple blows against a single foe, or many individual blows against an array of foes close enough to receive them - be it by melee strike, ranged missile, or extraordinary circumstance (spells, etc). In some ways, this broke combat. By tenth level a capable rogue or ranger could easily do away with a small army of gnolls. By fourth level, a creatively constructed demihuman barbarian could deliver astonishing amounts of damage.
The previous system made it feasible for lower-level characters with martial training to accomplish feats that 'inexperienced' characters should not otherwise be able to accomplish, however fantastic the setting. (There is no way in hell a fifth level cleric should be able to best a sixteenth level necromancer - something I saw in a friend's home game - and in these instances the DM is too lax and the players have too much freedom). The system itself facilitated min-maxing (see 'munchkin').
In the new combat system, and largely tied to the common progression chart, everyone works from the same footing (given a common xp level), with their respective strengths emphasized by race and class and attributes. Combat is designed to be fluid, direct, and simple. Any organic being is capable of swinging a sword, kicking a door, or throwing a spell in a six second period. Some people train hard enough to learn how to swing that sword twice, effectively, in a six second period. Exceptional people can do more, with or without the aid of magic.
Though it should be fundamentally understood that even with experience, while wearing any kind of armour and swinging a 5 to 15 pound weapon, combat is ugly and simple. You try to hit the other guy, hard, where it hurts. How you deliver that blow is up to you. How much more complicated need it be?
quote:
Originally posted by Yuen
As a player, I'd rather have my DM rolling a single opposed check and saying: "The dragon grabs you and throws you at the nearest wall for 15 points of damage" than rolling the endless stream of grapple checks that would usually be required to perform such an action.
This is the exact spirit in which the new core dynamic was implemented. You - in this case the DM - make a check of the player's roll against a static defense, regardless of the type of attack, and if the roll is high enough to beat the defensive score it results in a success... No double-checking, no synergy modifiers, no "I get +5 because I can do it standing on my head" rules. Just "swing... did it hit?... good."
The example of the dragon brings up a very good example of how the combat system has been reasonably adjusted. In 4e, if you're less than 10th level and you find yourself face to face with a dragon... run. Run until you puke. Run while puking. Run until you pass out, puke, then get up and run again. If you try to kill it without fiteen of your buddies, you're likely going to die.
This is how it SHOULD be. Dragons are nasty, and rightfully so. They're big, inherently magical, infinitely smarter than you, and nigh-alien in their near ageless thought processes.
Run. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 02:10:38
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
What parts of the ruleset do you find too complex? I'm just curious.
Mainly the feats and powers -- little ways of breaking the rules, and the whole idea of mechanically 'building' a character -- and the combat actions. As in 3E, these fiddly bits of rulesmongery spoil, for me, the simplicity of the resolution system and reward players for making decisions for game-mechanical rather than character/event/story reasons. This is without reading or playing the new game, so it's more my inclination than an opinion on 4E.
Well, thanks for sharing it with me. I think you make a good point. If you get a chance to actually read/play 4E, I'd like to hear what you have to say about it then. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 02:08:20
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
What parts of the ruleset do you find too complex? I'm just curious.
Mainly the feats and powers -- little ways of breaking the rules, and the whole idea of mechanically 'building' a character -- and the combat actions. As in 3E, these fiddly bits of rulesmongery spoil, for me, the simplicity of the resolution system and reward players for making decisions for game-mechanical rather than character/event/story reasons. This is without reading or playing the new game, so it's more my inclination than an opinion on 4E. |
| Yuen |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 01:47:23
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
Rino >
That was my biggest beef with 3.0/.5 - the minutiae of detail bordered on the bureaucratic. Every rule aspired to spell out in no uncertain terms, except where exceptions, with specific examples, notarized, erratized, and cross-referenced to one another, exactly what every rule did.
That approach put new players and old at the distinct task of having to be a rule lawyer, familiar with the vagarities of minutiae, in order to determine effect. While the new rules may leave a lot of people underwhelmed because they expect more, it makes the system accessible to new players.
I think it highly depends on the DM running the game. Of course it gets tiresome if he applies like 5 different circumstance modifier to a basically meaningless dice roll, and that just because he CAN because it's written somewhere. And if you happen to play under such a DM, he will probably not be fully satisfied with the new 4e rules and will eventually come up with a bunch of houserules to clarify things.
But this isn't a court, and I think one should see the written rules as a general guideline how to approach things rather than playing strictly by the book. As a player, I'd rather have my DM rolling a single opposed check and saying: "The dragon grabs you and throws you at the nearest wall for 15 points of damage" than rolling the endless stream of grapple checks that would usually be required to perform such an action.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 01:46:57
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The 4E books are still intimidatingly huge to non-RPGers, and from what I can tell the rules are not just more complex than ideal for new players (who aren't being marketed to yet), they're more complex than I like as a 25-year veteran.
What parts of the ruleset do you find too complex? I'm just curious. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 01:34:48
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
Rino > My apologies. I should have said 'many' and not 'everyone'.
Apology accepted. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 00:27:38
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
Oh, and on a side note, in reply to your statement about 4e two-weapon fighting? You may want to take a closer look at the rules describing feats. You may take nearly any feat, even if it belongs to another class (provided that once you dabble in another class you stick with dabbling in that class).
Two weapon fighting and feats that allow you to make more than one attack per round are not - to the best of my knowledge - class specific (and even if they are, you're the DM; use your discretion). Further, the PHB is not the be-all end-all of 4e, just the starter. Other books are coming, I'm certain, to satisfy the errata monkeys out there. How else do you think they make money?
Yeah, I thought about that too, but the two-weapon fighting feat nor the two-weapon defense feat offer any power that you can activate dealing with two weapon fighting. Something just seems broken here. I'm still going through the book and I'm flipping from section to section, so maybe I missed something.... but this seems like one section of writers were making one section of rules and not talking with the others. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 00:21:11
>>The only applicable exceptions I see are attacks that are inherently immaterial. Psychic,
>> negative energy, and insubstantial...
Exactly, you came up with the same example energies that I thought of (psychic & necrotic). |
| Faraer |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 23:38:24
Can someone really familiar with the 4E rules tell us how well they fit Realms magic? Given obvious changes like the loss of Vanceian spellcasting (which was part of the Realms from before D&D), how do they handle or accommodate things like magical fields, wards, hanging spells, and such depths? Do they introduce compensating subtleties? What are the known plans for magical expansion?quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
A lot of the intial changes reflected in the PHB are for new players - made with the understanding that the experienced (some would say 'real' roleplayers, for experience isn't everything) would take what they needed of the system and improvise, add-on, and colourfully illustrate their own worlds to meet their respective needs.
The 4E books are still intimidatingly huge to non-RPGers, and from what I can tell the rules are not just more complex than ideal for new players (who aren't being marketed to yet), they're more complex than I like as a 25-year veteran.quote:
Think. Breathe. Go get a coffee.
Don't tell other people what to do, please.quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
In fact, I see the lack of detail as being something that's going to encourage arguments between the players and DM's.
Players shouldn't even think of arguing with the DM about rules. Personally, I'd much rather judge the occasional ambiguity than have to deal with the intricacies of 3E damage types. |
| Stonwulfe |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 23:29:45
Oh, and on a side note, in reply to your statement about 4e two-weapon fighting? You may want to take a closer look at the rules describing feats. You may take nearly any feat, even if it belongs to another class (provided that once you dabble in another class you stick with dabbling in that class).
Two weapon fighting and feats that allow you to make more than one attack per round are not - to the best of my knowledge - class specific (and even if they are, you're the DM; use your discretion). Further, the PHB is not the be-all end-all of 4e, just the starter. Other books are coming, I'm certain, to satisfy the errata monkeys out there. How else do you think they make money? |
| Stonwulfe |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 23:20:45
Rino > My apologies. I should have said 'many' and not 'everyone'.
Sleyvas > I read it literally. If it says 10 pts of damage, its 10 points of any damage. It simplifies it.
Why would the intense heat of a fireball or the electricity of an electric jolt hurt a person under the effect of a stoneskin any more or less than a physical attack, or vice versa. It doesn't make sense. An attack is an attack, whether it's delivered by fist, axe, arrow, magic missile, dragon's tail, or by blunderbust.
The only applicable exceptions I see are attacks that are inherently immaterial. Psychic, negative energy, and insubstantial...
I think you're reading too much into it, because you're expecting to see something more than seeing what it is. That was my biggest beef with 3.0/.5 - the minutiae of detail bordered on the bureaucratic. Every rule aspired to spell out in no uncertain terms, except where exceptions, with specific examples, notarized, erratized, and cross-referenced to one another, exactly what every rule did.
That approach put new players and old at the distinct task of having to be a rule lawyer, familiar with the vagarities of minutiae, in order to determine effect. While the new rules may leave a lot of people underwhelmed because they expect more, it makes the system accessible to new players.
And don't even think of giving me the tired line of, 'I had to learn that way, it's tradition'. Tradition is never an excuse not to change, especially if that change brings growth.
I have things I specifically do not like about 4e (the scifi feel of 4e FR land motes) , but I'm working hard to constructively approach it rather than bashing the work of dozens, if not hundreds, of designers, paytesters, and contributors. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 22:55:20
>> Quit your complaining. Look at the silver lining. Yes, there's a lot that's changed, but
>> they've VERY effectively gotten rid of the common tendency to see a player reach for a core >> book at the game table, slowing down the flow and intuitive feel of play. The less often
>> someone has to reach for a book to roleplay, the better. This frees up a lot of time to
>> actually roleplay.
Man, I can't tell if you really drank the kool-aid or are being sarcastic? I don't see anything in these rules that would make me think this is going to speed up game play whatsoever. In fact, I see the lack of detail as being something that's going to encourage arguments between the players and DM's. For instance, stoneskin blocks 10 points of damage.... so it must be all damage, right? Or is it only melee damage? In the old edition, it was very well spelled out that it was damage reduction, which was only melee based damage. Then, is the fighter going to do encounter thing A, B, C, or D... he's not sure, so he's grabbing his book to see.
I'm still working my way through the character classes and was thinking about two weapon fighting. I see it says :
Off-Hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You cant attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon.
So, I'm looking through fighter class powers.... I don't see any... so I glanced through rogue real quick... I don't see any.... I see them under ranger. So, only people that are rangers can dual wield?
I'm not surprised that there are mess-ups. I was prepared for that. I just can't believe how glaringly stupid these messups are. Why would I play this instead of an MMO? |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 22:47:39
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
Of course everyone on here is complaining like an old maid about the changes.
Everyone? I take exception to that. |
| Stonwulfe |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 21:54:26
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, I finally got my books from Amazon last week and have been looking for a couple hours now. What the hell did they do to wizards... there's no versatility whatsoever. Even sorcerors were more versatile than this in that they could choose to cast 3 of X spell and 0 of Y spell (and I hated sorcerors). Then the spell selection is basically... elemental attacks, illusion defense (except stoneskin)... and for all this elemental focus of there's I don't see any spell that specifically protects you with some kind of ward against energy damage. Then there's no spells to enhance or transmute the mage, no spells to animate the dead, no spells to conjure servant monsters. Only thing I can figure is that they plan to come out with a conjuror class, necromancer class, enchanter class (it'll probably be the psion and psions will probably be all about mind control and maybe telekinesis). It really makes wizards one trick ponies, while wearing no armor, having pretty bad weapons, and lower scale hit points.
Don't get me started on the multi-classing rules....
One thing everyone seems to be overlooking is that this rewrite was largely designed to draw the hordes of MMO fans away from their computers and into the pocketbooks and ranks of D&D fans. A lot of the intial changes reflected in the PHB are for new players - made with the understanding that the experienced (some would say 'real' roleplayers, for experience isn't everything) would take what they needed of the system and improvise, add-on, and colourfully illustrate their own worlds to meet their respective needs.
If the PHB for 4e had been written to satisfy the experienced, 'hard core' roleplayers in the D&D community the book would very-much resemble every other core book released in the last ten years: way too much information for someone who's new to the game. It's daunting, having all that resource in front of you when all you really need is someone to tell you how it works and give you enough to get started.
Of course everyone on here is complaining like an old maid about the changes. You're all experienced roleplayers, and many of you put an emphasis on plot, detailed histories, and elaborate spell-tactics and innovative uses for turns of events. The book (in 4e) is meant to be exactly what the title reads; a player's handbook. Otherwise it would be titled:
"The Wizards of the Coast Dungeons and Dragon's Fourth Edition Almanac of All Errata and Things Related to the Rules and Running of a Dungeons and Dragons Campaign, with Appendices, Tables, Charts, and Rules on how to calculate the number of Elminster's whiskers."
Quit your complaining. Look at the silver lining. Yes, there's a lot that's changed, but they've VERY effectively gotten rid of the common tendency to see a player reach for a core book at the game table, slowing down the flow and intuitive feel of play. The less often someone has to reach for a book to roleplay, the better. This frees up a lot of time to actually roleplay.
As to those of you who find there is a large empty space where more detail needs to be? YOU HAVE ALMOST 40 YEARS OF BOOKS AMONG YOU. Be creative. Think. Breathe. Go get a coffee. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 11:51:11
This leads me to think on if they will do such classes as the Bladesinger. If so, it will probably be a standard class or more likely a Paragon Path for the wizard or fighter. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 20:13:07
Mages have become the equivalent of 'Super Heroes', with all their subsequent powers.
Then again, so has everyone else.  |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 19:59:56
quote:
Originally posted by IngoDjan
D&D 4edīs WIZARD => All Wizards in the world are equal, with the same powers. And all Wizards are War Wizards!
Yeah, I finally got my books from Amazon last week and have been looking for a couple hours now. What the hell did they do to wizards... there's no versatility whatsoever. Even sorcerors were more versatile than this in that they could choose to cast 3 of X spell and 0 of Y spell (and I hated sorcerors). Then the spell selection is basically... elemental attacks, illusion defense (except stoneskin)... and for all this elemental focus of there's I don't see any spell that specifically protects you with some kind of ward against energy damage. Then there's no spells to enhance or transmute the mage, no spells to animate the dead, no spells to conjure servant monsters. Only thing I can figure is that they plan to come out with a conjuror class, necromancer class, enchanter class (it'll probably be the psion and psions will probably be all about mind control and maybe telekinesis). It really makes wizards one trick ponies, while wearing no armor, having pretty bad weapons, and lower scale hit points.
Don't get me started on the multi-classing rules.... |
| Zanan |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 16:23:17
From under a dark grey hooded cloak, an arm rises and points to a door which has imprinted "4th Edition Threads in here" on its surface ...
http://forum.candlekeep.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=10 |
| IngoDjan |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 16:04:52
D&D 4edīs WIZARD => All Wizards in the world are equal, with the same powers. And all Wizards are War Wizards! |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 23:44:51
With anything in regard to 4e, I suggest you borrow a friends or visit Borders or your LGS and peruse it before buying it. You may or may not find it to your liking. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 21:11:23
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
You can learn everything you need to about 4E rules by purchasing the 4E core rulebooks.
-And, see how they are implemented in the Forgotten Realms by purchasing/reviewing the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide when that comes out. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 05 Jul 2008 : 21:32:51
You can learn everything you need to about 4E rules by purchasing the 4E core rulebooks. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 18:51:34
-And, of course, Mystra perishes in 1385 DR at the hands of Cyric, thus causing the Weave to "unravel". |
| Venger |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 17:15:54
quote:
I would think with the introduction of the swordmage in Septembers FR Players Guide you may get the sword as an implement
You can also get the Wizard of the Spiral Tower Paragon Path. It lets you use a longsword as an implement. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 12:58:16
Briefly,
1.no more schools of magic
2.you have an implement that you must choose. So far all we have is the staff, wand and orb. I am sure more will come out as time passes. Next year when the Arcane Power book comes out I am sure there will additional implements. I would think with the introduction of the swordmage in Septembers FR Players Guide you may get the sword as an implement
3. You still have spellbooks, but the idea of memorizing certain spells per day is different. You now have at-will spells, daily spells and per encounter ones
In other words, its a complete change. I just got the 4e books last night |
| Khaelieth |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 10:13:11
Mages will be changed substanstially, afaik. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 09:50:21
I'm new too! Welcome. Try not to shout though. These hallow halls are small and narrow, and thus shouting hurts our ears.
The links Ergdusch supplied should help :) |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 09:19:17
Weclome to the Keep, ultimate wizard!
First a little hint for you as a new scribe here at these halls and before any mod is jumping at you. As this is a library of lore 'shouting' and 'yelling' (in forums its equivalent is writing in CAPITAL LATERS) is not very appropriate and you should refrain from doing it all the time. For further information please read the Code of Conduct (esp. section A4).
Now to your querry: I do not invest any time or money into the 4th Ed. As such I cannot help you overly much. I will however point you into the right directions as we have dicussed magic and the 4th Ed in various scrolls here already.
D&D 4 Discussion scroll
4e FR FAQ (FR= Forgotten Realms)
4e FR
Aside from thos scrolls I am sure some scribe on these boards will happen by and answer you eventually. Enjoy your stay and again a warm and friendly welcome to the keep.
Ergdusch |
|
|
