| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 15:06:15
Now that we know the PHB2 is coming in march and that it deals only with divine, arcane and primal power sources. What do you guys think?
It has also been basically confirmed that the goliath, barbarian and shaman will be a part of it |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 07 Jul 2008 : 02:47:03
:: Pops some popcorn and reads page three, snickering :: |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 07 Jul 2008 : 00:42:42
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
Having worked on PHB2 a bit (just a small bit, really), I can say that calling it PHB2 is a classification decision only. If you liked the PHB2 of 3.5, you'll like this one. It is nothing more than combining the class and race information that would have appeared in a "Complete" or "Races of" style of book into one place. If you think about it, it's actually a rather handy way of doing things.
We are still getting base classes elsewhere. For example, in the FRCB which will have the swordmage and presumably Eberron will have the artificer, warforged etc.
I understand that the new "Complete" books, the "Power" books, won't have base classes or races but other player options. But will the upcoming undead or dragon books have classes?
Warforged is a race and they are already included in the MM. I'm sure there will be new options for them in the ECS, though I'm not an Eberron designer, so I can't say what those will be.
I suspect that Eberron will have the artificer class. I know FR will have the swordmage. With those exceptions, it's my understanding that new classes will appear in the PHB2/3/etc... I can't say for certain what's happening with psionics.
I only worked briefly on PHB2, so I couldn't say what exactly it includes, but I do know for certain that neither the Draconomicon (which I didn't work on, but did use extensively) or Open Grave (which I did work on extensively) include any new classes. Those books are definitely for the DM with only a small amount of material that might be of use to players.
So they aren't just 4e versions of the Dracomonicum and Libris Mortis as both featured a lot of stuff for players, i.e PrCs, races, base classes, etc
You've got it right. They are very much DM focused books.
Well, I look forward to both. It is an interesting take limiting the book to DMs and that kind of curtails the available buyers. I always thought those books sold for the PrCs and feats and the like |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 03 Jul 2008 : 00:23:25
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
Having worked on PHB2 a bit (just a small bit, really), I can say that calling it PHB2 is a classification decision only. If you liked the PHB2 of 3.5, you'll like this one. It is nothing more than combining the class and race information that would have appeared in a "Complete" or "Races of" style of book into one place. If you think about it, it's actually a rather handy way of doing things.
We are still getting base classes elsewhere. For example, in the FRCB which will have the swordmage and presumably Eberron will have the artificer, warforged etc.
I understand that the new "Complete" books, the "Power" books, won't have base classes or races but other player options. But will the upcoming undead or dragon books have classes?
Warforged is a race and they are already included in the MM. I'm sure there will be new options for them in the ECS, though I'm not an Eberron designer, so I can't say what those will be.
I suspect that Eberron will have the artificer class. I know FR will have the swordmage. With those exceptions, it's my understanding that new classes will appear in the PHB2/3/etc... I can't say for certain what's happening with psionics.
I only worked briefly on PHB2, so I couldn't say what exactly it includes, but I do know for certain that neither the Draconomicon (which I didn't work on, but did use extensively) or Open Grave (which I did work on extensively) include any new classes. Those books are definitely for the DM with only a small amount of material that might be of use to players.
So they aren't just 4e versions of the Dracomonicum and Libris Mortis as both featured a lot of stuff for players, i.e PrCs, races, base classes, etc
You've got it right. They are very much DM focused books. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 23:29:50
No, I'm not going to publicly argue this anymore. 
Check your PM. |
| Venger |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 22:29:01
quote:
If they were true base classes
Question is, what qualifies as a base class? Was the 2E PHB incomplete because it didn't have the Barbarian or Monk? I doubt it. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're not "a true base class".
quote:
That's fine. It still doesn't justify using 14 pages per class. If anything, that should require less pages per class.
The Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard have far more pages then that expended on them. So why the complaint? Tastes vary, but personally, I prefer every class having numerous options, rather then a third of the classes having a neverending stream of options, while the other third has next to none. And personally, I want my Fighters to do more then just "swing their sword". |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 20:12:28
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
Having worked on PHB2 a bit (just a small bit, really), I can say that calling it PHB2 is a classification decision only. If you liked the PHB2 of 3.5, you'll like this one. It is nothing more than combining the class and race information that would have appeared in a "Complete" or "Races of" style of book into one place. If you think about it, it's actually a rather handy way of doing things.
We are still getting base classes elsewhere. For example, in the FRCB which will have the swordmage and presumably Eberron will have the artificer, warforged etc.
I understand that the new "Complete" books, the "Power" books, won't have base classes or races but other player options. But will the upcoming undead or dragon books have classes?
Warforged is a race and they are already included in the MM. I'm sure there will be new options for them in the ECS, though I'm not an Eberron designer, so I can't say what those will be.
I suspect that Eberron will have the artificer class. I know FR will have the swordmage. With those exceptions, it's my understanding that new classes will appear in the PHB2/3/etc... I can't say for certain what's happening with psionics.
I only worked briefly on PHB2, so I couldn't say what exactly it includes, but I do know for certain that neither the Draconomicon (which I didn't work on, but did use extensively) or Open Grave (which I did work on extensively) include any new classes. Those books are definitely for the DM with only a small amount of material that might be of use to players.
So they aren't just 4e versions of the Dracomonicum and Libris Mortis as both featured a lot of stuff for players, i.e PrCs, races, base classes, etc |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 20:03:39
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
Having worked on PHB2 a bit (just a small bit, really), I can say that calling it PHB2 is a classification decision only. If you liked the PHB2 of 3.5, you'll like this one. It is nothing more than combining the class and race information that would have appeared in a "Complete" or "Races of" style of book into one place. If you think about it, it's actually a rather handy way of doing things.
We are still getting base classes elsewhere. For example, in the FRCB which will have the swordmage and presumably Eberron will have the artificer, warforged etc.
I understand that the new "Complete" books, the "Power" books, won't have base classes or races but other player options. But will the upcoming undead or dragon books have classes?
Warforged is a race and they are already included in the MM. I'm sure there will be new options for them in the ECS, though I'm not an Eberron designer, so I can't say what those will be.
I suspect that Eberron will have the artificer class. I know FR will have the swordmage. With those exceptions, it's my understanding that new classes will appear in the PHB2/3/etc... I can't say for certain what's happening with psionics.
I only worked briefly on PHB2, so I couldn't say what exactly it includes, but I do know for certain that neither the Draconomicon (which I didn't work on, but did use extensively) or Open Grave (which I did work on extensively) include any new classes. Those books are definitely for the DM with only a small amount of material that might be of use to players. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 18:46:10
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
However, to defend Wooly, part of this has to do with WOTC's marketing approach. Rather than saying that the game is good, give it a shot, they have taken numerous shots at 3.5 to play it down with 4th edition coming out.
I didn't quite care for that aspect of WotC's marketing approach. I think 4E is good enough to stand on it's own--it's not necessary to put down 3E and those who enjoy it...and they have done that--for example, in the preview material, one of the designers said that if you've used a Profession check recently, your game isn't as much fun as it should be. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 18:07:28
quote:
Originally posted by Gwydion669
Wha...?
Martial/Arcane/Divine "powerbooks"?
OMG! It's happening again! The splat ... OMG, the Splat is MULTIPLYING!
Run for your lives! Aieeeeeee!
Lol. Having spent so much money on 3.x splat books, I have no real desire to do a repeat performance with 4e. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 17:53:18
quote:
Originally posted by Gwydion669
Wha...?
Martial/Arcane/Divine "powerbooks"?
OMG! It's happening again! The splat ... OMG, the Splat is MULTIPLYING!
Run for your lives! Aieeeeeee!
and soon they will followed by Primal, Ki, Shadow, and Psionic Power |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 17:52:33
quote:
Originally posted by Gwydion669
Wha...?
Martial/Arcane/Divine "powerbooks"?
OMG! It's happening again! The splat ... OMG, the Splat is MULTIPLYING!
Run for your lives! Aieeeeeee!
and soon they will followed by Primal, Ki, Shadow, and Psionic Power |
| Gwydion669 |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 17:13:41
Wha...?
Martial/Arcane/Divine "powerbooks"?
OMG! It's happening again! The splat ... OMG, the Splat is MULTIPLYING!
Run for your lives! Aieeeeeee! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 16:36:02
We prolly should get back to the original topic.  |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 16:19:03
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I'm just saying there's no substance to your criticism.
But you're right, to. There are nicer ways to go about saying what I said in my earlier post.
Maybe you ought to give the 4E books a good read-through. Sure WotC's put a lot of info out there, but there's nothing much better then getting them in your hands to see what you've really got.
Dude, you are out of line. There are plenty of previews, excerpts, and detailed analyses and reviews of the 4e mechanics for anyone to make an informed decision as to whether they like it or not. And being downright insulting, condescending, and not replying to what was written is just rude. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 14:48:02
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
Having worked on PHB2 a bit (just a small bit, really), I can say that calling it PHB2 is a classification decision only. If you liked the PHB2 of 3.5, you'll like this one. It is nothing more than combining the class and race information that would have appeared in a "Complete" or "Races of" style of book into one place. If you think about it, it's actually a rather handy way of doing things.
We are still getting base classes elsewhere. For example, in the FRCB which will have the swordmage and presumably Eberron will have the artificer, warforged etc.
I understand that the new "Complete" books, the "Power" books, won't have base classes or races but other player options. But will the upcoming undead or dragon books have classes? |
| Tasker Daze |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 14:11:15
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
As I leap to my own defense.....
I’m not judging Wooly for choosing not to buy or play 4E. That’s his call and frankly I don’t care one way or the other what he does with his time and his money.
There’s also nothing wrong with me trying to encourage him to give a shot at something even if he thinks he won’t like it. How many of us have gone into an activity thinking, “...OK, this is really going to suck” only to wind up enjoying what we ended up doing?
The only thing I object to is the notion that secondhand or thirdhand information, or exceptionally minimal firsthand information, somehow equates with a reasonably informed opinion from which to launch criticism about an entire product.
It’s nice to experience validation by having friends along in a community where they share opinions with you about something you don’t like (or that you do like), but that’s no substitute for reading something yourself and playing it firsthand before concluding that (for example) having core classes in more than one book “...is a problem” that will make the (entire) game “...more complex”.
Wooly may not like having to reference two books. That’s fine. But is sure as heck isn’t a problem for most gamers at most gaming tables. People have been referencing multiple books to look up information on all kinds of character-related information for years.
And yet, while you attack him for not liking 4E, you ignore what his initial complaint was. You continue to do it in this post. As he said, all of the core material should be in the first PHB, not split up among several. Not expansion stuff, core material.
You're having to defend yourself because you attacked him, and because you refuse to even acknowledge what his complaint was. |
| Kes_Alanadel |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 08:33:03
First of all Sanishiver, if you hadn't have been so condecending and disrespectful, you wouldn't have to "leap to your own defense". I find your hard line stance of attempting to brow beat people to see things your way childish. Everyone has a right to their opinions, and no matter how invalid you think they are, you don't have the right to be rude and nasty.
For what it's worth, I agree with Wooly. When I make a character, most of the time I keep the number of books that I use to a minumum, the PHB, and the FRCS, that's it. Just because "most people", to use your own words, use multiple books, doesn't mean that ALL of us do.
I'm happy with 3.5, so that's where I'll stay, thank you. And I have looked at the 4e books, and found them lacking.
~Kes
|
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 08:08:07
As I leap to my own defense.....
I’m not judging Wooly for choosing not to buy or play 4E. That’s his call and frankly I don’t care one way or the other what he does with his time and his money.
There’s also nothing wrong with me trying to encourage him to give a shot at something even if he thinks he won’t like it. How many of us have gone into an activity thinking, “...OK, this is really going to suck” only to wind up enjoying what we ended up doing?
The only thing I object to is the notion that secondhand or thirdhand information, or exceptionally minimal firsthand information, somehow equates with a reasonably informed opinion from which to launch criticism about an entire product.
It’s nice to experience validation by having friends along in a community where they share opinions with you about something you don’t like (or that you do like), but that’s no substitute for reading something yourself and playing it firsthand before concluding that (for example) having core classes in more than one book “...is a problem” that will make the (entire) game “...more complex”.
Wooly may not like having to reference two books. That’s fine. But is sure as heck isn’t a problem for most gamers at most gaming tables. People have been referencing multiple books to look up information on all kinds of character-related information for years. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 05:28:21
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I think it depends on your disposable income and how much time you have.
We play both 3.5 and 4E in my group, for example.
I think anyone that enjoys D&D will enjoy 4E. There's no good reason not to try something new. The game is different enough that it will catch the eye of people who are quite happy with 3.5.
I should probably stay out of this, but there is little reason to try anything new if what you have heard about it does not interest you and you dont have any problems with what you have in the first place. 4ed. might be a good game, but there is nothing I have heard that has tempted me to buy it. Then again, the same goes for 3ed. I might not be able to make a judgement on the quality of the books, but I can make a judgement on the appeal to me personally. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 22:59:10
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Aren't the martial/arcane/divine power books slated for release prior to the PHB2?
IIRC correctly, it was announced DMG II or PHB II would deal with other powers.
Now WotC plans have changed in the past and it is clearly posible something is planed for release before these two books. All I can say I am not aware of such product offer at this time, further that there was no assurance of what powers would be refealed in the offer, just that others would be offered. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 21:48:19
Aren't the martial/arcane/divine power books slated for release prior to the PHB2?
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 21:21:22
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
Having worked on PHB2 a bit (just a small bit, really), I can say that calling it PHB2 is a classification decision only. If you liked the PHB2 of 3.5, you'll like this one. It is nothing more than combining the class and race information that would have appeared in a "Complete" or "Races of" style of book into one place. If you think about it, it's actually a rather handy way of doing things.
Well that is not a selling point for me, I saw no use for 3.5 PHBII. I never was a fan of splat books, however the 4th modle claims there are no splat books - that all books are core rules (just you need to wait a year or more to get a core rule). |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 20:30:34
Having worked on PHB2 a bit (just a small bit, really), I can say that calling it PHB2 is a classification decision only. If you liked the PHB2 of 3.5, you'll like this one. It is nothing more than combining the class and race information that would have appeared in a "Complete" or "Races of" style of book into one place. If you think about it, it's actually a rather handy way of doing things.
|
| Tasker Daze |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 13:23:56
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I'm just saying there's no substance to your criticism.
But you're right, to. There are nicer ways to go about saying what I said in my earlier post.
Maybe you ought to give the 4E books a good read-through. Sure WotC's put a lot of info out there, but there's nothing much better then getting them in your hands to see what you've really got.
Yeah, no substance. There's no reason someone should only want one book when one book was all they needed before. Everyone should want to run right out and spend lots of money buying multiple books! Gosh, having everything in one book is just silly! 
And telling someone their criticsim is without substance, especially when all they are talking about is how something is being marketed, not the game itself, is still pretty rude.
I have played 4E. And I have the books. And I'm likely going to sell them, because I don't recognize the game anymore. Is my opinion wrong, too?
|
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 06:44:26
I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I'm just saying there's no substance to your criticism.
But you're right, to. There are nicer ways to go about saying what I said in my earlier post.
Maybe you ought to give the 4E books a good read-through. Sure WotC's put a lot of info out there, but there's nothing much better then getting them in your hands to see what you've really got. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 04:42:29
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Nope. I refuse to touch it. I've read as much as I can about it without touching the actual books, and everything has convinced me that it's now D&D in name only.
Hrmm…..kind of hard to render up an informed opinion then.
Not really. As I said before -- and you even quoted -- I have read all the official previews from WotC, I have read the comments from numerous playtesters and reviewers, on numerous gaming sites, I have read the unofficial releases, and now I've heard from many people who have played. I could not have a more informed opinion without spending my own money -- and almost everything I have read, especially the info direct from WotC's mouth, has told me to keep my money.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And you're not seeing the point I'm making. In prior editions of the game, all of the classes were present in one book. You could play any class, at any level, with nothing at all more than the PHB.
You can still do that in 4E.
And for the record, 3rd Edition and 2nd Edition were both dense with add-on products to tweak characters that let players tack on character kits, prestige classes, etc….which involved more books.
The distant rumbling you now here is me pounding my head into the wall, overcome with frustration at your refusal to read my posts. I said, quite clearly in a later post, the core classes. Let me repeat that: the core classes. Not added on classes, not kits, not prestige classes -- the core classes have been, in prior editions, in one book. Not multiple books.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But with classes being put in the PHB2 instead of the PHB1, that no longer applies.
The PHB1 has eight classes in it. Where is the problem?
The problem is them putting core classes in multiple books. If I wanted to play a basic bard in 2E or 3E, all I needed was the PHB. Now, in 4E, to play a bard I will need the PHB1, with all the basic rules and info in it, and the PHB2, with the specific class I want.
I object to buying two books when one book used to suffice. I've said that repeatedly, so I don't know how else I can say it to make you understand.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If you play a class that's in the PHB2, you need that book handy, and you need the PHB1 handy for everything else. And that's what I am objecting to.
I think maybe you didn’t read my first response.
There is exactly no inconvenience caused by looking in the PHB1 for equipment lists and reminders on how combat works. Players do that already.
And I continue to beat my head into the wall. Did I say anywhere that using the PHB1 was a problem? No, I did not. I said, more than once, that having to use two books for some core classes was the problem. All of the core classes should be in the same book as the core rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't care if everyone has the same powers at the same level.
OK, now I know you didn’t read it. I said, “…same number” of powers. Powers are not the same.
Wow, you accuse me of not reading your post when you deliberately ignore points I've made repeatedly in mine... Good show, sir.
Either way, it's not the freaking point!
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In fact, I dislike that. I don't want my swordswinger doing anything other than swinging a sword. And so on.
You’ll be happy to know that 4E Fighters, for example, do just that. Quite often. And to devastating effect at higher levels.
And they do that in 3E, too. So there's no reason to change.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Character creation is much faster? You know, in prior versions, if I knew what I wanted beforehand, I could do everything but buy my starting equipment in just a few minutes. The only time it took longer was if I didn't know what I wanted to play.
I’ve had the opportunity to sit down and watch veteran gamers (players with experience in all editions of the game, plus several other games) read the PHB1 for the first time and create their characters.
As opposed to 3rd Edition, character creation went faster.
There’s not as much too a character in 4E. Characters can still do a lot (and more), it just doesn’t take as long to get them off the ground (which was the design intent, as I understand it).
I still fail to see where there is an improvement. If it only took me a few minutes to do a character in 2E, and it only took me a few minutes to do a character in 3E, then taking the same amount of time in 4E is not an improvement.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Telling me it's now faster is not something that interests me.
Well, if you’re not interested in listening to an informed opinion, why are you here?
Wow, there's a great way to ignore what I said... I have read plenty of informed opinions. My opinion is based on those, and on other information that I've seen.
Simply saying that something is faster is not much of an opinion, informed or no. And when I had no problem with the speed of character creation in prior editions, why should it be a factor if it now takes less time?
Why don't you reply to what I actually said, instead of twisting my words?
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Give me somebody who can object from a position of reason (like KnightErrantJR’s; I don’t agree with his opinion, but at least I can respect it), not from simple stubbornness and innuendo. 
Stubborness? I have gotten as much information as I can legally obtain without spending my own money. I am on record as saying that I was certain there were certain aspects of 4E that could be ported back to 3.5 to improve it. How am I being stubborn here?
Innuendo? WotC's own propaganda is innuendo? The opinions of numerous others, including the aforementioned KnightErrantJR, is innuendo?
You know, it's ironic that someone who is busily trying to hold the moral high ground is so condescending and insulting that it makes it difficult to reply in a civil manner. If you expect any more replies from me, actually read the entirety of my posts, and reply in a courteous manner. Otherwise, I am done discussing things with you. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 01:14:41
I think it depends on your disposable income and how much time you have.
We play both 3.5 and 4E in my group, for example.
I think anyone that enjoys D&D will enjoy 4E. There's no good reason not to try something new. The game is different enough that it will catch the eye of people who are quite happy with 3.5. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 01:06:43
However, to defend Wooly, part of this has to do with WOTC's marketing approach. Rather than saying that the game is good, give it a shot, they have taken numerous shots at 3.5 to play it down with 4th edition coming out. Also, I'll say this as well . . . if you are really, really happy with 3.5, I'm not sure there is much of a point in checking out 4th edition, other than to be playing the latest version.
If you had problems with 3.5, or there were some issues that bugged you greatly, or if you don't mind having and playing in several RPGs in a similar genre, then sure, check it out. But its not as simple as 4th edition being measurable better than 3.5.
In fact, WOTC I think missed another bit of marketing good will here by saying that "the game remains the same," when the game is superficially the same, but has some serious paradigm shifts in it as well, meaning that its the same general genre, but it is a different game. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 01:00:14
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Nope. I refuse to touch it. I've read as much as I can about it without touching the actual books, and everything has convinced me that it's now D&D in name only.
Hrmm…..kind of hard to render up an informed opinion then.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And you're not seeing the point I'm making. In prior editions of the game, all of the classes were present in one book. You could play any class, at any level, with nothing at all more than the PHB.
You can still do that in 4E.
And for the record, 3rd Edition and 2nd Edition were both dense with add-on products to tweak characters that let players tack on character kits, prestige classes, etc….which involved more books.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But with classes being put in the PHB2 instead of the PHB1, that no longer applies.
The PHB1 has eight classes in it. Where is the problem?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If you play a class that's in the PHB2, you need that book handy, and you need the PHB1 handy for everything else. And that's what I am objecting to.
I think maybe you didn’t read my first response.
There is exactly no inconvenience caused by looking in the PHB1 for equipment lists and reminders on how combat works. Players do that already.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't care if everyone has the same powers at the same level.
OK, now I know you didn’t read it. I said, “…same number” of powers. Powers are not the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In fact, I dislike that. I don't want my swordswinger doing anything other than swinging a sword. And so on.
You’ll be happy to know that 4E Fighters, for example, do just that. Quite often. And to devastating effect at higher levels.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Character creation is much faster? You know, in prior versions, if I knew what I wanted beforehand, I could do everything but buy my starting equipment in just a few minutes. The only time it took longer was if I didn't know what I wanted to play.
I’ve had the opportunity to sit down and watch veteran gamers (players with experience in all editions of the game, plus several other games) read the PHB1 for the first time and create their characters.
As opposed to 3rd Edition, character creation went faster.
There’s not as much too a character in 4E. Characters can still do a lot (and more), it just doesn’t take as long to get them off the ground (which was the design intent, as I understand it).
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Telling me it's now faster is not something that interests me.
Well, if you’re not interested in listening to an informed opinion, why are you here?
Give me somebody who can object from a position of reason (like KnightErrantJR’s; I don’t agree with his opinion, but at least I can respect it), not from simple stubbornness and innuendo. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 00:32:09
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Absolutely a valid opinion, but definately old school Wooly. My main Everquest character for example is level 80, making even 30 levels of character advancement seem paltry in comparison.
I guess I'm old school like Wooly. I don't like starting at 20th level as some others do. I would have waited for the Epic stuff myself. Maybe in early 09 we could have had an Epic Power book. Then we could have had another class or three in the first PHB |
|
|
