| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 16:00:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.
What about all the new base classes WotC added over the years? You still had to fish around in other sourcebooks if you wanted those. I'm just saying that adding new content in different books really isn't anything new.
Also, I would like to point out that the PHB didn't give you rules for "epic levels" (from what I remember, anyway).
I hated the idea of those base classes... Especially since most of them were simply variations on and/or combinations of the true base classes. If they were true base classes, they should be totally unique and found in the core rules.
And you don't need epic level rules when starting out with a new character.
Either way, it's not the point. At least since 2E, there have been a number of classes that were, for lack of a better term, the "core" classes (you could even say that was in 1E, if you ignore the latter addition of the bard). In 2E, all the core classes were in one book. In 3.0, all the core classes were in one book. In 3.5, all the core classes were in one book. Now we have 4.0, with the core classes split amongst at least 2 books. And why were they split? Because someone decided that their new classes were more important than the long-established core classes, and that each class had to have a description that could have previously accomodated 3 or 4 classes.
I don't object to new books having new content -- I've been trying to make that point clear. What I object to is the idea of your basic classes -- the core ones, not the "sell more books" variants -- being split into two books when they used to be in one.
In 2E, it cost me $20 to play a bard -- the price of the PHB. In 3.x, it cost me $35 (IIRC) to play a bard -- again, just the price of the PHB. In 4.0, if I want to play a bard, it's going to cost me $70, because I have to buy the PHB, which doesn't have the core class in it, plus another book that does.
And though I mention numbers, it's not the price of the individual books that bothers me -- it's the concept of buying two books to cover what used to be in one.
I'm trying quite hard not to be cynical, but that very much seems like a decision that was inspired by the Marketing department, more than any thing else. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 27 Jun 2008 16:01:51 |
 |
|
|
MerrikCale
Senior Scribe
USA
947 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 16:11:04
|
| and since the monk won't be in PHB2 you could argue that the core classes are split in 3 books |
When hinges creak in doorless chambers and strange and frightening sounds echo through the halls, whenever candlelights flicker where the air is deathly still, that is the time when ghosts are present, practicing their terror with ghoulish delight. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 16:45:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
and since the monk won't be in PHB2 you could argue that the core classes are split in 3 books
Really? I wasn't going to assume they were splitting the classes out that far... So that's at least 2 core classes that require at least 2 books to play... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
MerrikCale
Senior Scribe
USA
947 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 17:03:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
and since the monk won't be in PHB2 you could argue that the core classes are split in 3 books
Really? I wasn't going to assume they were splitting the classes out that far... So that's at least 2 core classes that require at least 2 books to play...
The have announced that ki is power system. They have announced that in the 2nd PHB there will be only the arcane, divine and primal power sources. They have also leaked the first initial of all new base classes in the PHB2, none of which is "M". I think you can do the math from here |
When hinges creak in doorless chambers and strange and frightening sounds echo through the halls, whenever candlelights flicker where the air is deathly still, that is the time when ghosts are present, practicing their terror with ghoulish delight. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 17:45:54
|
Don't forget that originally they (WotC) had hinted that the PHB2 for 4e was going to have Psionics as one of the power sources, and if what you said in the first post is true, then there will be at least a PHB3.
quote:
Player's Handbook v4, pg 54
Other Power Sources: Additional power sources and techniques provide characters of different classes with powers and abilities. These will appear in future Player’s Handbook volumes. For example, barbarians and druids draw on the primal forces of nature, monks harness the power of their soul energy (or ki), and psions call upon the mind to generate psionic powers. Future power sources include elemental, ki, primal, psionic, and shadow.
|
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 27 Jun 2008 17:46:56 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 18:07:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And using the same XP table is fine -- gods, I recall the debates about that in 2E. And that was something changed in 3E.
Well, I wasn't only talking about the XP tables--all characters also share the same feat tables, power tables, etc. :) For example, it's no longer the case that one class gets a feat every other level, and another class gets a feat every fourth level (just an example, here!).
quote:
I'm just saying that if in prior editions, a few pages was all I needed to play my character, I don't see how more pages -- thus more to read and go thru -- is necessarily streamlining things. Even if the playability of the class remains the same, the fact that there is more necessary support material adds to the overall complexity, it doesn't detract from it.
Well, my opinion would be to at least give the 4E books a good look. If you're willing to, of course. :) |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 18:11:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I hated the idea of those base classes... Especially since most of them were simply variations on and/or combinations of the true base classes. If they were true base classes, they should be totally unique and found in the core rules.
My opinion about the extra base classes is more or less the same as yours. However, did you see what my main point was? In any case, I do think that the difference between a "real" core class and an "extra base class" is subjective. For example, the 4E warlock isn't that new--it debuted in 3E. Some of the "left out" core classes were new back in 3E.
quote:
And you don't need epic level rules when starting out with a new character.
That's true...but I only mentioned epic levels because you said you could play any class at any level with just the PHB in 3E. If for whatever reason you wanted epic levels in 3E, you needed another book. That's not the case in 4E.
I'm not trying to be cheeky, here, I'm just disagreeing with some parts of your argument. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 27 Jun 2008 18:20:18 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 18:29:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And using the same XP table is fine -- gods, I recall the debates about that in 2E. And that was something changed in 3E.
Well, I wasn't only talking about the XP tables--all characters also share the same feat tables, power tables, etc. :) For example, it's no longer the case that one class gets a feat every other level, and another class gets a feat every fourth level (just an example, here!).
That's fine. It still doesn't justify using 14 pages per class. If anything, that should require less pages per class.
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm just saying that if in prior editions, a few pages was all I needed to play my character, I don't see how more pages -- thus more to read and go thru -- is necessarily streamlining things. Even if the playability of the class remains the same, the fact that there is more necessary support material adds to the overall complexity, it doesn't detract from it.
Well, my opinion would be to at least give the 4E books a good look. If you're willing to, of course. :)
I was willing to, until the previews and reviews started coming out. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 18:31:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's fine. It still doesn't justify using 14 pages per class. If anything, that should require less pages per class.
I'm not sure that each class does use 14 pages. If I remember, I'll check my books when I get home. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 18:37:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I hated the idea of those base classes... Especially since most of them were simply variations on and/or combinations of the true base classes. If they were true base classes, they should be totally unique and found in the core rules.
My opinion about the extra base classes is more or less the same as yours. However, did you see what my main point was? In any case, I do think that the difference between a "real" core class and an "extra base class" is subjective. For example, the 4E warlock isn't that new--it debuted in 3E. Some of the "left out" core classes were new back in 3E.
The true core classes are the weapons-based damage person, the sneaky/social person, the arcane person, and the multipurpose support person. All the other classes just mix and match features of those four. It's like colors: you have your basic colors, and then the different mixtures of them.
All of the core classes, and indeed, all of the base classes, should be in one book. If it's not a class found in an expansion book, then it needs to be in the main one.
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And you don't need epic level rules when starting out with a new character.
That's true...but I only mentioned epic levels because you said you could play any class at any level with just the PHB in 3E. If for whatever reason you wanted epic levels in 3E, you needed another book. That's not the case in 4E.
I'm not trying to be cheeky, here, I'm just disagreeing with some parts of your argument.
Well, to me, epic levels are another expansion. They aren't needed in the main book, especially since most non-powergamers don't get their characters that high. I don't think any of the offline gamers I know have gotten a character even all that far into the teen levels. Maybe I'm just too old-school, but I don't see a need to take a character beyond level 20 in any class.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 27 Jun 2008 18:39:16 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 18:48:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The true core classes are the weapons-based damage person, the sneaky/social person, the arcane person, and the multipurpose support person. All the other classes just mix and match features of those four. It's like colors: you have your basic colors, and then the different mixtures of them.
All of the core classes, and indeed, all of the base classes, should be in one book. If it's not a class found in an expansion book, then it needs to be in the main one.
I think there's merit to that approach. I guess I just don't mind the way things are being done with 4E, because I like the new system overall.
quote:
Maybe I'm just too old-school, but I don't see a need to take a character beyond level 20 in any class.
No, I think that's a perfectly valid view to have. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 19:57:04
|
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert[quote] Maybe I'm just too old-school, but I don't see a need to take a character beyond level 20 in any class.
No, I think that's a perfectly valid view to have.
|
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 20:46:50
|
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert[quote] Maybe I'm just too old-school, but I don't see a need to take a character beyond level 20 in any class.
No, I think that's a perfectly valid view to have.
Heh. I got my undead warlock up to level 44 before I bailed on WoW... But until recently, MMOs and D&D were totally separate beasts. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 23:20:09
|
| It's not the number of levels that's important. It's the relevance of the levels, and what you get to do in each that's important. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 22:55:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
It's not the number of levels that's important. It's the relevance of the levels, and what you get to do in each that's important.
I agree. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
MerrikCale
Senior Scribe
USA
947 Posts |
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 |
When hinges creak in doorless chambers and strange and frightening sounds echo through the halls, whenever candlelights flicker where the air is deathly still, that is the time when ghosts are present, practicing their terror with ghoulish delight. |
Edited by - MerrikCale on 29 Jun 2008 00:32:38 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
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.  |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
Edited by - Sanishiver on 29 Jun 2008 01:02:49 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
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
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
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. |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
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. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 29 Jun 2008 04:44:06 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
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. |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
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?
|
. |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
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.
|
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
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). |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 21:48:19
|
Aren't the martial/arcane/divine power books slated for release prior to the PHB2?
|
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
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. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
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. |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Kes_Alanadel
Learned Scribe
USA
326 Posts |
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
|
Ack! I seem to have too much blood in my coffee stream!
When did 'common sense' cease to be common? |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
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. |
. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Players Handbook 2
