| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Feb 2008 : 16:28:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Edit: But I really don't see a need for ANOTHER book about dragons. What... are dragons in 4e completely different that they need ANOTHER book about them?
Yup!
Anyway, thanks for posting the list. I'm still rather curious about whether or not 4E will become as bloated with rules as 3E did (after all, that is apparently something 4E is supposed to fix).
I noticed that there is an upcoming supplement (Rules Expansion) about Martial Power... so apparently WoTC is going to publish a "splat book" for each of the Power Sources in the Core Books (and some new ones as well). In a few years 4E will most likely suffer from the same kind of "rules bloat" that 3E currently suffers from.
What I'd like to know is how much effort they will put into "cool non-combat stuff for each class" and the "Social Encounters". I think it was already mentioned in some interview that they couldn't make the "Social Combat" work in 4E, and it was left out of PHB and DMG? And unless I have misunderstood their comments, some playtesters have commented that only the "relevant" (in-combat) mechanics are included in the game, and all the 'non-combat' stuff is more or less to be "houseruled" by DMs? |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2008 : 16:37:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Wilson
I don't mind a new book on Dragons once an edition or so. The game is named Dungeons and Dragons after all.
Plus, from what I can tell, Dragons seem to be reworked somewhat in 4.0.
Well, the thing is, they keep redoing some of the same stuff... If they published a single rules-neutral book, then all they'd have to do is a periodic rules update.
Besides, even if they do need to do yet another book on the same topic, it's kinda silly to keep using the same name over and over again. |
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! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2008 : 16:39:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
In a few years 4E will most likely suffer from the same kind of "rules bloat" that 3E currently suffers from.
Yup. And then they'll have to go to 5E...  |
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! |
|
|
|
Erundur
Acolyte
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2008 : 05:22:18
|
quote:
Is the idea of one culture warring on another culture even though they're members of the same race that foreign and irreconcilable to you?
Um. No. But then, I didn't say that.
quote:
Besides, I hardly think the cause of their conflict is because one of them has a +2 bonus to Int and the other has a +2 bonus to Dex. It's purely because of cultural reasons. And you don't need mechanics for culture. A Moon Elf can still be a Moon Elf and a Sun Elf can still be a Sun Elf even though they're mechanically the same.
That is true, but 4th Edition is making no such distinction. Moon elves and Sun elves have ceased to exist. They never existed. Isn't that how they're pushing it? |
Inye Erundur, Varyar Eruhinion. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2008 : 04:58:19
|
No, previous history is "suppose" to be intact in as much as it is relevant to the current state of the Realms. Rich has said in the "Ask the Realms Designers" thread at WOTC's boards that Moon/Gold/Star elves were likely "always" Eladrin, but that they always also separated themselves by culture into separate "subraces," even if the mechanics aren't any different between them.
Honestly, I have less of a problem with this than the fact that in the "core" rules they state that they want to get away from subraces, but then kind of pretend that even though they mention that elves, drow, and eladrin are from the same race, they aren't subraces, but three different races from the same root stock. It seems to be a bit of a fine point to me. |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2008 : 13:23:08
|
quote:
That is true, but 4th Edition is making no such distinction. Moon elves and Sun elves have ceased to exist. They never existed. Isn't that how they're pushing it?
Moon Elves, Sun Elves, Star Elves, Wood Elves, and Wild Elves all still exist in the Realms. The only change, there, is that mechanically, the first three are Eladrin while the latter two are Elves. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2008 : 01:04:18
|
The current Death and Dying article had this tagged on at the end as a 3.5 "translation" of how the 4th edition Death and Dying rules will work:
quote:
If you want to try out a version of this system in your current game, try the following house rule. It’s not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.
1) At 0 hp or less, you fall unconscious and are dying.
Any damage dealt to a dying character is applied normally, and might kill him if it reduces his hit points far enough (see #2).
2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.
3) If you’re dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.
4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he’ll wake up again with hit points equal to the healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative hit point total had reached.)
5) A dying character who’s been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn’t roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2008 : 18:27:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yup. And then they'll have to go to 5E...
First they will have to work-out all the bugs with 4e, with erratas and follow-up core books. Then, when they have 4e as perfected as possible, they will release 4.5 so that Eberron can get the BETTER rules for their setting. Isn't it great being the 'test-bed'?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Gods, three books with the same title? Do they not have any originality?
No - they only know how to obliterate, and copy & paste. Creativity is no longer a pre-requisite for game design. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Feb 2008 06:58:25 |
|
|
|
tauster
Senior Scribe
Germany
399 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2008 : 19:09:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
No - they only know how to obliterate, and copy & paste. Creativity is no longer a pre-requisite for game design.
You forgot cynism and being snarky when dealing with customers. At least that's my impression from SKR's answer. 
I am used to different, more respectful behavior and a less aggressive tone when dealing with people who have an opinion different from my own, in real live AND in the web.
...but maybe I'm interpreting too much into these lines (as a non-native speaker). In that case I apologize. Just pretend I never said that. 
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2008 : 19:57:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by tauster
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
No - they only know how to obliterate, and copy & paste. Creativity is no longer a pre-requisite for game design.
You forgot cynism and being snarky when dealing with customers. At least that's my impression from SKR's answer.
I am used to different, more respectful behavior and a less aggressive tone when dealing with people who have an opinion different from my own, in real live AND in the web.
...but maybe I'm interpreting too much into these lines (as a non-native speaker). In that case I apologize. Just pretend I never said that.
SKR may be opiniated, but his points were valid. And he's not a WotC employee. If you disagree with him, that's fine -- but you can't attribute anything WotC is currently doing to him. |
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! |
|
|
|
tauster
Senior Scribe
Germany
399 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2008 : 20:06:27
|
I didn't know that he's not working for WotC, and I don't have a problem with him (or anyone else, for that matter) having a different opinion than my own. The only thing I don't like is his ...let's call it "semi-aggressive" undertone. I usually enjoy discussions, I like the exchange of ideas and views - but his answer made me feel like I'm going to be verbally attacked.
But hey, don't overrate my nagging - I'm just freely saying/writing what I think and how I feel. And I think I can live with simply not continuing the discussion. :) |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4693 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2008 : 20:26:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by tauster
I didn't know that he's not working for WotC, and I don't have a problem with him (or anyone else, for that matter) having a different opinion than my own. The only thing I don't like is his ...let's call it "semi-aggressive" undertone. I usually enjoy discussions, I like the exchange of ideas and views - but his answer made me feel like I'm going to be verbally attacked.
But hey, don't overrate my nagging - I'm just freely saying/writing what I think and how I feel. And I think I can live with simply not continuing the discussion. :)
The last SKR worked on was 3.0 as employee, since then he has been freelance. He did offer some advice on 3.5 that I know of. There was one discussion he related concerns 3.5 bards and spell list changes. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2008 : 22:58:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The current Death and Dying article had this tagged on at the end as a 3.5 "translation" of how the 4th edition Death and Dying rules will work:
quote:
If you want to try out a version of this system in your current game, try the following house rule. It’s not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.
1) At 0 hp or less, you fall unconscious and are dying.
Any damage dealt to a dying character is applied normally, and might kill him if it reduces his hit points far enough (see #2).
2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.
3) If you’re dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.
4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he’ll wake up again with hit points equal to the healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative hit point total had reached.)
5) A dying character who’s been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn’t roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.
I really like that "You get better!"-result... "Guys, I was just faking! I was not really hurt! Look -- even my organs are now mystically back in their proper places!" 
I though that being 'Bloodied' meant actually bleeding and being physically hurt? Anyway, that's how I remember the designers explaining it. And before you get 'Bloodied', your HP loss represents becoming tired, fatigues, demoralized, depressed, etc.? Can't see how you could just "jump up" from "hovering" if your guts are practically hanging out, or your jugular vein's been cut open...
And no matter how you spin this, it eliminates all descriptions from combat, since you can't really know how badly a PC has been *actually* hurt (Knocked unconscious? Mortally wounded? Head nearly severed? Ribcage caved in?) until he's made all those rolls. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2008 : 17:31:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I'm still rather curious about whether or not 4E will become as bloated with rules as 3E did (after all, that is apparently something 4E is supposed to fix).
It will unless they have a secret radical new business model. They aren't claiming this won't happen as they very much did in the lead-up to 3E (much of this on Eric Noah's old site), absurd as that seems now. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2008 : 22:16:44
|
| And of course, putting out new rules constantly is how WotC makes it's money. |
"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) |
|
|
|
IngoDjan
Learned Scribe
Brazil
146 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2008 : 18:35:27
|
| Baaa!!! |
Ingo Djan
DUNGEON MASTER AO OF THE DIAMONDS!"I see the future repeat the past. It all is a museum of great news. The Time do not stop." |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2008 : 19:52:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
And of course, putting out new rules constantly is how WotC makes it's money.
I was thinking about this the other day. D&D seems to be the only game out there that takes an "anti-standardization" approach to enable its long-term success. I'm not sure this is wise...
What do you think would happen if one day, someone would come along and declare "Here are the new rules for Chess!" or "Monopoly 2010 will do away with the board and money aspect altogether; we don't want people to count as it's too challenging for the younger players. Monopoly 2010 will move to a trivia game model and have features such as "Celebrity recognition" where you pick a card and must identify the celebrity shown, etc."
Games become widely popular when you don't change the rules!!! there's a boost at first, when the game is new, but along the years, more and more buy the game after having played it at a friend's place and deciding that they like it. A company that singles out the initial sales boost and decide to make it their "regular business model" is doomed to fail: either they will run out of steam or they will drive the core fan base away with the years. Without the core, the new ones can't join. Don't underestimate word of mouth!
Edit: perhaps another consequence of this periodical repelling of the core base is why "Dungeons and Dragons" has some kind of taboo aspect to it, and why most professionals seem to be uncomfortable when asked "Have you ever played D&D?" The answer is usually "No" (even if they "did" play D&D) or "A long time ago, when I was in high school, although I don't remember much of it." If you're lucky and meet a professional, in a social setting, who's simply not afraid of saying they played D&D, the answer will sometimes be along the lines of "Yeah, that was cool... what's happening with D&D these days?" |
Edited by - Purple Dragon Knight on 18 Feb 2008 20:38:59 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2008 : 21:06:14
|
The question, PDK, is interesting, but I doubt chess-rules weren't revised and perfected...after all the bugger is a couple hundred (if not thousand) years old.
3.x was an improvement of AD&D in very many aspects...hell, I have no headache anymore when DMing, so that's a good thing!
AD&D and 2nd Edition were basically the same, and had been around for about 22 years. I'm not sure any RPG has the kind of appeal Monopoly, Risk, or any other well-known game has. Wargames, from which D&D evolved, were and still are played only by a small number of people compared to Settlers of Catan. And anyone who actually finished playing through D-Day by, I think, AH from about 20 years or so back deserves my respect...after 4 hours of setting up all divisions etc. we called it a day and never went back to actually start playing.
RPGs require a lot of time to be invested, you need to read the rules, have to reserve a day or so to actually play etc. Settlers of Catan is so much simpler and is also fun (especially if you start trading material cards for beer.... don't ask  )
So the staying power of D&D or any other RPG relies on people spreading the word... and even though Wizards tried to encourage new players to join the fold with D&D game day (a good idea), it would have been much much wiser had they created a distinction more along the lines of the original D&D and AD&D, very similar games, but one was much much simpler and easier to get to know the game, after all, the basic set only had one book of 60 or so pages, which were enough to play for at least a few months and get things started... AD&D (and 3.x) required a couple more pages to read, some 900-1000?
Instead of making a simple D&D and a more difficult/complex AD&D the all-in-one approach scares folks who refuse to read that many pages to play the game...any game |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Erundur
Acolyte
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2008 : 21:13:53
|
"3.x was an improvement of AD&D in very many aspects...hell, I have no headache anymore when DMing, so that's a good thing!"
Whereas I never got a headache DMing 2nd Edition. 3rd Edition is a monster.
Settlers of Catan! Yes!!!
"RPGs require a lot of time to be invested, you need to read the rules, have to reserve a day or so to actually play etc."
With 3.5, one has to read the rules once a week to remember them all.
"Instead of making a simple D&D and a more difficult/complex AD&D the all-in-one approach scares folks who refuse to read that many pages to play the game...any game"
Eh, I disagree. I am an avid reader, and so are many of my players. I read the PHB and DMG cover to cover when I first got them, and we've been playing it for 5 years...we still have to look up rules for a long time every time we play. |
Inye Erundur, Varyar Eruhinion. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11999 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2008 : 21:35:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
That is true, but 4th Edition is making no such distinction. Moon elves and Sun elves have ceased to exist. They never existed. Isn't that how they're pushing it?
Moon Elves, Sun Elves, Star Elves, Wood Elves, and Wild Elves all still exist in the Realms. The only change, there, is that mechanically, the first three are Eladrin while the latter two are Elves.
Avariels????? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2008 : 21:58:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erundur
"3.x was an improvement of AD&D in very many aspects...hell, I have no headache anymore when DMing, so that's a good thing!"
Whereas I never got a headache DMing 2nd Edition. 3rd Edition is a monster.
Settlers of Catan! Yes!!!
"RPGs require a lot of time to be invested, you need to read the rules, have to reserve a day or so to actually play etc."
With 3.5, one has to read the rules once a week to remember them all.
"Instead of making a simple D&D and a more difficult/complex AD&D the all-in-one approach scares folks who refuse to read that many pages to play the game...any game"
Eh, I disagree. I am an avid reader, and so are many of my players. I read the PHB and DMG cover to cover when I first got them, and we've been playing it for 5 years...we still have to look up rules for a long time every time we play.
Most of the rules I remember, special features is another matter. The point is/was with 2nd edition I played without minis and since some of the distance/movement stuff was more than a little abstract, I had enough problems with the combats, especially since it was done in feet/inches which is kinda hard when you live with metrics every day of the week. The 3.5 system with minis/battlegrid etc makes things so much easier.
As for looking up rules, even in 2nd edition, especially with "2.5" player's options there was still a lot of stuff that had to be looked up every time.
My point was more along the lines of, making the starting game simple so that new people will take notice and play, and maybe change systems eventually... again, the original D&D and AD&D as an example. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 01:33:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Most of the rules I remember, special features is another matter. The point is/was with 2nd edition I played without minis and since some of the distance/movement stuff was more than a little abstract, I had enough problems with the combats, especially since it was done in feet/inches which is kinda hard when you live with metrics every day of the week. The 3.5 system with minis/battlegrid etc makes things so much easier.
As for looking up rules, even in 2nd edition, especially with "2.5" player's options there was still a lot of stuff that had to be looked up every time.
Well, I have to say I found editions of D&D preceding 3rd ed much easier to run in regards to combat. Without minis too. No attacks of opportunity especially. And it was not like the game got turned into two games: one for role playing and the other being a strategy board game. As long as one knew each characters movement and how big the room was, it was relatively simple to figure that aspect of things out.
I feel that 3rd had a lot more book keeping involved for combat and was not as fast and loose as the earlier editions were.
However, that being said, the version of combat in 3rd is fun even if at times it can be a rules lawyers wet dream ;-)
I guess my main criticism of 3e is that combat can be a real bugger if you don't have minis. I appreciated the previous eds for not making minis so integral to the combat system. |
" Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages...I intend to discover who are the prisoners and who are the warders." -the Prisoner |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 02:31:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rhone Ethenkhar
I guess my main criticism of 3e is that combat can be a real bugger if you don't have minis. I appreciated the previous eds for not making minis so integral to the combat system.
And by all appearances, it looks like that trend (ie. D&D "pushing" people into using minis) is going to continue if not increase in 4E. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 16:03:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Avariels?????
Rich also said on the WotC boards that we should not expect to see Avariels or Sea Elves in the FGPG (Forgotten Realms Player's Guide). |
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)
|
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 17:53:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Avariels?????
Rich also said on the WotC boards that we should not expect to see Avariels or Sea Elves in the FGPG (Forgotten Realms Player's Guide).
Sorry to hear that. :-/ It's probably because those elves don't fit neatly into the 3 new categories (elf, eladrin, drow). |
"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
36875 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 18:15:56
|
| That honestly doesn't bother me. There's not a lot you can do with a sea elf unless you're doing an all (or mostly) underwater campaign, and I don't think avariels should be common enough that there's a need for them in the Player's Guide (that also applies to drow, though!). |
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! |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 18:57:25
|
| I agree, these two types of elves should not be common sights in the Realms outside of their homelands in my opinion. The same goes for drow. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 18:58:12
|
I would have to agree with Wooly here - as much as I like the concept behind Avariels, Sea Elves, and even Lythari, I don't see them as PC races, except in special circumstances. To provide rules for races most folks have no interest in playing is just a waste of space, IMHO. If a DM wishes to allow them in his game, it would only take a few minutes to adapt an existing group to one of the former sub-races.
As for Drow... they HAD to include them... elst every 'Drizzt Fanboy' would cry...
Also, tying the miniatures more closely to the rules is a step forward, as far as I'm concerned. That might not be good for those who do not use the miniatures, but they do add a certain aspect to the game, and they will help to bring in the 'new blood'. I know personally that children LOVE the minis - my four boys play with mine all the time (without rules!)
And if I can run an entire encounter with the cards, and not have to break out the MM, so much the better. As of now, combat takes up a MAJOR portion of most game sessions, and usually an adventure ends in a 'final brawl' with the 'Boss'. If we can move beyond that way of thinking, and have combat be just an end to a means, rather then the main event, then I think 4e rules are definately moving in the right direction.
Younger Players will be able to use the basic (Miniatures) rules for fights, but as they get older and explore the possibilities, then the advanced (D&D) rules will start to look more appealing, and bring new players into the fold.
I have always been about training new players for the game, and have been doing so for thirty years and four editions. Many of them have gone on to become DM themselves, and have trained many others. I'm rather proud of that, so anything that will help spread the joy that is D&D to a wider audience is okay in my book. 
Now... as far as 4e FR is concerned; thats a whole 'nother ball of wax...  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Feb 2008 00:04:07 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 19:35:26
|
I oppose the move towards minis for two reasons:
One, I sank way too much money into the CCG craze several years back. I'll be dipped if I do that routine again. That's a lot of the reason I don't own a single D&D mini.
Two, why the hell should I go out and spend even more money to play this game? We're already shelling out enough on the never-ending wave of new books. Telling me I have to buy the minis, too, is just too much. I can use a Lego guy if I really need to have some visual marker of where my character is. |
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! |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2008 : 23:33:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Also, tying the miniatures more closely to the rules is a step forward, as far as I'm concerned. That might not be good for those who do not use the miniatures, but they do add a certain aspect to the game, and they will help to bring in the 'new blood. I know personally that children LOVE the minis - my four boys play with mine all the time (without rules!)
I hear what you are saying. I like the use of minis as well, always have in fact (still use my painted Reaper's for characters anyway). But I just dislike being (or at the very least feeling like I am being) coerced into HAVING to use them. The other eds worked fine whether they were used or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As of now, combat takes up a MAJOR portion of most game sessions, and usually an adventure ends in a 'final brawl' with the 'Boss'. If we can move beyond that way of thinking, and have combat be just an end to a means, rather then the main event, then I think 4e rules are definately moving in the right direction.
I agree. As long as they foster the idea of a creative game and not merely hack n' slash stuff, it is a good move. But a disproportionate amount of people like having big dust ups to conclude things. Oh well.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Younger Players will be able to use the basic (Miniatures) rules for fights, but as they get older and explore the possibilities, then the advanced (D&D) rules will start to look more appealing, and bring new players into the fold.
I have always been about training new players for the game, and have been doing so for thirty years and four editions. Many of them have gone on to become DM themselves, and have trained many others. I'm rather proud of that, so anything that will help spread the joy that is D&D to a wider audience is okay in my book.
Hopefully, it works out that way. A wider audience is not always better, imho. Ya know that saying "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"? A paraphrase to be sure, but one worth heeding in my opinion.
|
" Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages...I intend to discover who are the prisoners and who are the warders." -the Prisoner |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
