| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36896 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 15:31:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ladejarl
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What the hey are they doing to our game?!? 
Aintitcool's Massawyrm has been playtesting 4ed. since last october and here's the review:
Part1:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776
Part2:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35799
Part3:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35811
The bit about scaling of monsters made me think about Elder scrolls IV: Oblivion.
I scanned the first one and gave up. One reason is that we've already found out that playtesters were specifically forbidden from saying anything negative about D&D Extreme. I don't have a quote for that, but it was posted elsewhere on these forums.
Also, just the little bit that I read was parroting the official "This is so kewl!" line we've already gotten from WotC. I know I sound like one of those stubborn people who hates all change, but the simple fact is that D&D Extreme is a totally different beast, one that doesn't have much of anything to do with what came before. The only problems I had with 3.5 were entirely created by the marketing folks: gotta have more feats, gotta have more PrCs, gotta be able to fight anything and everything.
I think the idea of being back at full strength, with just a few hours of rest and no clerical healing, is far more ridiculous than having to rest because the mage ran out of spells. As I've already stated, that system means that a group can conceivably rest twice a day, getting back up to full each time, and simply keep on pushing ahead. That sounds good until you realize that it makes even the most deadly dungeon -- including Undermountain! -- a cakewalk, because the PCs will never have to leave or escape because they're just too worn down. And with healing surges dramatically increasing the number of available hit points a character has, then the only way a DM could take down a PC is to either swarm them (so they exhaust all healing surges before the end of combat) or to hit them with attacks that will outright kill them. And I'm certainly not saying that DMs should be trying to kill PCs, but where is the challenge in playing a nearly unkillable character?
If I wanted every single one of my D&D characters to be a tank, I'd play only the fighter-types, with maximum strength. And that was part of the strength of prior editions: every class had strengths and weaknesses, and every class needed every other class (at least among the primary four). You could play what you wanted, in each class, and make it work to your liking.
This new version, with every class the same save for a few minor things, is not at all an improvement. Role-playing is not a part of D&D Extreme. It's all about roll-playing. In other words, it's a pen and paper based MMO.
One thing in particular I've noted is that despite the claims that "now all characters have a specific role", clerics appear to be useless. With saving throws being a simple 10+, effects only lasting at most until the end of the encounter, and everyone able to heal themselves multiple times a day, what function is left for a cleric? |
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
36896 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 15:34:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dart Ambermoon
And on the alignment thing...why does it seem that everything, that makes a player have to put thought into his char´s actions is "restrictive" to the game. Why bother with classes or anything, then?
"Why, here´s my psychotic Half-Dragon/Half-Tiefling-Vampire-Paladin-Assassin-Warlock. Uh...and he´s called Pinky."
The alignment thing is a deliberate dumbing down of the game, no matter what they say. For years, people have somehow been unable to grasp the whole "alignment is a set of guidelines" concept, despite it being explicitly written out, with examples. I don't blame stupidity, I blame people simply not taking the time to try to understand it. |
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! |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 16:08:58
|
I agree, and that´s what I meant. It seems like character choices have now been deliberately removed from any thought in the direction of "well, how IS this guy/gal, what drives him/her, etc." straigtly to "here´s your feats, tricks and power-ups...now go smash something".
Alignment was such a broadly ranged concept, that it allowed unique and interesting facettes to characters and their actions. Sure, good roleplayers will be able to do all of that without the rules, but especially for noobs I´ve always found alignments rather helpful than harmful. When two people, that hadn´t had much contact with fantasy, let alone RPG´s joined our last campaign it helped them a lot to differenciate between their own personality and that of their characters.
But then that can be said IMO for iconic NPC´s (and I don´t want to open another can of worms here, no worries), but it made the Realms far more interesting and unique to them that it was populated with characters they could relate to and read stuff about.
I think I´d better stop now before going on a whining and lamenting binge |
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
|
|
|
SiCK_Boy
Acolyte
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 18:01:14
|
Changes in paradigms are hard to accept for most people...
The more I read about 4th Edition, the more I realize that. It is a major shift in the conception people have of the game. But that 3 pages review (Aintitcool's Massawyrm) really made it sound like an interesting game.
I ain't that old, and yet... the current outcry at the new edition reminds me of previous events. We heard the same kind of lament when they changed the card design in MtG.
Through all the criticism made about the next edition, I'm still waiting to read a valid one about the game design.
I agree we'll have to pay for more books. Those that can't or won't afford this expanditure are welcome to just keep playing with past editions.
But seriously, what's wrong with letting go of the alignment concept, with making it so that the cleric has something else to do in a game than healing everyone else, or even giving characters a form of self-regeneration?
Wooly: why do you say that "The alignment thing is a deliberate dumbing down of the game, no matter what they say."?
What's the use, really, of alignment in the game? It never forced people to put though into their character's action! It simply hindered players by restricting their options. Moral questions are never white or black... and no alignment system will ever be supple enough to represent adequately the wide range of possibility it should encompass. Certainly not with only 9 possible choices.
But seriously, what are the dire consequences of not having aligment anymore? Detect evil won't work? Souls won't know wether to go to hell or heaven after death? Paladins will be able to attack gold dragons? Seriously, what's so dramatic about it? What's preventing anyone from following any given moral code in the new rules? The fact that nowhere in the PHB it states that a Lawful Good character must abide by the law doesn't prevent any character from playing a LG character.
Another quote from Wooly:
I think the idea of being back at full strength, with just a few hours of rest and no clerical healing, is far more ridiculous than having to rest because the mage ran out of spells.
Why? I must say you are one of the most vocal opponents of the new system I've read on these boards, Wooly. You often make sarcastic comments about the new game design, and their creators. But you rarely put much explanation into your attacks...
What's wrong with having characters have a faster recovery rate? OK, it may changes the dynamic in a dungeon. Just throw more monsters at the players... Instead of never having more than 1 encounter in a night, you can have many... I don't perceive it as a problem.
I repeat again: it's a change in paradigm. For sure, for someone who has never been able to think about a cleric as anything else than a healing machine, the change is hard to make... but seriously: what was so glorious about healing everyone anyway? Were people in your playing groups so eager to play the cleric in order to be the ones that could heal the others? In my experience, it's quite the opposite... the healer role was often the default choice for the last player to show up, because a group had to have one... to that player's dismay, more often than not.
So what if characters can recharge their abilities faster? In what way does it makes the game no more a rpg? Maybe it's a mechanic that's inspired by MMO... but then again, is that so bad?
There is a real sense of snobism about MMO in many anti-4th edition posts... |
Edited by - SiCK_Boy on 02 Mar 2008 18:12:02 |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 18:04:35
|
I have to admit from what I read on that loser Massawyrm's crap, it seems rather ridiculous. I guess it really is the way this guy (and WotC) are choosing to promote this thing, not so much what they are saying but HOW it is presented.
Really, I guess when you read between the lines of hot steaming bull****, they are trying to have the game appeal to those who are not experienced and have never played rpg's too much. Hence imo, the dumbing down of alignment, the overstatement of pc roles (like a person could not figure out what the role of a FIGHTER is) and what is essentially, imho, the "cheat code" of the game,healing surges etc.
And why is being the "healer" of a group such a burden? I always felt it was a powerful and respectable role to have in the party as well as a great deal of responsibility. That very role makes one important.
|
" 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 |
|
|
|
SiCK_Boy
Acolyte
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 18:10:06
|
quote:
It’s like complaining that switching from DOS to Windows was stupid because now anyone could use a computer. When really all it meant was that now you didn’t have to type all that code. Your computer wasn’t dumbed down any.
This excerpt is from Massawyrm's review. To me, it really sums it up. People complaining about a "dumbing down" of the game... what's your problem? You just love to have things made complicated when they can be simple?
I really hope someone, somewhere, will be able to explain clearly what they are losing in that "supposed" dumbing down of the game... because, for now, it only sounds like a weak tentative to assert one's intellectual superiority by claiming other people are dumbier... the same kind of prejudice that seem to plague these boards toward many other things, wether it be MMOs or FR lore not specificaly written by Ed Greenwood, to name just a few... |
Edited by - SiCK_Boy on 02 Mar 2008 18:11:24 |
|
|
|
SiCK_Boy
Acolyte
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 18:22:06
|
quote:
they are trying to have the game appeal to those who are not experienced and have never played rpg's too much
Just to be sure I understand correctly, Rhone Ethenkhar. You consider it a bad thing to have the game designers try to appeal to those who are not experienced and have never played rpg?
quote:
And why is being the "healer" of a group such a burden? I always felt it was a powerful and respectable role to have in the party as well as a great deal of responsibility. That very role makes one important.
More than important... that very role made one essential to the game. No group could survive long without a cleric (barring a game specificaly designed by a DM for a no-cleric group, but I'm speaking in the generic sense of the game). And yet, in order to fulfill that specific role, the cleric players had to hold on on most of his powers and refrain from putting himself in dangers... That is the burden.
Sure, from an In-Game perspective, it makes the character important... but when I played a cleric, I always hated to be forced to hold appart while the fighters and other characters got into the action. No other class had that kind of impediment on itself, except for wizards having to stand appart when they had spent all their spells (another thing they'll try to correct in the next edition). A fighter never has to refrain from fighting as a consequence of the nature of its class (sure, with low HP, a fighter will be cautious, but so do all other characters... the limitations to fighting aren't built into the fighter class or the other classes, as opposed to the limits a cleric is bound into...)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there could and should be more to a cleric than the role of party healer... and I hope the next edition will be a step forward in that matter (or that they'll let go of the class if they can't find a role for it). |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 18:46:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
... the same kind of prejudice that seem to plague these boards toward many other things, wether it be MMOs or FR lore not specificaly written by Ed Greenwood, to name just a few...
This is innuendo, or what Wikipedia calls 'weasel words'. 'Seems' to who, and in what way? Accusations of prejudice are serious. The last time you made them you conflated two sets of posts that disagreed with each other and you weren't interested in discussing what people actually posted or thought when I challenged you on it. |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 19:22:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Just to be sure I understand correctly, Rhone Ethenkhar. You consider it a bad thing to have the game designers try to appeal to those who are not experienced and have never played rpg?
Howdy
No, indeed you are quite incorrect in understanding me. I was simply stating a relatively clear fact. I neither think it is good or bad in general. I was merely pointing out that, while a lot of people are concerned and upset by the actions of WotC (imho) that this is the main reason for doing what they are doing. If they were trying to appeal to people that love the game the way it is, they wouldn't do this & it would remain as is. I think it is a matter of business and trying to propel the brand and game into the future.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
More than important... that very role made one essential to the game. No group could survive long without a cleric (barring a game specificaly designed by a DM for a no-cleric group, but I'm speaking in the generic sense of the game). And yet, in order to fulfill that specific role, the cleric players had to hold on on most of his powers and refrain from putting himself in dangers... That is the burden.
Well what can I tell you. That is the problems you and many others have had. Imho that is what makes the cleric stand out. I feel that by having that ability spread amongst everyone it weakens the role & importance of the cleric. I'll not try to convince you otherwise, and nor was I from the beginning. Merely stating how I felt about it. As a point of note, I am running a very long lived campaign that for many years (like nearly a dozen) it never had a full cleric in the party. It had a paladin. It just made the party more cautious and in the end imho, a more resourceful party. But that is just my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Sure, from an In-Game perspective, it makes the character important... but when I played a cleric, I always hated to be forced to hold appart while the fighters and other characters got into the action. No other class had that kind of impediment on itself, except for wizards having to stand appart when they had spent all their spells (another thing they'll try to correct in the next edition).
*shrugs* Oh well, tough I guess. I would have thought it to be abundantly clear that in many cases that is what routinely happens to clerics and wizards. It is how they fit into the grand scheme of things in D&D. Each class files a specific role, st least in terms of class abilities. There is no reason why a cleric can't get into the middle of things. They can wear heavy armor and use a shield and defend themselves quite well. Incidentally, the spell lists for cleric's are pretty awesome imho. I really like how many creative and strange things one can do with them. I never really feel relegated to just being a healer, period.
It's not as though the personality of the character cannot come through the rules of his/her class. And personally I never looked at these things as impediments, but merely how things worked. IF you really want to get in there an fight a lot, make a fighter or something.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
A fighter never has to refrain from fighting as a consequence of the nature of its class (sure, with low HP, a fighter will be cautious, but so do all other characters... the limitations to fighting aren't built into the fighter class or the other classes, as opposed to the limits a cleric is bound into...)
Well, I guess that is part of the challenge in playing a character like a cleric, huh? ;-) That is how I see it though.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there could and should be more to a cleric than the role of party healer... and I hope the next edition will be a step forward in that matter (or that they'll let go of the class if they can't find a role for it).
Personally, I do not share that limited view of clerics. I do not see them as just healers, although that has been one of there strongest assets. Like any class though, can wizards be more than just guys who can chuck fireballs and magic missiles? Fighters have the potential to go beyond mere combat. As do rogues and their thieving abilities. I believe it is all how you play the character and not just the rule book dictating what you can or cannot do.
Btw, I hope that none of this comes across as negative, angry or spiteful. It is not my intent, and in the unfortunate case that it does, I apologise. :) |
" 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 |
|
|
|
Tiziano
Acolyte
Italy
36 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 19:31:16
|
quote:
More than important... that very role made one essential to the game. No group could survive long without a cleric (barring a game specificaly designed by a DM for a no-cleric group, but I'm speaking in the generic sense of the game). And yet, in order to fulfill that specific role, the cleric players had to hold on on most of his powers and refrain from putting himself in dangers... That is the burden.
.)
I've played (and am playing) in parties with no cleric, one character in the group had a sword who could heal a decent amount of damage limited times if needed. when we *had* a cleric he was also one of the better in melee, and (given his temperament) never held back in combat.
There is no single indispensable role to be covered in D&D.
The 'dumbing down' imo is related to the making of uber-powerful characters than can do almost everything (including things that should need training like healing) and seem to take away the specifics that make one character *need* the others as part of a group.
From what I gather up to now seems aimed to 'cool' characters that do 'cool' things dealing a lot of damage to opponents, but what else is there outside of combat?
I've played some wonderful sessions without a single round of combat, with the group charming opponents or figuring out puzzles or what have you, I'll definitely keep doing so, in 3rd edition.
And what is wrong with having your characters marshal their resources carefully, and plan on how to best take advantage of their opportunities because they are somewhat limited and they know it?
From what I read until now, my style of playing seem to go against the spirit, or at least the flavor, of 4th Ed. |
http://www.portraitadoption.com/ |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 19:39:06
|
Rhone, you didn't come about as being spiteful...but that coming from me (Mr Diplomacy...yea right!) isn't saying very much.
Sick_Boy, I happen to run several groups and the cleric in both of them is a) necessary, and b) not useless at all.
In my primary group the drow Ftr/Clr/Sword Dancer is one of the most competent and effective characters in combat. I usually don't see her lurking about waiting to heal, she is in the middle of the melee and does what she's also good at: dealing damage!
In the other group the Pal/Clr/Justice-dude of Tyr stands also toe to toe with the enemy and heals when necessary, but usually he dishes out pretty well, in addition to healing.
It's as Rhone said: you decide what to make of your character, and a cleric able to wear heavy armor and a shield, even if he cannot wield a martial weapon (the drow can and does wield a 2hd sword), it is kinda hard to take the dude down and he can help in battle. And with the 3.x option to convert any learned spell into a healing spell, plus the ability to either craft or buy wands of healing, I see no reason why a cleric has to be the cheerleader of the group.
So, if you're saying this isn't your cuppa, then it ain't your cuppa, but do not point at it and say that class is a flawed class. The cleric is one of the most powerful classes in the game, if you couldn't play it like that...well, it ain't anyone's fault but yours...
*Mr Diplomacy strikes again* |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Odysseus
Seeker
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 20:25:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It seems to me that they're specifically trying to remove the sense of danger.
I don't know if you read one of the recent Dragon articles about PCs being able to do brave-to-the-point-of-being-stupid things in 4E and basically being rewarded for it (don't recall the name of the article), but one could say it reinforces your statement.
The dragon editorial is called fearless. And to sum it up. What they are trying to do is remove the situations where a characters dies from one bad dice roll.But not from two bad rolls.
Also to add to Woolys DnD extreme bonfire. I believe characters also get half their hit points back. once per day with their second wind. Which dramaticaly increases their hit points even more.
The characters only get one healing surge per combat. So healing surges would have a big impact on the number of combats a character could have, but shouldn't make a single combat a lot less deadly.
I must admit I don't like the sound of characters being able to heal themselves back up to full hit points , without some sort of medical/clerical healing. Some recovery of hit points I can understand from rest,but this seems at first glance to be almost regenerations. |
“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” —Aristotle |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 20:53:30
|
"Hey, you got an arrow sticking in your stomach!" shouts the cleric.
"I've got no time to bleed," says the fighter, and the arrow pops out...
If it were heroic, one would make an abstract of the Hit Point abstract so to speak. Second Wind can only be triggered if the character is mortally wounded and only focuses as temporary hitpoints...sort of like an adrenaline rush which lasts Con-modifier/rounds and then expires...probably like the guy having had the second wind. This would make for some really cool heroic actions, but would still be fatal if the second winded guy (is it just me or does second wind sound like gas???) doesn't receive healing in time. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 22:14:32
|
Please Note:
This post contains opinions, they may differ from yours. I think that's great and I respect that you have your opinions. Keep this in mind when reading. 
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Changes in paradigms are hard to accept for most people...
Paradigm? It's a change in game. It's gone from a gritty Conan type world to a flashy anime style world.
And while that sounds like a great game, probably a lot of fun, it's not what D&D has been and it's not what the Forgotten Realms has been steeped in. There seems like there will be an utter lack of verisimilitude in how the D&D game is played and how the people of the Forgotten Realms are (ie. Are all people now able to regenerate? If so then . . . well. . . then how do people die? ) These types of abilities change the nature of how people interact with the world. I mean, this conjecture may just be wrong, but it really looks like I'm going to have a hard time retaining any verisimilitude.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
The more I read about 4th Edition, the more I realize that. It is a major shift in the conception people have of the game. But that 3 pages review (Aintitcool's Massawyrm) really made it sound like an interesting game.
I'm gonna have to read those articles, but I'm going to open my mouth before I do even though that may be dumb.
The problem with the concept of the game is that I'm pretty sure it's a square peg (D&D 4.0) trying to fit into a star shaped hole (FR).
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
I ain't that old, and yet... the current outcry at the new edition reminds me of previous events. We heard the same kind of lament when they changed the card design in MtG.
I don't know if MtG has a reality to call its own but the change from 3rd Ed to 4th Ed represents a fundamental change in what individuals can do in the Realms. Or, at least, that's what it seems to be. Changing what individuals can do on a mass scale threatens to break down the believability of the events of the story. I think this is the greatest fear, that when we finally see the game that the game will break the verisimilitude of the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Through all the criticism made about the next edition, I'm still waiting to read a valid one about the game design.
I think that the game design will hinder the stories that happen in the Realms. I also play the game in order the enhance the story, while not all people play this way it seems like there are a significant number of Realms fans who do. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't believe I'm wrong and what I've seen tends to support my view.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyI agree we'll have to pay for more books. Those that can't or won't afford this expanditure are welcome to just keep playing with past editions.
Yep. I'll probably even play some of the new edition, that's if I can find anyone to play, but it won't really be the Realms to me.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyBut seriously, what's wrong with letting go of the alignment concept, with making it so that the cleric has something else to do in a game than healing everyone else, or even giving characters a form of self-regeneration?
The alignment concept was a roleplaying tool, not much more really. And it only restricted as much as any particular DM decided to restrict you. It's just lamentable that the focus seems to be on numbers rather than making a "well rounded" character.
As for the cleric, I've played a ton of clerics and I've never really felt they were just "heal bots". I'll grant you the general perception of them is that they're heal bots but I think that's as valid as saying that Drow are cooler than every other race.
Self-regeneration tends to ruin any sense of danger I feel when playing in a game. Just sorta the way it works.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
What's wrong with having characters have a faster recovery rate? OK, it may changes the dynamic in a dungeon. Just throw more monsters at the players... Instead of never having more than 1 encounter in a night, you can have many... I don't perceive it as a problem.
Yep, it seems like it will tend to change the game to a more combat oriented game. It also seems like it shall tend to make the PCs stronger and that begs the question as to whether the PCs will just be stronger, or if the PCs and the monsters will be stronger and if the PCs and monsters are stronger then will the NPCs be stronger. If they're ALL stronger then how does that change the nature of things, are object HPs higher too? If all the numbers are now astronomical then how does anyone ever die?
And, when all the numbers get astronomical then it doesn't look a lot like D&D to me anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyI repeat again: it's a change in paradigm. For sure, for someone who has never been able to think about a cleric as anything else than a healing machine, the change is hard to make... but seriously: what was so glorious about healing everyone anyway? Were people in your playing groups so eager to play the cleric in order to be the ones that could heal the others? In my experience, it's quite the opposite... the healer role was often the default choice for the last player to show up, because a group had to have one... to that player's dismay, more often than not.
The problem is the change in paradigm. More combat, more power, bigger numbers, non-stop action, no particular moral compass, etc. And I'm sorry that you didn't have anyone who wanted to play a cleric, whenever that happened to us we just didn't have a cleric. We had to go slower at times and we had to think outside the box at other times but it never hindered us and usually ended up being awesome.
I also hate the trend towards the "fill a role with your PC". Who cares if you don't have a mage or a fighter or a cleric. Just work around it. I mean damn, what are we, carbon copies?
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoySo what if characters can recharge their abilities faster? In what way does it makes the game no more a rpg? Maybe it's a mechanic that's inspired by MMO... but then again, is that so bad?
Yep, I think so. I don't want D&D to be combat oriented, action pacted and scripted from 1st level to 50th. I especially don't want to see that type of thinking influencing the Realms, because I think it's already done a lot of damage and that it will be getting worse before it gets better.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
There is a real sense of snobism about MMO in many anti-4th edition posts...
Well, I tend to agree with you but unfortunately it's the MMO type ideas that are a driving force in changing the game from something we love into something we barely recognize. I have to admit that I get far too worked up about some of these issues and sometimes have to take a break so I don't say something particularly stupid. 
I'm sure that most everyone respects MMOs for what they are but I don't think many are happy that they seem to be taking over D&D. |
Edited by - ShadezofDis on 02 Mar 2008 22:23:33 |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 22:16:23
|
One point from page three of this "review":
quote:
First of all, dragons ROCK. Every chromatic dragon fights and plays much differently than each and every other type now and they are ALL nasty. Every last one of them. AND, just to sweeten the deal, there are now real, honest to god dragon encounters set as low as level 3. Yes, you can actually fight a white dragon in a tough fight at level 1. That’s pretty damned awesome, once again deserving its title Dungeons & Dragons.
Right, Level 1 characters as dragon slayers. 
And then this nonsense:
quote:
And while Metallics have for the longest time been GOOD creatures, the new 4E lack of standard alignment allows you to be pitted against ANYTHING as long as there’s a good reason for it.
As if the alignment system of pre-4ed prohibited such encounters ... 
But more important: Why should you be able to fight everything you encounter at all? |
"What mattered our lives now? When our world had been torn from us? Folk wept, or drank, or stood staring out over the land, wondering what new horror each dawn would bring."
Elender Stormfall of Suzail
"Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on."
Varl
FR/D&D-Links • 2ed Downloads |
Edited by - Ayunken-vanzan on 02 Mar 2008 22:18:50 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 22:42:42
|
Snobism regarding MMOs? My main EverQuest character (a cleric) had clocked something like 180 days online over the course of 2 years... and I played WoW for half a year. In both, WoW and EQ it became a game of bigger numbers, the concept stayed the same, only that stuff did a tad more damage... so, you might say I have at least some perspective on the entire MMORPG thing. In a MMORPG every character has a role (guess why they call it roleplaying still). Tank, healer, crowd-controller, damage dealer.
I quit EQ because after roughly half a year online I grew tired of it, it became boring. WoW lost its appeal much faster, then again with all the characters and items and gold being sold online for hard currency it really didn't improve the game when total newbies came 'round with their lvl 70 uber-equipped characters and couldn't play at all.
The repetition is what drove me away, the lack of immersion and inability to actually do something special/world-changing.
DDI will make characters created by others available for fast play... every character has its "duty" ... and after a few rations and some water, characters are ready to go on killing shite again.
Am I snobby regarding MMORPGs? Not really, no. After all I played 3, and my EQ character (again the cleric) was renowned on the server because I could play...and well. So Sick_boy, I do know what I'm talking about, and D&D 4e looks like a bloody EQ-/WoW-rip-off to me, if I wanted to GM real "cool fun stuff" that actually is cool and fun and has a real different (compared to old school D&D) feel to it I'd have to go for TORG... maybe you've heard of it |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
StarBog
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
152 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 22:53:41
|
Amen, Mace.
I too am an ex-MMO player (150 days played on my main WOW character), and I quit them for the same reasons as Mace did, and I too see the signs of the worrying MMOism (is that a word?) creeping into 4e from what we've seen.
I just hope, with regards to the Realms, that things can work out due to the splendid authors we've got... but then again...the signs aren't encouraging. |
|
|
|
SiCK_Boy
Acolyte
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 23:22:43
|
quote:
in many cases that is what routinely happens to clerics and wizards. It is how they fit into the grand scheme of things in D&D.
I don't want to get into a "in my game, it works this way" argumentation. I guess the reference to "my" experience was wrong in that respect.
However, I'm glad you agree that, from a general perspective, clerics and wizards often have to stay aside from the action.
By "the action", I mean the encounters and, mostly, fights. In the case of wizards, it's even more evident at lower levels, where a wizard can rarely do much after a single encounter. In the case of the cleric, he has more options, even more so with the 3rd edition rule of spontaneous casting. And although I agree he has a very large choice of spells, the truth is that more often than not, he can't afford to cast most of them because he has to keep his spell-slots to heal the rest of the party.
That is the nature of those classes. One can accept it as a simple part of the game.
But to me, it is a major problem when some player can't take an active part in an encounter. The game is based around character development and encounters. Forcing a player out of encounters because that is the way the game is designed is a problem, in my opinion. And I'll be glad to try a version of the game that tries to correct that.
I hope they'll manage to do it without making every character so strong that they can do anything by themselves. The rules have to enforce cooperative play, I think. But they should not make it so that some player is excluded from an encounter because of his character class.
And by the way, I greatly appreciated the tone of your reply. I guess it was the use of terms like "loser" and other expletives that made me view your first post as a negative one.
quote:
There is no single indispensable role to be covered in D&D.
Tiziano: that sentence is really a great subject for debating. Your argument about not having a need for a healer in the group is that your group had a healing sword... not very convincing. Sure, in a group of 10 clerics, there'll probably be 1 or 2 focusing on melee combat, 1 on ranged attacks and even a sneakier one...
The thing is, the game is designed with many concepts taken for granted. A certain level of wealth equivalent to character level is taken for granted, just like access to certain magic items. Same thing goes for access to a cleric (or, more specifically, a healer). Take any generic game of DnD (or any pre-existing module). I don't think it can work out for a group of characters without easy access (on a daily base) to a healer. That doesn't mean a group can't play without one. But then, it forces the DM to adapt the game to that specific group. Is that still DnD? Sure... but not DnD as the game is designed (except if you disagree on my point that the game design takes into account the fact that you'll have access to regular healing).
Now, is it bad to make a rpg where a group of players "need" a healer? No. I think it's a concept that's been around for so long that everyone accepts it. However, is it possible to make it so that the healer doesn't have to keep his other powers in check in order to play his healer's role? I certainly hope so... and I think 4th edition will be a step in the right direction, at least on that specific aspect of the game.
quote:
From what I gather up to now seems aimed to 'cool' characters that do 'cool' things dealing a lot of damage to opponents, but what else is there outside of combat?
I've played some wonderful sessions without a single round of combat, with the group charming opponents or figuring out puzzles or what have you, I'll definitely keep doing so, in 3rd edition.
I agree that the marketing of the new edition is making an abusive use of the word cool. They should try anotger word. Having recently seen "The Fifth Element", I'd vote for the word "Green". So, from now on, I'll promote the fact that the next edition of the game will be SOOOOO GREEN! And that is cool  (And, it fits with the Gleemax color pattern)
However, I don't understand your argument about non-combat encounters. From all I've read so far, they are making a point of having non-combat encounters be an important part of the new system. That's something I'll be looking forward too, like, I think, most people (never saw anyone complaining there was too much social encounters in DnD).
quote:
And what is wrong with having your characters marshal their resources carefully, and plan on how to best take advantage of their opportunities because they are somewhat limited and they know it?
Nothing wrong with it. But then again, what is wrong with the opposite?
On that particular point (the fact that in 4th edition characters seem to regain their abilities at a faster rate than they do in past editions), I won't say it's better or worse than the current rules. To me, the only thing that matters is that the rest of the ruleset is structured accordingly around that fact to keep the encounters challenging for the players. I'll have to wait for the PHB and DMG to really judge on that point. But I don't see it as something we should worry too much about.
quote:
Paradigm? It's a change in game. It's gone from a gritty Conan type world to a flashy anime style world.
Shadezofthis: that quote, and a few other comments you made, seems to be more a criticism of the changes made to the FR setting. My comments were about the DnD game mechanics change, not about the changes in the FR setting. And although I ain't as opposed to the changes in the setting as other people on the net, I do have a problem with the change in tone of the setting, such as it was presented in the latest Countdown to the Realms column. I liked the civilized feel of the FR, and never asked for floating mountains and other such "fantastic" elements in the natural environment of the setting. However, I think that kind of discussion should take place in the 4th edition FR thread instead of the 4th edition DnD thread.
quote:
There seems like there will be an utter lack of verisimilitude in how the D&D game is played and how the people of the Forgotten Realms are (ie. Are all people now able to regenerate? If so then . . . well. . . then how do people die? ) These types of abilities change the nature of how people interact with the world. I mean, this conjecture may just be wrong, but it really looks like I'm going to have a hard time retaining any verisimilitude.
You got a valid point here. I had similar thoughs about that aspect, until I realized the problem was that we embody hit points as a representation of the physical health of a character. And I think that's what hit points were, in the past edition of the game. However, I believe the concept of hit points has always been one of the worst in respect to the verisimilitude of the game, independently of healing questions. How could a human resist 10 or 20 sword slash when a basic farmer dies from a single one? Having more experience in combat doesn't make one's body more resistant to damage. Every human character should be killable in a single clean sword slash, independant of level.
Thus, my take on it is that hp are an abstract concept that represent more than physical condition. It includes elements like the will to fight, and other such psychological things as well. The thing is, when you start to admit that hp aren't just a representation of a character's physical condition, it becomes more acceptable to have a concept like second wind (maybe akin to some adrenaline boost) or even a martial power healing (healing = raising hp) a character (could be assimilated to the motivation and will to fight a great speach from a heroic general would produce in his troops).
When seen in this light, hp are less of a problem, I think, and it's easier to keep that sense of verisimilitude.
quote:
I think that the game design will hinder the stories that happen in the Realms.
Shadez: I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on that point. Are you refering to stories from novels, or events from sourcebooks, or just stories as in "what happens in your campaign as your group plays a game of DnD"?
quote:
Self-regeneration tends to ruin any sense of danger I feel when playing in a game. Just sorta the way it works.
I've got a feeling we'll see many comments such as this one in the next few days (and maybe weeks). I won't argue much on it, because honestly, we just don't know. We haven't played the whole new ruleset yet. If the new concept is that, in a game environment like we currently have with 3.5, you add self-regeneration to characters, I agree: it'll be broken. But I have hope that they (the game designers) wouldn't make such a blatant mistake. The designers are also players of the game: I'm sure they realize that the risk and danger are an essential element of the game. However, as was said by another poster, making it so that you won't die just because of a bad dice roll is probably a good thing. If the new mechanic serves that purpose, it'll probably be a good one.
quote:
I also hate the trend towards the "fill a role with your PC". Who cares if you don't have a mage or a fighter or a cleric. Just work around it. I mean damn, what are we, carbon copies?
I think the issue here is one that is more problematic for game designers than for players. You're right that just about any group, with a decent DM, can manage to play the game without having filled all the group.
However, the game rules, and particularly the monster design and adventure design (pre-made adventures) need some reference points. I think DnD has always assumed a 4-box party, covering every basic contingency (a cleric, a wizard, a fighter and a thief), as part of that reference point. Changing the game so that this particular element isn't important anymore will make it more challenging to design adventures and monster that can be used by a wide variety of DM with minimal work on their part. I don't know if it would be better or worse for the players... (and please, I hope it won't turn into a "DM that can't invent their own adventures are lame anyway).
quote:
if I wanted to GM real "cool fun stuff" that actually is cool and fun and has a real different (compared to old school D&D) feel to it I'd have to go for TORG... maybe you've heard of it
Nope... what is TORG?
And what, in the new rule system, makes you think you'll get bored after X hours of game play (because that seems to be a major problem with MMORPG)?
Finaly... how do I insert the "Originally posted by XXX" line in quotes? Do I have to do it manually or is there a function to make it automatic? |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2008 : 23:35:25
|
You can simply use the "Quote" function located above each and every post [it's the icon with the purple arrow]. Or you could otherwise post the following into each and every "Quote" you make:-
[italics]Originally posted by [Insert scribe name here][/italics] |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 00:14:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
quote:
in many cases that is what routinely happens to clerics and wizards. It is how they fit into the grand scheme of things in D&D.
I don't want to get into a "in my game, it works this way" argumentation. I guess the reference to "my" experience was wrong in that respect.
However, I'm glad you agree that, from a general perspective, clerics and wizards often have to stay aside from the action.
By "the action", I mean the encounters and, mostly, fights. In the case of wizards, it's even more evident at lower levels, where a wizard can rarely do much after a single encounter. In the case of the cleric, he has more options, even more so with the 3rd edition rule of spontaneous casting. And although I agree he has a very large choice of spells, the truth is that more often than not, he can't afford to cast most of them because he has to keep his spell-slots to heal the rest of the party.
That is the nature of those classes. One can accept it as a simple part of the game.
Wait, are you saying that in your opinion Clerics and Wizards don't have a part/role in combat encounters? Funny, I've seen many, many "pro-4E" people posting that actually Cleric, Druids and Wizards are too *powerful* at high levels, and "outshine" all the other classes in combat. And didn't you yourself note that the *spontaneous* Healing has "freed" clerics from filling up their slots with Healing spells?
In my experience Clerics often prepare so many "buffs" that they can easily outclass the Fighters, Rangers and Barbarians in melee. A Fighter/Cleric or a Cleric/Divine Templar are both *very* effective combatants, especially if you have access to War or Strength Domain. And if you wish to try a really broken and wicked Cleric "build", try playing a dwarven Cleric/Divine Templar/Craftmaster/Hammer of Moradin -- I *guarantee* that your damage bonus will be ramped up to +40 (without *any* "buffs" or Power Attack) by 15th level. Oh, and you can craft Artifacts, too (effectively your CL will be 25 for that purpose ;). |
"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 |
|
|
|
SiCK_Boy
Acolyte
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 00:33:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
are you saying that in your opinion Clerics and Wizards don't have a part/role in combat encounters?
Nope. I'm saying that wizards, at low levels, can rarely be useful after one encounter. They need to rest to regain their spells. As long as they don't have their spells back, they are basically useless in encounters. It forces the other characters to wait for them, creating a bad situation in my opinion.
As for clerics, they have more versatility and can stand their own in melee combat. But, the main ability of a cleric is his spellcasting. And even if spontaneous casting makes things easier, the cleric often can't cast his spells, because he needs to heal the other characters (particularly the fighters and rogues who take massive damage in combat). Thus, clerics are often forced to not use a major power of their class, because they need to keep it for the other players in the group.
My experience is limited to mid-levels (between levels 4 and 12) however, so maybe it's not an issue anymore when you reach near-epic levels.
My point on clerics is not that they can't fight. It's that the game context, and particularly the fact that they are matched with fighters in their group that absolutely need the cleric's healing powers, forces them to not use their spells in other ways.
Giving a form of self-healing power to fighters makes this less of a problem and gives more freedom to the cleric, I think. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 01:35:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
But seriously, what's wrong with letting go of the alignment concept...
Alignment is still in the game. In fact, according to Worlds and Monsters, it's supposed to mean more for characters than it used to. The main difference is that there aren't going to be many (if any) mechanics based around alignment. |
"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 03 Mar 2008 01:38:12 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 01:40:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
This is innuendo, or what Wikipedia calls 'weasel words'. 'Seems' to who, and in what way? Accusations of prejudice are serious. The last time you made them you conflated two sets of posts that disagreed with each other and you weren't interested in discussing what people actually posted or thought when I challenged you on it.
I also recall when this Sick_Boy made unsubstantiated blanket statements about "hard-core Realms fans" here, then got all upset and offended when he felt I was doing same thing to people who dislike the Chosen of Mystra and complain about them constantly. |
"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 03 Mar 2008 01:42:05 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 01:50:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odysseus
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It seems to me that they're specifically trying to remove the sense of danger.
I don't know if you read one of the recent Dragon articles about PCs being able to do brave-to-the-point-of-being-stupid things in 4E and basically being rewarded for it (don't recall the name of the article), but one could say it reinforces your statement.
The dragon editorial is called fearless. And to sum it up. What they are trying to do is remove the situations where a characters dies from one bad dice roll.But not from two bad rolls.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.
The vibe that a lot of people didn't like (and made me a bit wary, myself) came from the idea that characters who tend to be more cautious and inclined to planning ahead lose out whereas characters who take the stupid risks don't. I think sometimes people should be rewarded for being extra careful, even though that may not be as "flashy" and movie-like as the crazy stunts. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 01:59:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
But to me, it is a major problem when some player can't take an active part in an encounter. The game is based around character development and encounters. Forcing a player out of encounters because that is the way the game is designed is a problem, in my opinion. And I'll be glad to try a version of the game that tries to correct that.
I hope they'll manage to do it without making every character so strong that they can do anything by themselves. The rules have to enforce cooperative play, I think. But they should not make it so that some player is excluded from an encounter because of his character class.
I hear you. But I can't help but personally feel that, while what you say does indeed happen SOMETIMES, I prefer to look at those things not as problems or obstacles, but as opportunities to think outside of the box of whatever your character class/concept may be. It forces one to do things with what you do have and not focus on "well, gee, I can't do what I always do or what I want to do." Sometimes, as in real life, you have to make do with what you got. Lemonade out of lemons, so to speak.
Also, just because the rules do not deal specifically with situations like that, does not mean that a group of players can't come to some sort of agreement or whatever. I mean, above all else, rpg's are about thinking and creativity. Letting some books or a rules lawyer dictate the intent of a game is never fun. Not that you were implying that, however.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
And by the way, I greatly appreciated the tone of your reply. I guess it was the use of terms like "loser" and other expletives that made me view your first post as a negative one.
No worries. I was only directing my "nasty" comments towards the "person" who wrote those ludicrous pages of his play testing, Massawyrm. He probably doesn't read here, but if he does....whatever. I'm sure he is a big boy by now and he has learned to take his lumps :) I mean, really. By his name I am sure he is compensating for something ;-)
|
" 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 |
Edited by - Rhone Ethenkhar on 03 Mar 2008 02:01:33 |
|
|
|
chance87
Seeker
50 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 02:40:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
Yep, it seems like it will tend to change the game to a more combat oriented game. It also seems like it shall tend to make the PCs stronger and that begs the question as to whether the PCs will just be stronger, or if the PCs and the monsters will be stronger and if the PCs and monsters are stronger then will the NPCs be stronger. If they're ALL stronger then how does that change the nature of things, are object HPs higher too? If all the numbers are now astronomical then how does anyone ever die?
And, when all the numbers get astronomical then it doesn't look a lot like D&D to me anymore.
This is where I see the "suspension of disbelief" breaking down, as well. Most PCs (at least, in games that do more than pay lip service to role-playing) have backgrounds...Joe Bob got tired of farming, picked up a sword, and took the next adventuring party out of his little town. At that point, according to 3.5E and back, Joe Bob has some quality that sets him apart from the rest of the farmers. His stats are a little higher, better luck, whatever.
However, he only stands slightly apart from his peers. He is not yet a "god among men", as he will become once he becomes an epic character. It's only that indefinable quality that elevates him.
So if we accept that this premise holds true, are all 4E commoners going to have abilities that amount to being immortal short of failing their "system shock" save vs. massive damage? Joe Bob's neighbor on the next farm can go ten rounds against the ankheg that burrowed up to eat his taters, because it takes him that long to expend all of his healing surges? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36896 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 04:49:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Changes in paradigms are hard to accept for most people...
This isn't a change in paradigm. It's a whole different game. And playing the "oh, you just can't accept change" card is exceedingly rude. It's the same snobism you accuse us of.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
The more I read about 4th Edition, the more I realize that. It is a major shift in the conception people have of the game. But that 3 pages review (Aintitcool's Massawyrm) really made it sound like an interesting game.
I read far enough to see that it was the exact same thing the designers have been telling us. Rehashed propaganda is not a review, in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
I ain't that old, and yet... the current outcry at the new edition reminds me of previous events. We heard the same kind of lament when they changed the card design in MtG.
I had absolutely no complaints about 3E before its launch. None, whatsoever.
After its launch, I had but one complaint, and it wasn't even anything to do with the game mechanics. It was about the way things in the Realms were retconned to fit into 3E. And that was my only complaint. So don't lump me in with people who fight any change.
I'd admit that I later added a few complaints, but they were all based on marketing decisions: the endless flow of new feats and PrCs, and the attitude that if it existed, it had to be fought, and nothing else about a creature mattered except how it fought.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Through all the criticism made about the next edition, I'm still waiting to read a valid one about the game design.
Go back and reread some of the earlier posts. Really read them, instead of dismissing them out of hand.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
I agree we'll have to pay for more books. Those that can't or won't afford this expanditure are welcome to just keep playing with past editions.
Bah. As long as the books don't cost more than $30 or $35, I'm not complaining about costs. Cost is a non-factor in all of this.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
But seriously, what's wrong with letting go of the alignment concept, with making it so that the cleric has something else to do in a game than healing everyone else, or even giving characters a form of self-regeneration?
I've never played, or seen a cleric played, who did nothing but heal. Clerics are meant to wade into combat, buff their allies, turn undead, and heal.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Wooly: why do you say that "The alignment thing is a deliberate dumbing down of the game, no matter what they say."?
Because there is not and never has been a problem with the alignment system, other than the fact that some people couldn't be bothered to read clear descriptions and pay attention to the fact it was always stated to be a guideline.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
What's the use, really, of alignment in the game? It never forced people to put though into their character's action! It simply hindered players by restricting their options. Moral questions are never white or black... and no alignment system will ever be supple enough to represent adequately the wide range of possibility it should encompass. Certainly not with only 9 possible choices.
But seriously, what are the dire consequences of not having aligment anymore? Detect evil won't work? Souls won't know wether to go to hell or heaven after death? Paladins will be able to attack gold dragons? Seriously, what's so dramatic about it? What's preventing anyone from following any given moral code in the new rules? The fact that nowhere in the PHB it states that a Lawful Good character must abide by the law doesn't prevent any character from playing a LG character.
Nine choices, as long as they are broad categories -- which the existing system is! -- are more than sufficient. There is, in fact, a degree of elegance to that system.
Players were never hindered by their alignment. Alignment is a set of moral guidelines. It's a guide on how the character acts, not a hard and fast rule... And there were even in-game mechanisms for changing alignment. Anyone who felt hindered by their alignment wasn't doing it right. It's pretty simple: "I'm a LG character. What would a good guy who values law and order do?"
Alignment is, and always has been, a role-playing tool, first and foremost. Simplifying it makes it less of a tool for role-playing. By making it simple, they downplay the important of role-playing in the game. So they're downplaying what has always been an essential element of the game. If I didn't want role-playing, if I only wanted to wander around and kill stuff, I'd reactivate my now-closed WoW account.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Another quote from Wooly:
I think the idea of being back at full strength, with just a few hours of rest and no clerical healing, is far more ridiculous than having to rest because the mage ran out of spells.
Why? I must say you are one of the most vocal opponents of the new system I've read on these boards, Wooly. You often make sarcastic comments about the new game design, and their creators. But you rarely put much explanation into your attacks...
I daresay I have not been all that sarcastic.
Let's see, going into all of the numbers behind healing surges, pointing out how it makes things tougher for a DM and removes the element of danger from PC actions, this isn't putting in explanation? If that's the case, then you just need to skip over any more posts I make, as well as the rest of this one. I can't explain things much more clearly than I already have... And it's interesting that you fail to see my explanations, but other folk not only see them, they understand and agree with them.
I'm not trying to make any attacks, here, but your comments make it look like you're not reading anything I write.
Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I've not made a valid point.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
What's wrong with having characters have a faster recovery rate? OK, it may changes the dynamic in a dungeon. Just throw more monsters at the players... Instead of never having more than 1 encounter in a night, you can have many... I don't perceive it as a problem.
A faster recovery rate is fine. Bouncing back from near-death to full strength in mere hours, without any divine or magical healing, is ridiculous. This also removes any element of danger, and it is flat-out unrealistic. Sure, divine healing isn't all that realistic, but it does fit into the general fantasy setting. Someone nearly getting their arm hacked off and using that same arm to swing a warhammer mere hours later, with no divine healing in the meantime, doesn't fit into a fantasy setting.
"Just throw more monsters at the players"? Oh, please. I don't want to play a game that is nothing more than an arms race between the PCs and the DM. One of the many things I learned from playing WoW: more monsters may be more of a challenge, but it's not at all more fun.
Why should players become nearly unstoppable, even at low levels? How is it fun to player a character that can deal with nearly anything? I don't want to play Superman with a sword.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
I repeat again: it's a change in paradigm. For sure, for someone who has never been able to think about a cleric as anything else than a healing machine, the change is hard to make... but seriously: what was so glorious about healing everyone anyway? Were people in your playing groups so eager to play the cleric in order to be the ones that could heal the others? In my experience, it's quite the opposite... the healer role was often the default choice for the last player to show up, because a group had to have one... to that player's dismay, more often than not.
Clerics should be more than healing machines, and most clerics are.
But in 4E, what's the role of a cleric? With all the self-healing going on, there's little need for a healer. And a few hours rest will fully recharge everyone, without a single spell being cast -- no need for a cleric, there, either. With ill effects being thrown off with the flip of a coin, what need is there for a cleric to remove them? Even if someone can't make their save, the effect will be gone as soon as the fight is done... So there's less need for a cleric, there. A cleric's combat role can be easily done -- and usually, done better -- by a warrior-type. So other than turning undead, what role is left for the cleric?
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
So what if characters can recharge their abilities faster? In what way does it makes the game no more a rpg? Maybe it's a mechanic that's inspired by MMO... but then again, is that so bad?
Yes. Because with less risk for the PCs, and a greatly reduced chance of death, they are being encouraged to just keep chopping thru everything. With every character being a tank, there's no need to try to use your head to outsmart something, or to try to avoid combat by negotiating, or anything like that. Role-playing gets left out, in favor of nothing but combat. And that's exactly like playing an MMO.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
There is a real sense of snobism about MMO in many anti-4th edition posts...
Snobism? Nay. And quit insulting us by brushing off our concerns like that.
It's real simple: if I want to play an MMO, I will play an MMO. I have done so before; I will likely do so in the future. But if I want to role-play, then I want to play an RPG. I don't want an endless killfest that masquerades as an RPG, I want the opportunity to role-play, and in particular, to role-play something other than a self-healing walking meat grinder. |
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! |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 10:46:10
|
quote:
A faster recovery rate is fine. Bouncing back from near-death to full strength in mere hours, without any divine or magical healing, is ridiculous. This also removes any element of danger, and it is flat-out unrealistic.
What's unrealistic is viewing Hit Points as a measure of how much physical punishment a person can take. You don't think it's at all ludicrous to say that one man has to be stabbed 20 times with a longsword before dying, while another can can die from one hit? That's what's ridiculous. Fortunately, with 4E, they're changing the definition of what Hit Points are (And coincidentally, they're making it more the way I and many others always thought they should be viewed as). Like SICK_Boy said, "hp are an abstract concept that represent more than physical condition". There's no "regeneration" going on because Hit Points aren't going to be purely a measure of physical injury. They're going to be a combination of several factors, like willingness to fight on, exhaustion, etc. Here's Chris Sims on the subject.
quote:
Second wind and even healing powers have the obvious outcomes in the game of increasing hit point numbers. The question ultimately is: What do hps represent? If they don't just represent physical damage, and they don't, then even a so-called "healing" power might just be strengthening a targeted character's resolve to fight on—or whatever the players and DM decide it means for the narrative at the time. Evidence for this is easily found in that the warlord has the martial power source, which isn't completely nonmagical, but certainly less magical than other power sources. Nevertheless, the warlord has healing powers, which my players model in the narrative as inspiring words, encouragements, or a "rub some dirt in it and get back in this fight, soldier" order. With the cleric, it's really a "Pelor cure your ills" sort of thing.
Healing surges, in general, have to be triggered. Second wind is a trigger, usually usable once a fight. Other triggers include healing powers and items, or the proper use of the Heal skill. I don’t see any cheese in healing surges within this context, even though everything is more delicious with cheese. Within this cinematic context, they do make sense.
As for second wind, we've all seen movies and read stories where the hero just won't stay down. Second wind gives a player that kind of control over a PC. What it means in the narrative, once again, is whatever the players and DM decide it means. It's an opportunity to expand the narrative, and not any cheesier than a beat-up action movie hero peeling himself off the pavement and giving the bad guys a few more fives across the lips. D&D aims at that kind of action, and how you imagine the action is up to you.
The same goes for bloodied, which is a state in which a character shows signs of faltering or injury. I can imagine all kinds of abilities keying off being bloodied or an enemy being bloodied. Some people who have posted here have pointed out just such narrative opportunities, such as the yuan-ti seeing he’s got you on the ropes and zealously attacking because of it. And that’s really what they are—narrative, or roleplaying if you prefer, opportunities.
None of the abstractions of the 4e D&D game are outside the realm of imagination’s ability to explain in a fun way within the narrative of the game. I can’t agree with assertions to the contrary.
|
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 10:52:23
|
quote:
So other than turning undead, what role is left for the cleric?
If the only thing there is for a Cleric to do is heal other players, then the Cleric most definitely needs more then that. Fortunately, they're giving the Cleric more then that. But your answer is in the above quote I posted.
quote:
Healing surges, in general, have to be triggered. Second wind is a trigger, usually usable once a fight.
The Cleric brings more healing to the table when the PC's are stuck in a bad fight and their one healing surge per encounter just isn't cutting it. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2008 : 15:59:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
However, I'm glad you agree that, from a general perspective, clerics and wizards often have to stay aside from the action.
That is only if you define "action" as swinging a sword. I don't. Further, there are ranged weapons which a caster can use. At low levels a fighters BAB isn't enough to render a wizard moot.
And, you know, sometimes there's a character who isn't going to shine in a particular encounter. That mean fighter who can chop anything to pieces isn't going to be very good for getting a merchant prince to like you. If you're making a character then make a character that you want to play, if the DM isn't friendly to that type of game then look for another, if you're just stuck then DM yourself or suck it up. (I only get to DM the Realms because I don't know anyone who wants to run the Realms, it's a shame but that doesn't make me want to change the nature of the Realms.)
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyBy "the action", I mean the encounters and, mostly, fights. In the case of wizards, it's even more evident at lower levels, where a wizard can rarely do much after a single encounter. In the case of the cleric, he has more options, even more so with the 3rd edition rule of spontaneous casting. And although I agree he has a very large choice of spells, the truth is that more often than not, he can't afford to cast most of them because he has to keep his spell-slots to heal the rest of the party.
Wizards can use crossbows. Clerics can usually use a crossbow or, worst case, they can use a sling. I mean, really, where's the problem?
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyThat is the nature of those classes. One can accept it as a simple part of the game.
Yep, you get magic and in return for this magic you need to pace yourself. That's why wizards don't rule the world.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyBut to me, it is a major problem when some player can't take an active part in an encounter. The game is based around character development and encounters. Forcing a player out of encounters because that is the way the game is designed is a problem, in my opinion.
Not a strong argument, there's no reason a caster has to be "forced" out of an encounter. Perhaps some people don't dig having to go slow but there's no reason that camping and resting has to take more than 5 minutes at the table. If the DM keeps throwing encounters during your rest period then you need to move to a more secure location.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyI hope they'll manage to do it without making every character so strong that they can do anything by themselves. The rules have to enforce cooperative play, I think. But they should not make it so that some player is excluded from an encounter because of his character class.
The rules have never enforced cooperative play. If you're playing an adventure someone bought then it's likely designed with the 4 person party model in mind but that doesn't mean you need to follow that design. If you're playing a DM written adventure then you're usually even more free to do things that aren't "run in and kill stuff".
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyThe thing is, the game is designed with many concepts taken for granted. A certain level of wealth equivalent to character level is taken for granted, just like access to certain magic items. Same thing goes for access to a cleric (or, more specifically, a healer). Take any generic game of DnD (or any pre-existing module). I don't think it can work out for a group of characters without easy access (on a daily base) to a healer. That doesn't mean a group can't play without one. But then, it forces the DM to adapt the game to that specific group. Is that still DnD? Sure... but not DnD as the game is designed (except if you disagree on my point that the game design takes into account the fact that you'll have access to regular healing).
D&D, while designed for a 4 person party, is VASTLY more dynamic than "If you don't have a cleric then you're toast." I've played in groups with no healing magic, had a longtime campaign arch where my fighter was hardly ever at full.
And you know what, it was a grand old time. Fantastic.
In my opinion an RPG shouldn't be scripted by the game design. It should look more like adlib acting than an MMO. You talk about character development but I've never seen any sort of character development in an MMO, just an endless hack and slash.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
However, I don't understand your argument about non-combat encounters. From all I've read so far, they are making a point of having non-combat encounters be an important part of the new system. That's something I'll be looking forward too, like, I think, most people (never saw anyone complaining there was too much social encounters in DnD).
I look forward to seeing their ideas on social encounters, unfortunately it looks like there's very little emphasis on anything but combat. This looks like it's an almost exclusively combat based game, and that might just be perception, but I haven't seen anything but lip service to say otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Nothing wrong with it. But then again, what is wrong with the opposite?
People can't keep going, that's what the problem is. While D&D doesn't look much like real life it's a lot closer than Dragonball Z is and the new edition of D&D looks more like Dragonball Z than anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyOn that particular point (the fact that in 4th edition characters seem to regain their abilities at a faster rate than they do in past editions), I won't say it's better or worse than the current rules. To me, the only thing that matters is that the rest of the ruleset is structured accordingly around that fact to keep the encounters challenging for the players. I'll have to wait for the PHB and DMG to really judge on that point. But I don't see it as something we should worry too much about.
I think it's worse than the current rules because I think it runs even further away from any sense of reality that the game may have had. With what has been coming out I can't see how the world works, I can't imagine what's going to happen with spells and the fact that wizards will be able to pop off a full compliment every 6 hours. I could be going overboard but I can't imagine believing in a functional world with this type of system.
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDisParadigm? It's a change in game. It's gone from a gritty Conan type world to a flashy anime style world.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyShadezofthis: that quote, and a few other comments you made, seems to be more a criticism of the changes made to the FR setting. My comments were about the DnD game mechanics change, not about the changes in the FR setting.
Nope, that's about the game mechanics. Being able to recharge to full 4 times a day makes the game feel more like Dragonball Z than ANY fantasy I've ever read.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyHow could a human resist 10 or 20 sword slash when a basic farmer dies from a single one? Having more experience in combat doesn't make one's body more resistant to damage. Every human character should be killable in a single clean sword slash, independant of level.
A higher level fighter is going to get a slight slash on the bicept from a blow that will cut a farmer in half because the high level fighter can deflect the blade a bit, move a hair and get a slight slash. The farmer can't deflect the blade, doesn't have the instincts to move, and gets chopped in half.
I don't buy the argument and I don't feel the second wind stuff represents anything but a desire to have nonstop action. I don't find nonstop action to be at all reasonable and it changes the characters from humans (or other race) into superheros.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyWhen seen in this light, hp are less of a problem, I think, and it's easier to keep that sense of verisimilitude.
I think that looking at HP in that light opens a can of worms that I don't even want to consider. Are fear effects going to do HP damage because they take away your will to fight? Does being tired take away your ability to use your second wind? If not why? Should a character be able to use the second wind when in the presence of a fear generating creature?
Further, if a character can go from Death's door to . . . what, a quarter? Then. . . well. . . that's a completely different game.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDisI think that the game design will hinder the stories that happen in the Realms.
Shadez: I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on that point. Are you refering to stories from novels, or events from sourcebooks, or just stories as in "what happens in your campaign as your group plays a game of DnD"?
The stories that my group creates. I LOVE running a game that feels as real as possible. This includes letting the players know and interact with the people of the setting and that interaction can feel "real" because I have a good handle on what's happening throughout the region because I can draw from historical records (to an extent, have to add in some things but historical records give an idea of what's a base line reasonable) and I can draw from these records because we're dealing with humans, not superhumans.
If D&D 4e says that the PCs are superhuman and the average Joe is regular human then I'll still be able to do this to an extent, but if everyone is the same as PCs (more or less, which is what D&D has done since the beginning) then I can no longer draw on those records because people will be FAR more capable than regular humans.
The problem is that 4e doesn't seem to have a single thing to do with reality. Which is a somewhat strange thing to say about a fantasy game but I like a game that's close to realistic, even if it includes things like magic and monsters and such.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
quote:
Originally ShadezofDisSelf-regeneration tends to ruin any sense of danger I feel when playing in a game. Just sorta the way it works.
I've got a feeling we'll see many comments such as this one in the next few days (and maybe weeks). I won't argue much on it, because honestly, we just don't know. We haven't played the whole new ruleset yet. If the new concept is that, in a game environment like we currently have with 3.5, you add self-regeneration to characters, I agree: it'll be broken. But I have hope that they (the game designers) wouldn't make such a blatant mistake. The designers are also players of the game: I'm sure they realize that the risk and danger are an essential element of the game. However, as was said by another poster, making it so that you won't die just because of a bad dice roll is probably a good thing. If the new mechanic serves that purpose, it'll probably be a good one.
Well, at the very least it looks like self regeneration will extend combat a lot and I find that very disappointing. As is combat takes up the lions share of the games I run and that's a shame because that's the time where the least amount of story happens. We do a pretty good job of balancing role-play and roll-play but 4e sure looks like it will have more roll-play still.
Of course this is just a matter of game play preference. And I'm sure that you can reduce combat times in 4e but it still seems like the focus is, and will continue to be, on combat.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
quote:
Originally ShadezofDisI also hate the trend towards the "fill a role with your PC". Who cares if you don't have a mage or a fighter or a cleric. Just work around it. I mean damn, what are we, carbon copies?
I think the issue here is one that is more problematic for game designers than for players. You're right that just about any group, with a decent DM, can manage to play the game without having filled all the group.
I don't think it has to be a problem for designers. I don't really think there should be a set assumption on what you're going to play. Classes can be balanced against each other and monsters can be assigned a CR based on a 4 person party but what else do you need to design for a 4 person party?
I'll state it again. I do not believe in the arguments that a cleric or wizard is dead weight most of the time. I do not believe that you need a healer or a wizard or any other party component.
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_BoyAnd what, in the new rule system, makes you think you'll get bored after X hours of game play (because that seems to be a major problem with MMORPG)?
It might be that I'll have a grand time playing 4e. It might just be a fantastic game.
But it's not the same game that D&D has been. It's anime where there was once Conan. It's a change of focus from creating a character to running some numbers. It's a change from a slow dangerous crawl to a fast paced, throw caution to the wind, blitzing pace. |
Edited by - ShadezofDis on 03 Mar 2008 16:00:46 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
