| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 02:17:05
|
It was specifically stated in one of the podcasts last year, one about the Monster Manual development, that "most gamers" didn't care about guardinals and that they were "silly," and when the designers in the podcast couldn't recall what plane guardinals lived on, they extrapolated this to mean that no one knew what plane they lived on.
I was also a bit confused by the fact that they had to make sure that there was a clear difference between demons and devils, so much so that the Abyss got thrown into the "Elemental Chaos," and demons were recast as corrupted elemental creatures, but now, Slaadi appear in the MM (4e) and they are CE extra planar creatures seeking to bring about chaos and entropy . . . just like demons . . .
I guess the "clear" difference between demons and Slaadi are that they aren't elemental creatures? |
 |
|
|
Ranak
Learned Scribe
USA
190 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 08:39:21
|
I had the opposite experience at my local game store, so many pre-orders that ugly shipping boxes filled quite a bit of the floor space.
Then again, I am near Silicon Valley, where the density of DnD players is likely quite a bit higher than the norm.
I don't think Wizards will have any worries over the numbers of books sold, if the Amazon preorders are any indication.
Of course, what should really be worrying Wizards, is that I was the youngest person lined up to get my 4ed boxed set and I am 31. |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 11:58:23
|
As I have noted before, Draconomicon I will deal with chromatic dragons exclusively (dealing with other dragons in later installments), so I am not surprised that metallic dragons are not present in 4th ed yet (MM etc.). There is a sort of logic behind that. Even if metallic dragons will not be good but unaligned, it is much more difficult to explain why a player or group should kill an unaligend (or good) dragon, so the designers now focus on all these dragons which you could smash easily (and without worring about moral consequences or consequences for your alignment). And killing dragons, as some reviewers have pointed out, is an important aspect of 4th ed gaming, even for 1st level characters.
By delivering the dragons in one book after another, there will be steady flow of cash.
Making metallic dragons unaligned and deleting brass, copper and bronce dragons is just plain silly.  
There are at least two books which deal with Guardinals specifically, the Manual of the Planes and the Book of Exalted Deeds. The designers should have known! But wait, this is 3,xth ed, so it cannot be considered as valuable information. |
"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 09 Jun 2008 12:00:05 |
|
|
|
Ateth Istarlin
Seeker
United Kingdom
80 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 12:25:37
|
| Well, my group decided to get a copy of 4E PH between us - just to see if its worth crossing over - It isn't! We all agreed that 4E just isn't D&D anymore. We've been playing D7D through each incarnation since Basic first came out - Now we're going back to 1st/2nd AD&D (When the game was best). |
The more I read about 4FR, the more depressed I am.
Politician - An elected official who tries to be all things to all people, while always looking out for his/her own interests first. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 20:17:40
|
The idea that they are purosely leaving important stuff out to force us to buy later books makes the gorge rise in my throat. I feel like Hasbro has taken D&D hostage. 
As far as the 4e rules go - I have read through them, and they seem pretty good. I had planned to run a game with them this past weekend, but two of my players were unavailable, so I will try again next weekend. Just by reading them, its hard to give an accurate opinion, but it appears that the game will indeed move along much more quickly, and the DM will spend less time as a 'judge' and more time as a 'storyteller' - this harkens back to the old days of D&D, and it is both simple and elegant.
Its also NOT D&D. It reminds me of OD&D, but there is a reason WHY it's called 'old' - the game has evolved quite a bit since those "good ol' days", and people have come to expect a set of rules that an entire world revolves around. These new rules seem to leave all the 'world stuff' in the DMs hands, and just provides gamers with a set of rules for encounters. It may be a really great set of RPG rules, but it is as much D&D as Runequest is, or Warhammer RPG, or White Wolf's games...
When I first got the PHB, I spent the first ten minutes looking for the spells section... there WASN'T ONE!!! I thought that must be a mistake, but then I started actually reading the rules and realized that the spells are now 'built-in' to the Wizard class as powers. In the greater scheme of things, this may have been the most streamlined way to do a Mage class, but it just seems to have had all the flavor sucked right out of it. It reminds me of a Beholder trying to decide which eyestalks to use this round.
Anyhow, I've been wanting to teach my two younger boys (ages 6 and 10) how to RP for awhile, but 3e was far too complicated, so this seems to be just the ticket. I'm very glad that WotC was able to produce an easy-to-understand ruleset for beginners - 4e is like 'training wheels' for RPGs.
I'm just wondering when the advanced rules will be available. 
I'll let everyone know how this turned out after I use these rules, hopefully this Sunday (Father's Day - I get to force all four of my boys to do whatever I want).  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 09 Jun 2008 20:22:41 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 21:28:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Malarick
I think that if people actually got over their pre(mis)conception and took the time to read the books thoroughly, they would probably agree that it is going to be a MUCH better way of playing D&D!
I do like what I've seen of the rules. My preordered books have just shipped (will probably arrive Thursday). My dislike of the 4E Realms doesn't affect my optimism towards the rules.
Regarding sales of the 4E rulebooks: From what I've heard, the books are already onto their second printing to meet the demand. |
"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 - 09 Jun 2008 : 22:20:57
|
One thing I keep reading here is that 4e seems to somehow harken back to OD&D. It most decidedly does not. OD&D never had this many rules attached to it at all. In fact, all it was, was going around in a "dungeon" and killing stuff and looting! No offense intended towards it of course. But that really was it, since it stemmed out of wargaming.
4e seems to be more close in tone imho with a board game or something (kind of like the WoW one). Lots of movement on the battlegrid and powers that go off when certain things get triggered( which also brings Magic: The Gathering in some ways too). Battlegrids and what not were never integral to D&D, at least in regards to rulesets, particularly OD&D.
Heavy focus on storytelling aspects were not super, super important (as far as I can remember) really until Vampire had come out. Then the shift occurred. I could be wrong of course, but it seems that way to me.
|
" 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 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 22:26:24
|
I posted this over at Paizo's site, but rather than try to say it again, here goes:
From what I've seen, it may be (and I don't want to speak for anyone here) that its not that 4th limits or discourages role playing, but for what 4e puts the emphasis on, and what it reinforces, it may not promote roleplaying the same things that 3.5 does.
4th edition does indeed encourage players and DMs to skip to the most dramatic parts of a story. That doesn't mean that it doesn't encourage them to tell a story, but that the story should be told in a few large dramatic scenes, instead of building it with a lot of less dramatic scenes that eventually lead to larger scenes that may eventually build to the large dramatic scene.
It may or may not be the case, but the former may create bolder, more dramatic specific memories, while the latter may create fewer dramatic exploits but cause the players and DMs to be more emotionally attached to a given campaign and group of characters. Neither one is particularly right or wrong, but they lean toward different campaign styles.
Using the Lord of the Rings as an example, 3.5 is more like the novels. The PCs do a lot of things that aren't directly important to the plot, or at least they may not seemed to be so, but it establishes the world and the characters and implies a certain history. It builds slowly in spots, but to those that love the books, the details are what makes the special.
Now, the movies cut out scenes like Tom Bombadil from the narrative, and even though they tell a good story, and a story that is recognizable as being very similar to the novels, a lot of the details don't go into the movies. Despite this, there are still dramatic, non combat scenes in the movies, but they tend to be plot critical moments, like the Council of Rivendell and Aragorn's calling upon the cursed spirits.
4th edition has much more of an action movie pacing to it, and the rules speak to that and reinforce that, while 3.5 is based a bit more in the fantasy novel kind of pacing that has shaped D&D for a long time. Its a departure, and its a change in what needs to be roleplayed, but it isn't eliminating roleplay, so much as jumping to the most dramatic parts.
So 4th Edition D&D is D&D without Tom Bombadil, if that makes any sense. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 22:30:26
|
Now, to clarify the above, this was in response to whether 4e discourages role playing specifically. There are a ton of points that go into any discussion of this topic, but I think Mace makes a really, really good point. The biggest issue is perhaps not, "is this edition good," but rather, "is this edition good enough for you to change what you are doing now."
|
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 22:55:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I've never chosen an alignment based on whether the alignment I chose would make me vulnerable to certain types of attacks. That rather defeats the whole purpose.
Alignment is only a straight-jacket if one makes it that way.
My thoughts exactly! My latest character? LG Aasimar Paladin/Cleric of Helm, who probably will be more "vulnerable" than True Neutral PCs against the spells of the BBEGs. Yet that doesn't make him any "weaker" or "less fun to play" in my eyes.
And like you noted, alignment is not a straight-jacket -- one of the most memorable PCs in my group (in our Watherdeep campaign -- still alive after, what, 15 years or so) is a Waterdhavian fisherman's son who grew up to become a High Watcher of Helm (also a Paladin/Cleric). Anyway, his "nickname" is "The Fists" (knocked out the High Priest of Tempus in a duel years ago) and he occasionally uses rather, ahem, crude and aggressive methods, which he claims are part of Helm's "Proactive Dogma". I remember one time he had a disagreement with Lady Maliantor of Force Grey, and when she refused to believe him (for purely political reasons) about some matter, our LG Paladin tried to assault her with his fists (note: she only provoked him verbally). Having said that, I think the player's interpretation of LG is "dead on" with the dogma of Helm and the character's background -- he *is* a fisherman's son from the Dock Ward, where active offense is often the best (and only!) defense. In another group he might have lost his paladin's status many times over, but I like that the DM (and the rest of the players) approve of his more "grey-shaded" implementation of how LG beings might *also* think and act. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 23:33:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
All dragons are evil. No more good and neutral dragons.
With all due respect, that's not quite true. Only the chromatic dragons are in the MM, and while they are generally evil, it is mentioned at the front of the book that in this edition the stated alignment is a guideline only. |
"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 09 Jun 2008 23:33:49 |
|
|
|
Odysseus
Seeker
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 23:34:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
4th edition has much more of an action movie pacing to it, and the rules speak to that and reinforce that, while 3.5 is based a bit more in the fantasy novel kind of pacing that has shaped D&D for a long time. Its a departure, and its a change in what needs to be roleplayed, but it isn't eliminating roleplay, so much as jumping to the most dramatic parts.
So 4th Edition D&D is D&D without Tom Bombadil, if that makes any sense.
I've read the rules and Dm'd a session of 4E. I'd describe 4E as more cartoon than action movie. I like it, its just not pitched at someone my age. |
“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 |
Edited by - Odysseus on 09 Jun 2008 23:35:15 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 23:34:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
So the metallic dragons will likely be in MM II, and from what was said in the preview material, they will be unaligned rather than good. And there will be no more copper, brass, and bronze dragons, because according to the designers no one could tell them apart and remember which one was which. So they are replaced by three other metals, which escape me right now.
I would not be surprised if the dragons that didn't make the cut show up in a later MM. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 23:37:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I must say, as a PLANESCAPE fan, I'm disappointed to hear this. Granted, we may learn a little more about the various exemplar races of the outer planes later. But with some of the planar alterations I've seen already, I'm beginning to doubt just what, of the older planar material, will be useful in terms of the 4e cosmology.
Probably not much! A lot of what made the Planescape setting "tick" (such as the symmetry of the alignments, many different races representing the alignments) is seen as a liability in 4E. The preview material mentioned cutting down on what was seen as repetitive monsters and needless symmetry. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 23:54:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
As I have noted before, Draconomicon I will deal with chromatic dragons exclusively (dealing with other dragons in later installments), so I am not surprised that metallic dragons are not present in 4th ed yet (MM etc.). There is a sort of logic behind that. Even if metallic dragons will not be good but unaligned, it is much more difficult to explain why a player or group should kill an unaligend (or good) dragon, so the designers now focus on all these dragons which you could smash easily (and without worring about moral consequences or consequences for your alignment).
To be fair though, many creatures in the MM are unaligned.
I think the metallics should have been in there, but oh well. |
"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 09 Jun 2008 23:54:52 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 00:01:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
My thoughts exactly! My latest character? LG Aasimar Paladin/Cleric of Helm, who probably will be more "vulnerable" than True Neutral PCs against the spells of the BBEGs. Yet that doesn't make him any "weaker" or "less fun to play" in my eyes.
I like your character. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Eol
Acolyte
South Africa
7 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 07:25:32
|
I have gone threw the 4 edition players handbook. The artwork is much better, fighters are not as boring and maneuverability greatly improved (no more static fighters with full attack actions) and level adjustment is removed. The rest sucks.
All of the classes come out of the same cookie cutter and the powers are boring. Every one has the same base saves, attack bonus and the same progression. Everything is positive, no more sacrifice to gain power (No more -2 to con for elves). These positives on the other hands are not that great. No more specializing. The wizards is just an area of effect evocation guy (loved the school of magic, made a wizard very unique).
In 4th edition I would have liked that:
1.Wizard spells get a little weaker (still nine spell levels with the Vecian spell slot system and spell schools), but they get a spells they can spam that are useful. Wizards must still have the feeling that they have spells that no other character class abilities can compare to in power, but they can only do it once or twice.
2.Fighters should not have full attack options, made the game to static, and they should be like the fighters in the book a Nine Swords. This book is awesome, really made fighters fun to play.
3.Class individuality should be preserved at all costs.
4.Item creation should be easier.
5.Convoluted rules like turning should be streamlined.
|
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 15:25:49
|
| I have come across several complaints on the WotC site about the print in the books being very easy to smudge. What is the experience of those on Candlekeep? |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 16:11:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by arry
I have come across several complaints on the WotC site about the print in the books being very easy to smudge. What is the experience of those on Candlekeep?
Haven't gotten my books yet. If I have a problem with them when I get them, I will mostly likely let you all know. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 16:24:16
|
| No smudging yet from my book...a few bent pages at the bottom in the first chapter but otherwise so far so good. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 21:04:27
|
Well... as a Planescape fan myself, and a fan of rules that are inclusive of True Neutral characters (i.e. 3.5 Holy Smite and Unholy Blight are targeted vs. a specific alignment, but STILL damage a True Neutral character to a lesser degree...), I am glad I did not buy into the 4E stuff. I was planning to playtest it at my FLGS, just out of curiosity... I've made other plans for that day...
edit: oh, and Lawful Good and Good alignment / Chaotic Evil and Evil alignment, but no LE and CG? WTF? was the concept too *hard* to grasp they had to kill it? was the slight brain and imagination effort required to put yourself in someone's shoes (i.e. role-playing) too much that they had to overtly strike the classic alignments down? crap. This edition is absolute crap. You could not pay me enough to give me these books for free. |
Edited by - Purple Dragon Knight on 10 Jun 2008 21:08:07 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 22:06:27
|
5 alignments, or did I get that wrong?
How many colors are their in Magic The Gathering? White, black, green blue and red, IIRC.
Sounds familiar? |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36906 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 22:28:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
5 alignments, or did I get that wrong?
How many colors are their in Magic The Gathering? White, black, green blue and red, IIRC.
Sounds familiar?
As much as the cynic in me wants to believe that there is a connection there, I'm more inclined to believe it's a coincidence. |
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! |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 22:38:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
5 alignments, or did I get that wrong?
How many colors are their in Magic The Gathering? White, black, green blue and red, IIRC.
Sounds familiar?
As much as the cynic in me wants to believe that there is a connection there, I'm more inclined to believe it's a coincidence.
You told me lots of times to be patient and that everything isn't as bleak as it looks... I'm way more cynical than you... by now I'm ready to suspect WotC/Hasbro will do anything to rake in more $$$ |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Ghost_dk
Acolyte
Denmark
13 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2008 : 22:53:46
|
| yes it will be fun to see if they take another step in that direction and if they split up their new minis into alignment groups and UHHHH, brainstorm, maybe asign them a color, hehe |
Sure you can see through a Ghost. Guess I'm the exeption to that rule. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36906 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2008 : 00:22:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
You told me lots of times to be patient and that everything isn't as bleak as it looks... I'm way more cynical than you... by now I'm ready to suspect WotC/Hasbro will do anything to rake in more $$$
I know. I kept hoping against hope that it wouldn't be all that bad, and then the FR preview articles came out... You'll note that while I've not exactly been vocal about some of the things I dislike, I've given up on trying to convince people to give it a shot. I feel almost like I was personally hung out to dry by Wizards, since I kept maintaining that it couldn't be as bad as people were expecting, and then they made it worse...
I won't descend into total cynicism, 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! |
|
|
|
King Mak of Augh
Acolyte
Canada
1 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2008 : 02:58:39
|
| Mine smudges. That's ok because I don't see myself using it much. I do like the DMG though. I wish the 3.5e DMG could have been this good. |
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2008 : 04:15:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
5 alignments, or did I get that wrong?
How many colors are their in Magic The Gathering? White, black, green blue and red, IIRC.
Sounds familiar?
As much as the cynic in me wants to believe that there is a connection there, I'm more inclined to believe it's a coincidence.
You told me lots of times to be patient and that everything isn't as bleak as it looks... I'm way more cynical than you... by now I'm ready to suspect WotC/Hasbro will do anything to rake in more $$$
Mace, I have read the books (no, I didn't buy them ;) and although I've been a very vocal in my opinions against 4E, I must say that it's not as bad as I thought it would be. The art is, in my opinion, great and very evocative throughout the books, although it's mostly about combat in the truest sense of "group dynamics" (probably to underline the new design goal of balance and teamwork). Some of the powers were just... odd, at least from a simulationist POV -- frankly, I couldn't come up with plausible or logical way how you could describe them in the story without relying on the "well, it's magic" explanation (even for "martial exploits", which should be explicitly non-magical).
Rituals were great, although I wouldn't let everyone use them. Traps, skill challenges and "improvised" actions in combat were actually very explicitly outlined and worked really well, although *designing* them seemed quite complex. The biggest disappoints for me, personally, were the much-acclaimed DMG and the heavy focus on combat -- IIRC there was *very* little info on non-combat stuff, and the skill chapter was, what, ten pages or so? Feats and Racial Feats were actually quite disappointing, too, and you could only "qualify" for a handful of them on each "Tier". Even the 3.0 PHB offers you more available Feats than 4E.
Also, I just can't grasp the "exception-based" monster design, and I didn't see very good rules for it (or maybe I just skipped them while I was skimming the pages?). There should have been clear examples of starting from "scratch" for some thematically appropriate "unique" monsters and NPCs -- the "quick" templates may help, but not much in the long run.
The five alignments were apparently a sort of comprimise, as so many fans protested against the intended three alignments and yet they didn't want to "spare" the Sacred Cow. Hence they added the two "extremes" (i.e. LG and CE) back into the rules.
From my own perspective, I don't think 4E is better than 3E. It may be a "cool" game for kids and people who like cinematic, fast-moving action over details and "realism". However, there *are* some subsystems and mechanics that actually work better and more "consistently" than in 3E. I might try 4E as a player, but reading the books did not leave me excited or wanting to run the game. So, I think I'll stick with DMing and playing PF. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2008 : 18:36:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Rituals were great, although I wouldn't let everyone use them.
Just out of curiosity, why? Aren't they supposed to be utility spells? |
"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) |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2008 : 19:37:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I posted this over at Paizo's site, but rather than try to say it again, here goes:<snip>
I think you REALLY hit the nail on the head with this analogy - I've been trying to put the difference between the two into the right words but just couldn't without making one or the other sound bad - EXCELLENT observations. It really is just like the difference between a novel and it's movie adaption.
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
5 alignments, or did I get that wrong?
How many colors are their in Magic The Gathering? White, black, green blue and red, IIRC.
Sounds familiar?
As Wooly has said, I think that was just a coincidence.
However, I draw a lot of parrallels between the need for 'Power Sources' now and the system in MtG. Each character draws power from his source, and if you multiclass, its just like when you have a two-color deck in MtG.
Sad to say, but I think I'm leaning heavily toward PRPG for most of my gaming goodness. If I run a campaign, I want both a ruleset and setting that is deep enough to support the kind of long-term game I want.
I'm not saying the 4e rules aren't good - they're excellent - but I only see them being useful for running quick dungeon-romps between 'serious' games. Nothing wrong with that either - most of my early sessions took place in 'limbo' (not the plane, the figure of speach) - they were just quick, one-shot romps.
So, I can see using both, but for different styles of play. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 12 Jun 2008 04:06:23 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
