A Thread For Those Somewhere In The Middle

[ruleslawyer]

On the other hand, I'd rather run GURPS or Vampire: The Requiem (or M&M or Scion or Exalted or BESM or ...) than D&D and 4e isn't likely to change that.

Does *that* attitude count as a maybe, for that matter? If I'm more interested in running something other than D&D, and 4e might not tempt me back into the fold, is that being on the fence about 4e, or simply not wanting to play D&D?

The entire "4e allegiance" issue is tricky IMHO.

 

[Ahglock]

Agree. I don't understand why folks get so violent over flavor items. If flavor items masquerade as key crunchy items that are required for game balance, then that becomes a problem. Or if there are so many flavor items that are just not to your taste and get time consuming and tedious to remove/rename, then that is an issue too.

I agree, but it snot that hard to fathom crunch getting worked over by fluff. Read the cleave feat, I've read lots of posts from people that think because of the fluff it shouldn't work on thrusting style weapons. What happens when an arbitrary(not balance oriented) restriction gets placed on a feat/spell/talent because of some fluff, what if cleave wouldn't work on thrusting weapons not because thrusting weapons needed a balancing factor but because when some designer wrote the flavor text his imagination was stunted and he could only think of one way cleave could work.

Fluff should not be a description of how things work but an example of how feats/talents/spells etc can work, and not an exclusive description. When fluff influences the mechanics it starts becoming an exclusive description of how something works and that is bad IMO.

 

[cougent]

I started out firmly in the "No way in hell will I buy it" camp, but have since packed up my tent and moved to "fence sitterville" instead.

The only thing I know right now is that I will be waiting until about this time next year to decide. I will be reading the new books at my LGS as much as I can starting in June, but I am not buying anything until I have read them and seen reviews from others, and play test reports from other than WotC employees... I mean really, are you going to tell the guy who signs your paycheck that this new [whatever] really sucks?

I am a serious doubter for the DI, or DnDI, or whatever acronym it is this week BUT I hope to be proven wrong. If it does all that it is billed to do and if it is $10 a month... then sign me up! My fear is that it will not do nearly what they claim it will do, or that it will be $20 a month or more either of which will be a deal breaker for me.

I like the idea of faster play and better rules, not just easier but truly better. I like the idea of no sweet spot and math that works all the way to level 30. I like many of the "ideas" of 4E, but I also want to see them in action and not just hear how great they are from [payrolled] testers.

Their are things that I just don't like also... PHB, MM, DMG every year "seems" like a money grab more than a real benefit to the game. Is there really going to be SO much new material they couldn't put it in 1 book? Even one over sized book at more than $40 but significantly less than $120? I like a world setting, and "points of light" just doesn't a world make for me, I am not stuck on Greyhawk, but I want a campaign world that is more mapped than unmapped. This may be easily solved by going the FR route, but I would prefer it in core as well. From what has been discussed thus far, the whole premise seems much darker than I like as well. I may be a stodgy old foagie but I like playing good heroes against an evil villain, not quasi-evil heroes against other even more evil villains, just not my idea of fun.
[Reminds me too much of a real life corporate job]

So here on the fence be I. I neither loathe nor love the game so far.

 

[Li Shenron]

Hmm. I'm not quite so sure about that assertion.

In AD&D, fireball and magic missile were not capped. A 20th level magic-user did 20d6 damage with his fireball.

In AD&D 2e, that same fireball did no more than 10d6 damage.

In D&D 3e, the fireball was dealing 10d6 damage... and monster hit points had dramatically increased.

My feeling is that the relative power of the Wizard has been going down through the editions, whilst the Fighter has been increasing.

Cheers!

Specific numbers are not the kind of power creep I had in mind. You pick a very narrow example, which anyway it could be argued by considering core options such as empower spell and maximise spell.

The power creep I have in mind has more to do with players' attitude, that at least in the past 8 year has set to a "my character needs more" constant whining. "My character is unplayable!" is almost always a false statement, but the publishers keep slowly inflating the characters to satisfy this rant. But ultimately it is a non-existant problem: if the game really feels too hard, the DM just needs to make adventure easier, and viceversa. Inflating everyone and then compensating by inflating monsters as well just serves marketing, because you can always sell more books that make you look stronger than not. But does it serve the game? The more stuff the characters have to deal with, the higher the chance of balance issues. If you really enjoy more stuff, you can always play the game at a higher level (and extend the game beyond the level limit), but if you inflate every level you also cut away the lowest end, and you won't have that option anymore.

 

[Cyronax]

Actually, quite likely from SAGA.

We do know that "Second Wind" mechanics will be in the game. (As a swift action, regain your CON in hp, usable once/day). I've been using them in my 3.5e Savage Tide campaign and they rock utterly. I expect that the Fighter will have expanded usage of Second Wind - more times per day, better recovery levels, etc.

Paladins, Clerics and Warlords will likely have Bo9S healing mechanics - hit something and heal someone else at the same time, as demonstrated in the Smiting article.

Cheers!

I haven't seen SAGA, but I am familiar with Second Wind thanks to an Eberron-themed 'second wind' campaign card that I picked up at last year's D&D Experience in DC.

I really like that mechanic and think it is about the limit I want that sort of effect to go for Fighters. Fighters are more about tactics IMO.


C.I.D.

 

[MerricB]

Specific numbers are not the kind of power creep I had in mind. You pick a very narrow example, which anyway it could be argued by considering core options such as empower spell and maximise spell.

Which turn the spell into a 5th and 6th level spell respectively. No, the point still stands.

The power creep I have in mind has more to do with players' attitude, that at least in the past 8 year has set to a "my character needs more" constant whining.

Yeah, I don't see that very much. At least not more than in AD&D with people running around with 18/00 Strengths or their fighters were unplayable...

If 3e made certain numbers bigger, 4e will make those numbers smaller - at least, that is the impression I've been getting from the designers. 3e suffered HP inflation for monsters purely because they made ability scores relevant for monsters. It wasn't "Hey, let's make all the numbers bigger because people will like it more"... no, it was "let's make a universal bonus system... hey, look how the numbers went up!"

3e suffered from an incomplete understanding of how multiple bonus types would really interact. I've seen it most of all in AC inflation - with five or more sources of bonuses, all readily achievable... eek! (armour, shield, Dex , deflection, natural armour enhancement... not counting dodge, insight, etc...)

Cheers!

 

[TerraDave]

Power Inflation?: Pretty much, why: It is Easier to Given then to Takeaway.

This has been a very long running trend (just ask Diaglo). It goes back to the first OD&D supplements. If some class, race, or monster is lagging, it is easier to give it something, then take something from another. With mid-high level wizards/magic users as your bar, everything else has tended to get more, then more again. And honestly, some, like the theif-rogue, or 1st edition dragons, or (ironically?) low level wizards, really needed it. Sure, there has also been a little nerfing and downgrading here and there, but it has been more about giving then recieving.

4th edition may be the one where they really hit the reset button and level things out.

 

[TerraDave]

3e suffered from an incomplete understanding of how multiple bonus types would really interact. I've seen it most of all in AC inflation - with five or more sources of bonuses, all readily achievable... eek! (armour, shield, Dex , deflection, natural armour enhancement... not counting dodge, insight, etc...)

Cheers!

They really blew this opportunity. They put in stacking rules, then put so many bonus types as to make somewhere between irelevant and annoying.

 

[Fathead]

I'm a 4E neutral as well.

I'm not fond of the Dragonborn and Tieflings being core races. For me, the idea of a core set of rules allows for different settings to build off of (Eberron, Etherscope, Forgotten Realms, Planscape). Dragonborn have an Eberron feel to me, and I associate Tieflings with Planescape. That being said, I can always exclude them, if I wish.

There are other items that I have disliked, but also quite a bit that I have agreed with.

When 4E is released, I'll take a look and decide if I'm a convert.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I'm basically neutral. I don't play a whole lot of D&D (I mostly play another system) but in the Fantasy Hero game I GM, I have adapted many bits from D&D 3.x. I see 4th as another source of really cool bits I can add to my game.