Clark Peterson on 4E

[The Little Raven]

It seems to me more that 4e doesn't hit him personally as "real D&D," but that he doesn't begrudge any of the design decisions made. It's not that 4e was done wrong, it just wasn't done to his personal tastes, which he makes pretty clear are his personal tastes. WotC has different criteria for what makes a good game, so they didn't do something wrong, it just passes him by.

Are you actually trying to argue that he claims to be able to do it right (which implies it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? That it doesn't have the "soul of D&D" (which is an explicit claim that it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? When he talks about getting rid of 4e stuff (like it's "anime crap"), that isn't a criticism?

Because if you are, that's just ridiculous.

Telling people to "image it done right" or claiming that he can "do it right" or that he can restore it's "soul" is definitely criticizing the current product, and all of the semantic song and dance doesn't change that.

It is possible to say "I don't like 4e that much, I would've done something different" without then implying that 4e should be doing something different.

Indeed. However, the problem is that he didn't say that. He said "I can make a 4e done right." By saying "done right," he is saying that it should have been done differently, because if it's not done right, the only other option is that it was done wrong.

 

[Sunderstone]

Less the warrior and more the rogue. A wizard (or sorcerer) with decent levels makes every catburglar worthless. Knock, invisibility, teleport ... yeesh.

I agree with you to a point. Of a Wizard devotes spell slots to sneaky rogue stuff, thats less damage/utility spells later for his main function (more vancian balance). The rogue still has unlimited Trapfinding, stealth, etc. Vancian wizards will reach a limit.
Kind of stupid to devote all that into a wizard if a rogue is in the group. The spells you mentioned do have some other creative uses though.

Again theres the survivability factor of the Wizard vs. Rogue argument. Rogues still have evasion and dodge and can take a little more punishment than the Wizard. Then theres Sneak Attack etc.

 

[xechnao]

I agree with you there. It would be nice if the subtleties of the powers were a little less subtle.

But there's also the case to be made that tactical combat is a lot like chess. At low levels of mastery, anyone can beat on an orc. At high levels of mastery (here, meaning, high degree of skill in team tactics) you can pull off some serious whooping. I like this aspect.

Sorry. Off Topic. Just wanted to agree with the Xec.

Actually I am not sure we are on the same boat. My problem with powers is that I feel they are silly -either on an individual level for each power (regarding martial ones especially) and/or on their implementation as a system. Of course the biggest problem for me here is the individual level. The other -used as a system- I could possibly cope with.

 

[The Little Raven]

Kind of stupid to devote all that into a wizard if a rogue is in the group. The spells you mentioned do have some other creative uses though.

This ignores itemization completely. Rogues will often be picking up magic weapons and magic armor, things that a wizard's itemization does not require at all. That means the wizard can load up with scrolls and wands which allow him to easily replicate the rogue's schtick without having to spend a single spell slot on it.

Then theres Sneak Attack etc.

Which a good chunk of monsters are completely immune to.

 

[AllisterH]

I think spells like Knock and Invisibilty WERE balanced in pre 3E due to the fact that

a)there wasn't an automatic assumption that the wizard would have the spell (remember pre 3E, the only non-jump the hoops method of spell acquisition was DM-leniency)

b) no itemization. Anyone remember what it took to create a Wand of fire (the 3E version became the Staff of Fire) as outlined in the DMG? Hell, you had to be 9th level IIRC to even brew potins/scribe scrolls.

Once those two core assumptions were lifted, invisibility and knock became way stronger.

There's a big difference between a 10th level wizard with a 16 INT in 1e/2E coming across a knock spell in a spellbook versus the same 10th level wizard with 16 INT in 3E.

Not only does the 1e/2e wizard have to decide it is even worth it to scribe the spell into his book (wizards were limited to a total # of spells per level related to their int) but a 10th level wizard only had 4 2nd level slots (couldn't use higher level slots to bypass this) and thus, on an actual adventure, there was a VERY high opportunity cost in memorizing it.

 

[JVisgaitis]

This is so bizarre. People are entitled to their own opinions and to change their minds, but I never expected this. Clark has changed his stance to many times that at this point I wouldn't be surprised to see Clark say that he loves 4e and he thinks its the best edition ever. It sucks that Necromancer won't be doing core 4e stuff, but I pretty much got over that after the last announcement. Best of luck Clark. I hope you produce stuff that I like and I want to buy.

 

[Filcher]

Actually I am not sure we are on the same boat. My problem with powers is that I feel they are silly -either on an individual level for each power (regarding martial ones especially) and/or on their implementation as a system. Of course the biggest problem for me here is the individual level. The other -used as a system- I could possibly cope with.

Ah...I see. Let me also add, that despite my enjoyment of 4E, the powers fluff stinks.

Anyhow, for Necro's 3.9 edition, I'd buy it, just to steal ideas for variants. Maybe there's room for both vancian and non-vancian casters in the world.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Are you actually trying to argue that he claims to be able to do it right (which implies it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? That it doesn't have the "soul of D&D" (which is an explicit claim that it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? When he talks about getting rid of 4e stuff (like it's "anime crap"), that isn't a criticism?

I'm saying that him saying "this isn't a criticism of 4e" probably means that he wouldn't change 4e if he had the chance, that 4e is fine as it is, and that just because he has personal feelings about what he would see doesn't mean that 4e is wrong or bad or negative in any way.

He's not saying 4e is horrible because it has too much anime crap and is thus unworthy of any love.

I think he's more saying that 4e has too much "anime crap" for his personal tastes, perhaps. Not that he wouldn't support it given half a chance.

It sounded like he was spitballing, talking amongst friends, not making an argument so much as expressing a feeling, and very much qualifying that feeling by saying that it's not a real criticism. Personal feelings, after all, usually aren't criticism. 4e doesn't need to be defended against his personal views any more than Fruit Loops needs to be defended against someone's personal fear of cartoon parrots.

It certainly doesn't seem that he's somehow two-faced about it, to me. It's not very hypocritical to say "I think there are some problems with how 4e feels to me personally, not that those feelings are universal or should be assumed to be directly caused by 4e alone." This is my understanding of his post.

It's the internet, mang. If you're arguing about "what criticism is," you've probably taken the comment too seriously all ready.

 

[Filcher]

Sure would have been a different world if the GSL has come out on time for the 3PPs.

 

[Sunderstone]

This ignores itemization completely. Rogues will often be picking up magic weapons and magic armor, things that a wizard's itemization does not require at all. That means the wizard can load up with scrolls and wands which allow him to easily replicate the rogue's schtick without having to spend a single spell slot on it.

It was a class comparison.

Aside from that, why roll a Wizard if you want to play the Rogue type to begin with?
My players wouldnt do this, and are not big on creating/buying items to duplicate this either. They would rather have another player or henchman npc to roleplay with/against.