[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[rounser]

The problem with the pre-4e wizard is this:

You sure 1d4 hit points per level is enough to be Poseidon? If you actually run a character generator, you really get to see how glass jawed uncheaty wizards are if not stoneskinned to the gills. Oh and with a fighter to protect them. And a cleric to heal them. Wait...your argument for completely gutting D&D was what, again?

 

[BryonD]

And yet I, who started in 2e, enjoy 4e.

I gurantee I'm not alone in this.

You are very far from alone.

But you being very far from alone and "the current edition of D&D could have a much bigger fan base" are not remotely incompatible.

 

[rounser]

As an aside, playing WOW taught me the same thing (I should say it showed me the answer). I mostly GMed 3.x and I hated rogues, especially against a single powerful monster. A well built rogue does big damage in melee but has subpar AC and crappy hit points. If I played it true, the rogue gets one good round of damage in before the Dragon/Giant/Demon turns away from the fighter and shreds the rogue. Or I had to "look the other way" for a couple of rounds and let the rogue have his fun.

Yes. I've sort of come to the conclusion that the only good PC thief or assassin is a multiclass thief or assassin. The theme of sneaking, stealing and surreptitiously stabbing isn't really strong enough to stand on it's own (unless the thief is picking on weaklings). But thinking back, the thief is usually played multiclass anyway, be it a gnomish illusionist/thief or a half-orc fighter/assassin or a half-elf fighter/magic-user/thief. In this capacity it is flavor, differentiating this PC from his fellows and sneaking into play at the odd opportune moment when the shadows are thick enough. The BECMI thief is a non-starter for me, whereas the flavor of the class as a multiclass for AD&D, Hackmaster 4E or WOTCD&D 3E is excellent.

I know this inequity is unthinkable to some, but it kind of works regardless in terms of a "flavor class", and makes arguably broken multiclassing a plus in this instance.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It was a refutation of your new "I'll let you in on a little secret" schtick. Maybe you should change that to "I'll let you in on a completely subjective and possibly entirely fallacious opinion of mine" unless you really want to come across like that.

And IMO it refuted your "secret" about "they're doing all that can possibly be done and they're passionate about it so what do you lot know" rather neatly, thank you very much.

"WotC developers care and put passion into what they do."
"OK BUT SOME PEOPLE HATE IT!"

Utterly irrelevant.

Not refuted at all. The results speak for themselves. I could detect metagame thinking in the monster selection of 3e and the no-archetype prestige classes that became common, and as of 4E it's gone berserk and infected not only the core implied setting but, as Celtavian points out, the scope of creativity possible in the rules straitjacket that they've tailored for themselves.

Prove it. Go on, show me a situation or a class in 4e where the mechanics run against the class. Tell me which 4e class is so awful in mechanics that the fluff just doesn't work.

Because that sounds far more like 3e then anything else. Ahhh, 3e. Where fighters are some of the worst at fighting, where paladins are utterly inept at smiting evil, and where druids and clerics make the best front liners.

And stop playing the man and not the ball with your helpful little suggestions on post length please. I think maybe you're being so dismissive because your argument is very much on the ropes, maybe?

Or maybe I can make a concise argument without writing a thesis.

You sure 1d4 hit points per level is enough to be Poseidon? If you actually run a character generator, you really get to see how glass jawed uncheaty wizards are if not stoneskinned to the gills. Oh and with a fighter to protect them. And a cleric to heal them. Wait...your argument for completely gutting D&D was what, again?

Oh certainly at levels 1-3 the wizard actually is (relatively) frail. But here's a few catches you missed.

1) Summon Monster. Who needs a fighter when I can literally create several meat shields?

2) Mirror image. Actually protects you better then AC does!

3) Blur. Again, better then AC at protecting you!

4) Invisibility. Can't kill what you can't see

These are level two spells. Well, Summon Monster is actually a level one spell. Then you hit level three spells and you are now flying and the concerns of being attacked all but vaporizes.

If there's anything you've taught me, it's that, indeed, people who don't understand the incredible potential of the wizard don't break the universe with it. In the same way that someone who plays as Poseidon then spends all their time swimming with dolphins isn't exactly utilizing their powers as a god.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You are very far from alone.

But you being very far from alone and "the current edition of D&D could have a much bigger fan base" are not remotely incompatible.

And yet this entire thread is founded on the idea that I don't exist, that "old gamers" and "new gamers" cannot like the same things, and that WotC can only ever appease one of them.

Absolute, utter hogwash.

 

[rounser]

If there's anything you've taught me, it's that, indeed, people who don't understand the incredible potential of the wizard don't break the universe with it. In the same way that someone who plays as Poseidon then spends all their time swimming with dolphins isn't exactly utilizing their powers as a god.

I'm sorry, but your argument strikes me as one of these theoretical ones without basis in gameplay, in that summoned monsters are weak, don't expect to do anything offensive if you're invisible, and blur and mirror image are no plate mail. I take it you've never had a high level wizard whose spells bounce off of everything in sight, much to your frustration. I think you've shown without a doubt that you're an armchair general here, as those defensive spells take up slots, are of limited duration, and summoned monsters get summarily belted. In short, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about, although certain combos like scry/prep/teleport or find the path/windwalk can be "gawdlike" in their effect on the campaign if used unsportingly.

Are you thinking of some artificial scenario whereby, say, the campaign is using all 2E spell compendiums and the magic-user gains access to "all known spells" such as in the FR adventure with the insane teacher lich? Because there's a large gap between that and, say, BECMI, where the spell options are severely limited, and your argument completely falls apart unless you're creative in your use of clothform and woodform...

Of course, if we're talking artificial situations where you just "unload" for a single encounter, a fully buffed and outfitted 3E CoDzilla is probably going to do a better gawd impression, but that doesn't suit your argument at all. Or if there was no time to prepare and no bodyguards, a fighter would be the choice (and would do the best Achilles impression of course). Think you might have to go back to the drawing board....

 

[innerdude]

And yet this entire thread is founded on the idea that I don't exist, that "old gamers" and "new gamers" cannot like the same things, and that WotC can only ever appease one of them.

Absolute, utter hogwash.

Well it's not that WotC CAN'T appease both of them. It's just that by all appearances, they've made a strategic choice that they recognized would likely not appeal to a fairly broad swath of the older gaming demographic.

I'm not saying that there aren't some "grognards" who don't think 4e is a great system, but 4e makes some very specific, calculated changes to the rules from previous products that by and large appear to be an attempt to appeal to a younger demographic.

Terminologies: Recharge, "powers," "exploits," "healing surge."
Races: Dragonborn and Tiefling
Monster Descriptions: Brute, Skirmisher, Solo, Elite

Even a shallow, surface-level skimming of the 4e core rulebooks reveals this basic bias towards more "modern" MMO sensibilities. This doesn't mean these sensibilities invalidate or inherently ruin the core of the system, I'm just saying that on an observational level, it's not hard to see WotC's tactical approach.

 

[rounser]

"WotC developers care and put passion into what they do."
"OK BUT SOME PEOPLE HATE IT!"

Utterly irrelevant.

Except to former fans of in-print FR, who map to former fans of in-print D&D quite nicely, given that the same people are behind both projects. And mostly negative Amazon reviews suggest that most people don't like it, just like Pathfinder seems to be eating D&D's cake at the moment, maybe.

But you go back to that head-in-the-sand thing you've got going on...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Except to former fans of in-print FR, who map to former fans of in-print D&D quite nicely, given that the same people are behind both projects. And mostly negative Amazon reviews suggest that most people don't like it, just like Pathfinder seems to be eating D&D's cake at the moment, maybe.

But you go back to that head-in-the-sand thing you've got going on...

Your commentary continues to be irrelevant.

The statement was the claim that Paizo puts passion and care into their product with the undercurrent that WotC did not.

The rebuttal is that WotC - and in fact everyone who works in the industry - puts equal passion and care.

That some people dislike the product is utterly irrelevant to that point.

I'm sorry, but your argument strikes me as one of these theoretical ones without basis in gameplay, in that summoned monsters are weak, don't expect to do anything offensive if you're invisible, and blur and mirror image are no plate mail. I take it you've never had a high level wizard whose spells bounce off of everything in sight, much to your frustration. I think you've shown without a doubt that you're an armchair general here, as those defensive spells take up slots, are of limited duration, and summoned monsters get summarily belted. In short, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about, although certain combos like scry/prep/teleport or find the path/windwalk can be "gawdlike" in their effect on the campaign if used unsportingly.

Theoretical nothing.

Summoned monsters are plenty powerful, you don't need to do anything offensive if you're invisible, and blur and mirror image are better then plate mail. Plate mail doesn't get better as you level - if anything, AC scales horribly compared to attack bonuses. Mirror Image and Blur are static chances to miss - they're insanely better.

I've never had a high level wizard watch spells bounce off, no. Why would I? Spell Resistance? That's hilariously easy to bypass, with many of the best spells simply not being resistible in the first place. The only one armcharing how another person plays is you with your mountain of assumptions.

Are you thinking of some artificial scenario whereby, say, the campaign is using all 2E spell compendiums and the magic-user gains access to "all known spells" such as in the FR adventure with the insane teacher lich? Because there's a large gap between that and, say, BECMI, where the spell options are severely limited, and your argument completely falls apart unless you're creative in your use of clothform and woodform.

I literally have no idea what you're referring to here.

Of course, if we're talking artificial situations where you just "unload" for a single encounter, a fully buffed and outfitted 3E CoDzilla is probably going to do a better gawd impression, but that doesn't suit your argument at all. Or if there was no time to prepare and no bodyguards, a fighter would be the choice (and would do the best Achilles impression of course). Think you might have to go back to the drawing board....

Here's the catch so many people miss:

Wizards do not need to hope for the "best conditions." They make the best conditions.

Need to rest in the wilderness? There's a dozen or so spells that let you do so, no worry. Need a bodyguard? Summon one up! Summon monster starts only slightly weaker then a fighter, and as the levels go on get undeniably better.

The 15 minute work day is one I've never seen but, and it's a big "but," it's because nobody wanted to do it. If they wanted to they could, easily. Again, there's a good dozen spells that let you sleep without worry anywhere you so desire.

Oh, and lastly, lose the attitude. I'm not insulting you, I expect the same in return.

Even a shallow, surface-level skimming of the 4e core rulebooks reveals this basic bias towards more "modern" MMO sensibilities. This doesn't mean these sensibilities invalidate or inherently ruin the core of the system, I'm just saying that on an observational level, it's not hard to see WotC's tactical approach.

What on earth are "Modern MMO sensibilities?"

 

[TarionzCousin]

And yet this entire thread is founded on the idea that I don't exist,

Maybe you don't.