Search results

I don't see how this follows at all. Everyone has a different play style. Whether or not someone generally likes what they've heard about 4E so far doesn't change that. As has been pointed out, the playtest reports have a completely different purpose than the actual playtesting.

Why can't you accept that - in their opinion - the 4E designers are improving the game? Why do you have to go around making snide little comments about them and the people who like the direction they're going in, like you did in your "The WotC designers will be bashing 4e once 5e is announced"...

WoW costs $15/month as opposed to $10/month for D&DI. That's not a much larger fee. And I would bet that WoW has several hundred enemy models, at least.

I know people have busted the designers for not saying much in the past, but this post really takes the cake. Three paragraphs of nothing.

Why? Why would their playtest experiences be any less valid than anyone else's? The purpose of playtesting is not to convince people to buy the product.

My take is this - if they're using the virtual tabletop as a selling point for D&DI, they should include all the tools needed to play on it. This includes the digital miniatures. I could maybe understand them charging a fee for digital minis of monsters from the MM2, MM3, etc., but the minis of...

Well, if all you're saying is that 4E won't stop metagamers from doing their thing, all I can say in response to that is "Well, duh!" No rules change can stop metagaming - only the DM and the players can do that. I would have thought that was obvious.

Do you want a recap of the whole conversation thus far? You said "Per-encounter balancing will not change anything from 3E (unless 4E parties cannot run out of useful resources)." I said "Yes it will, because parties will still be able to push on when most or all of their per-day resources are...

In your response to me, you talked about metagaming parties resting after every encounter. That pretty clearly deals with how often parties are allowed to rest. You even went so far as to mention wandering monsters as a way to reduce the frequency with which the party can rest.

No, you're the one who's not listening to me. I'm not talking about how often the party is allowed to rest. That will obviously be the same in 4E as it is in 3E. I'm talking about how often the party is required to rest. There's a difference.

Let me stop you right there. There will be a big net change, because the definition of what "less than optimal resources" means will change. If a wizard in 4E who uses all his per-day spells is at 80% power (a figure that's been mentioned before) thanks to the per-encounter spells he has, that's...

Just because people buy the game does not necessarily mean that they like everything about the game. You can't draw any conclusions about specific game elements from sales, only about the game as a whole. It's entirely possible that a large percentage of the people who bought previous editions...

In your opinion. Personally, I've never found playing a first level wizard (or magic-user) to be much fun at all. For me, it was always just an exercise in marking time until I could get to higher levels and start having fun.

I'd call that a radical interpretation of the text.

My group used this exact same house rule back when we were playing 1E&2E. We probably would have kept using it in 3E if they hadn't made the sorceror.

Actually, that isn't the case at all. Say a fighter and a wizard are being threatened by an orc. In real life (assuming that wizards and orcs existed in real life, of course), the orc would advance on the wizard and the fighter would step in between them - simple enough. But in D&D, if the orc...

First, it's worth pointing out that the players and the DM don't always agree on what constitutes an encounter that the players can handle. Sometimes the players can handle more than the DM thinks they can - and sometimes, considerably less. But anyway, let's say that your players make what you...

This isn't a solution, because if the party can't escape or their trick fails, we're back to a TPK. If the party has no spells, no healing, and just a few hit points left, a TPK is guaranteed if they run into anything even close to a CR-appropriate enemy. No amount of luck is going to save...

When the party is out of resources (and 99% of the time, "resources" means hit points and healing magic), they have to stop and rest. There's nothing else they can do. If the DM doesn't let them, all he does is guarantee that they'll suffer a TPK in their next fight, unless he fudges rolls or...

Yes, exactly. The 3E game mechanics require the party to rest after every four (CR appropriate) encounters. This means that you can't do a time-sensitive adventure unless it has four encounters or less - in which case, it's not much different from the party's standard adventuring "day," is it...