4E value < 3E value

[DaveMage]

What a happy thread!

 

[Mercule]

Firearm rules. Various iconic monsters. Familiars, illusions, summoning. Artifacts.

Lack of:

Firearms = feature, not bug. Based on the number of people who feel that firearms are explicitly inappropriate to D&D/fantasy, I think moving them to a supplement is fair. I wouldn't be opposed to some stats in the DMG, but I think having the arquebus in the 2e PHB is one of those first impression things that helped sour me on that edition.

Iconics = 4e designed to be easy to reskinned, so no need for duplication. I was definitely in agreement with you, though, before I started really thinking about DMing 4e and designing adventures.

Familiars = It's never been implemented functionally in any edition, so the loss is probably a feature.

Illusion = Granted, it's a bug. IMO, it wouldn't be a big deal if the Shadow source was included in the PHB2. Really, I don't think the system will be "complete" until I see Psionics and Shadow sources. I couldn't give a rat's hindquarters about Primal.

Summoning = Another bug, and even the patch looks unsatisfying. To me, this is a huge argument for pushing the Primal source (and whatever is filling the druid's summoner role) back to PHB3. From what I've seen of the Adventure's Vault previews, I'd say they botched -- not just included some issues, but full on botched -- the summoning mechanics.

Artifacts = the basics and a half-dozen examples are there. I'll grant that it's less than previous editions, but I'm still hoping for a really good treatment that makes a supplement worth while. Something like Weapons of Legacy, but useful.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really don't see how that post can be interpreted as hostile. It expressed an opinion strongly, but did nothing to suggest hostility towards the opposite opinion.

Of course it did. "4e books with the bigger type are better because small type is cramped and ugly and busy and annoying." I don't think that's a disingenuous paraphrase. That's basically name-calling.

OP: "I like 3e's more dense books, they seemed a lot of bang for the buck. Are they making these rules so simple that they can afford to waste space, or is this just a money grab?"
The Little Raven: "You like that? Then you like something that sucks."

So if someone supports the OP, they are supporting something that sucks.

What's your favorite baseball team? If I said they suck, wouldn't that be hostile toward you?

You can't expect to have constructive conversation like that. It doesn't address the issue, it just mocks the OP's position. If TLR wanted to call out the fact that not everyone enjoyed 3e's dense style, TLR could've just said something along those lines. Instead, there is needless hostility.

TLR isn't the only one, of course, but the idea that no one on the 4e side is tossing around hostilities in this thread is either blatantly untrue, or using a definition of "hostility" that I'm completely unfamiliar with.

 

[Obryn]

So, per GnomeWorks, someone who disagrees with the proposition that bigger font size + more whitespace = less value for the money, and posts about it to disagree with another poster, is a 4e zealot/sycophant.

Well, it's good to know where you're coming from, and how much you value others' opinions.

-O

 

[Henry]

Ladies and Gents, can we please can the bickering? I don't care who started it, I really don't want to see it progress any further.

As for the original post, I have to say I also am not fond of the breaking into two books of the campaign guide; however, they are making up for it in my opinion by only releasing a limited number of supplements for each setting. As Rechan noted, fewer supplements that are FR-specific means a savings in the end, actually. I also understand why they did it, too - I'm not the only one who remembers all the complaints on multiple forums about "wanting campaign guides to be split into a player's guide and a DM's guide".

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, per GnomeWorks, someone who disagrees with the proposition that bigger font size + more whitespace = less value for the money, and posts about it to disagree with another poster, is a 4e zealot/sycophant.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and disagree with that GW's stance. That stance is ALSO useless for discussion about the appropriate "ease of reading vs. information content" balance in D&D books. It's not about editions, except to say that an edition change is also when they changed this.

I happen to think 4e's choice of big fonts and lots of white space is OK. I agree with the idea that a prettier book with a bigger typeface is probably more accessible, and it's definitely more useful for looking up information. I don't think much more content has been "sacrificed," since 4e, in part, is taking a light touch with that in the first place. 4e doesn't want to give you as much information as 3e, because it doesn't want to overload you with things that are unnecessary. I still think we're getting mostly what we need with 4e's choice, we just might not be getting everything we want.

Now, I should say that a lack of information is part of the reason I don't like (and won't DM) 4e in general. But I don't think this is "dumbing down," or "money grab." I think it's "improved accessibility" and "aesthetic value." And I can see why those things are very important for WotC and D&D (and I can even agree that seeking those things is a good call).

 

[Voadam]

This right here was my biggest problem with the Eberron Book. I mean I love the world, I love the ideas, I love the organizations, etc. But why is all the DM information there on the page right next to what the player needs? That was the biggest turn off. If I wanted to surprise the players with the Emerald Claw I actually had to make some serious changes.

Personally I prefer the DM information to be separated. I know some players are going to look anyway, but I prefer to think that if I ask them not to peek at section 9. That they will not. It is hard to do that if the Big Secrets of the campaign are there on plain sight.

I haven't seen the FR Player Guide. Does it provide players with a decent player based intro to the world or if they know nothing about the world would they be lost without the setting info from the DM book?

3e Ravenloft CS was great IMO* for presenting the whole world in a player appropriate way including rumors and red herrings about the secrets of the setting that were only revealed in things like the DM Secrets sourcebook and the gazeteers.

*It did have a section at the end for DM only monster templates however, otherwise it was completely appropriate for players to know everything in the book.

 

[Voadam]

This is why I appreciate all of the player info being sequestered into one book compared to having to shuffle through five different books because I have a feat from this one, a feat from that one, two spells from two different books, and a magical item out of the fifth book. So I might be paying for less page count, but organization well than makes up for it.

Feat from PH. Feat from Martial Heroes Sourcebook. Spell from Arcane Hero Sourcebook. Spell from FR Player's Guide. Magic Item from Adventurer's Vault.

I think you can still end up with player resources from multiple books in 4e.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Yeah, I'll go ahead and disagree with that GW's stance.

Just going to clarify that Obryn missed my point.

 

[Vayden]

I haven't seen the FR Player Guide. Does it provide players with a decent player based intro to the world or if they know nothing about the world would they be lost without the setting info from the DM book?

Lots and lots of setting material - the book opens 15 pages covering how all of the different races fit into FR (including nice crunchy write-ups for Drow and Genasi), then later has 50 pages of local backgrounds - basically every region gets 2 pages of basic background material, player hooks, and suggested backgrounds. It ends with about 12 pages devoted to an almanac, covering the major gods, naming conventions, coinage, general culture, etc.

I don't think a player should have any problems with finding plenty of background for their character, and they can either read the whole thing, or just jump to sections they want for their character (1-2 pages on race, 2 pages on background of their home region, 12 pages of almanac) and be ready to go in 20-30 minutes.

I'm not a huge fan of the FRCS, but the FRPG is an excellent, excellent book (assuming of course that you like 4e).