4th Edition and the Immortals Handbook

[dante58701]

Biggest factor here - 3E stuff cannot be converted, or so they say

Yeah, this is perhaps one of my biggest beefs with it. You have a valid point though. Which I myself have been trying to explain. We DONT KNOW anything about it (other than the crap they feed us). Yet they expect us to salivate over it like fanboys.

I would be greatly surprised if a large company like Hasbro would allow 4E to wreck D&D.

This however wouldn't surprise me. Catering to the masses by mutilating a tabletop RPG is right up Hasbro's alley. If they actually cared anything about tradition they wouldn't be trying so hard to turn 4th Edition in WOW, my second biggest problem with 4th Edition.

I personally hate WOW, if I wanted to play WOW, I would play WOW, but I don't. Instead of reaming D&D, they should leave it alone and make a new game called TABLETOPWOW, instead of lying to the consumers and calling 4th Edition D&D, which progressively it is resembling anything but.

I fully expect this to be a huge disaster amongst TRUE D&D fans. Who are likely already disillusioned by 3.0 and 3.5 as it is. 4th Edition will only serve to further alienate older gamers from newer gamers.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey dante mate!

So then you encourage censorship of anyone who doesn't like 4th edition?

Not at all, I am all for constructive criticism. What I will censor is 'bad-mouthing' which is essentially what WarDragon was doing.

Neither of you have, to date (as far as I can see), established a single solitary point that illustrates something that 4E is doing wrong.

If either of you were in a debate you would be laughed out of town at this juncture. Be thankful I don't lay the smackdown on tomfoolery here in 'my' forums the way I do in others.

I'm afraid that if that is the case, then you might as well kick half of Enworld off the forums and label yourself a fascist (not a great way to prove your point and more likely to ruffle a lot of feathers). If that's not the case...then what exactly are you trying to say?

See above.

Theres a difference between making a rational point backed up by evidence (as per true debate style) and calling someone an idiot and not backing it up.

There really is no positive way to express a negative opinion about a product that is so controversial. Plain and simple, there are going to be people who aren't going to like it and you're just going to have to get used to the idea that such people will be just as likely to express their disgust as people who like it are going to express their liking of it.

Expressing negative opinion without backing it up with evidence of why your opinion is negative, has all the hallmarks of idiocy.

Not everyone is going to have the same opinion on a product and I was under the impression that Enworld was the kind of place where one could go and express their opinion freely without being moderated by corporate enthusiasm and greed.

Thats because you are not aware of the difference between criticism and slander.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

Yeah, this is perhaps one of my biggest beefs with it. You have a valid point though.

Incorrect. While they have mentioned that an exact conversion is impossible (and an exact conversion between ANY iteration has been impossible) if you have been keeping up with the blogs you would know that in numerous playtest cases the people have converted 3/3.5E characters over to 4E.

The fact that the game is still class and level based should tell you that such characters can be converted without much difficulty.

Which I myself have been trying to explain.

Try harder. You never mentioned that once during your outbursts.

We DONT KNOW anything about it (other than the crap they feed us).

We know lots about general changes. What they haven't shown a lot of are specifics - which makes sense given thats what the core rulebooks are for.

Yet they expect us to salivate over it like fanboys.

On the contrary I am sure they expect some people for the new system, some against and some indifferent. But you can't criticise them for trying to get people interested in 4E...the idiocy would be in not doing that.

This however wouldn't surprise me. Catering to the masses by mutilating a tabletop RPG is right up Hasbro's alley. If they actually cared anything about tradition they wouldn't be trying so hard to turn 4th Edition in WOW, my second biggest problem with 4th Edition.

How exactly are they doing this?

While there may be 'some' spill over from WoW, any such minor changes appear to be to benefit D&D, not hinder it.

I personally hate WOW, if I wanted to play WOW, I would play WOW, but I don't. Instead of reaming D&D, they should leave it alone and make a new game called TABLETOPWOW, instead of lying to the consumers and calling 4th Edition D&D, which progressively it is resembling anything but.

You contradict yourself.

Below you categorically state there is disillusionment with 3/3.5E, but in this statement you suggest they should 'leave it alone', rather than fix a problem.

I fully expect this to be a huge disaster amongst TRUE D&D fans. Who are likely already disillusioned by 3.0 and 3.5 as it is. 4th Edition will only serve to further alienate older gamers from newer gamers.

So you admit that gamers are disillusioned with 3/3.5E but for some reason you are against 4E even though its raison d'etre is to fix the problems of 3/3.5E...and above you state they shouldn't try to fix it.

 

[dante58701]

I guess were just going to have to agree to disagree =^.^=

 

[WarDragon]

You're right. I can't make any specific complaints about 4E... because everything we've seen about it is something to complain about. The changes to the cosmology are the worst, but every glimmer of information we've seen about the mechanics have made me cringe in horror. One of the worst things is their seeming need to tell us exactly how every class and monster should be used.

 

[dante58701]

Elegantly and simply put. =^.^=

Yet again I find myself agreeing with someone I am consistently at war with. =^.^=

Three cheers for Wardragon!!! =^.^=

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey WarDragon!

You're right. I can't make any specific complaints about 4E...

Of course not because you know they would be easily debunked as scaremongering.

because everything we've seen about it is something to complain about.

So, are saying is that 3E is flawless and doesn't need fixing?

The changes to the cosmology are the worst,

Every campaign setting has its own cosmology, they are simply no longer using Greyhawk as the core cosmology. I am sure when they get around to a Greyhawk Campaign Setting book in a year or two, they will dust off the Great Wheel.

However, that said, frankly I am glad they are changing the core cosmology because I don't want another book detailing the exact same things again, but with different (4E) stats. If you want to use the Great Wheel just use 3E Manual of the Planes (or that other book whose name escapes me at the moment but covers much the same material).

Also, the change means having the designers use their imaginations rather than give us regurgitations.

but every glimmer of information we've seen about the mechanics have made me cringe in horror.

List them off...lets go over them one at a time.

Heres one...

1) Less reliance on magic items for game balance thereby eliminating the Christmas Tree effect.

Heres another...

2) Less reliance on maths based feats, thereby retaining the relevance of the d20 longer.

Want another...?

3) Changing the monster stat block so they don't use all the same mechanics as PCs/NPCs, such as the elimination of feats for monsters, thereby greatly simplifying the game and monster design in particular.

4) Making all the core classes balanced and interesting.

5) Making races relevant beyond first level.

Do you want another five?

One of the worst things is their seeming need to tell us exactly how every class and monster should be used.

They are not telling us, they are game aids for helping us (inexperienced DMs in particular, as well as DMs in a hurry).

Just like, round by round tactics were not set in stone, they were just a handy guide for brevity and/or inexperienced DMs.

So are you saying round by round tactics are one of the worst things of 3.5!? Or, in actual fact, when you look at them with a cool head are they just a handy game aid and not the DM straightjacket you are trying to make us believe.

 

[WarDragon]

Wow, that's a lot of hyperbole in that post, U_K.

So, are saying is that 3E is flawless and doesn't need fixing?

No such thing. Only that 4E is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Every campaign setting has its own cosmology, they are simply no longer using Greyhawk as the core cosmology. I am sure when they get around to a Greyhawk Campaign Setting book in a year or two, they will dust off the Great Wheel.

However, that said, frankly I am glad they are changing the core cosmology because I don't want another book detailing the exact same things again, but with different (4E) stats. If you want to use the Great Wheel just use 3E Manual of the Planes (or that other book whose name escapes me at the moment but covers much the same material).

Also, the change means having the designers use their imaginations rather than give us regurgitations.

I, and many of the people I've spoken to, like the Great Wheel, and how it creates a unified setting. I'll bet you a lot of the people who do buy 4E will keep it, regardless, rather than throwing out 30 years of history.

1) Less reliance on magic items for game balance thereby eliminating the Christmas Tree effect.

So, less ways to enhance our characters.

Heres another...
2) Less reliance on maths based feats, thereby retaining the relevance of the d20 longer.

I don't see this as a bad thing.

Want another...?

3) Changing the monster stat block so they don't use all the same mechanics as PCs/NPCs, such as the elimination of feats for monsters, thereby greatly simplifying the game and monster design in particular.

You say simplifying, I say dumbing down. Using the same mechanics to create monsters and PCs was one of the great strides forward that 3E made, and I'm disappointed to see this regression.

4) Making all the core classes balanced and interesting.

So they claim. I'll believe it when I see it. And even if so, I'll be surprised if wizards still feel like wizards, and not ranged fighters with armor.

5) Making races relevant beyond first level.

They already are.

They are not telling us, they are game aids for helping us (inexperienced DMs in particular, as well as DMs in a hurry).

Just like, round by round tactics were not set in stone, they were just a handy guide for brevity and/or inexperienced DMs.

Not how I read it. As far as I can tell, a non-multiclassed PC, or unmodified monster, will be completely incapable of anything outside its preset role.

So are you saying round by round tactics are one of the worst things of 3.5!? Or, in actual fact, when you look at them with a cool head are they just a handy game aid and not the DM straightjacket you are trying to make us believe.

Mmm, somebody else's words in my mouth, yum.

 

[dante58701]

You say simplifying, I say dumbing down. Using the same mechanics to create monsters and PCs was one of the great strides forward that 3E made, and I'm disappointed to see this regression.

Of those I definitely have to agree with this one in particular. PC vs. NPC? As far as I'm concerned the only difference between a PC and an NPC is which side you just so happen to be on. It is severe dumbing down to eliminate this factor and quite the regression indeed.

Dumbing something down in the name of "simplification" only complicates things down the road in a campaign when you begin to run out of OPTIONS. I prefer my NPCs to be just as threatening and as dangerous as PCs. I also prefer them to have just as many options.

Furthermore, those simplified stat blocks are just another excuse for WOTC to NOT use their imaginations. Which is pure laziness from my perspective. Ambiguously talented Monsters simply makes for an ambiguously lame campaign session.

1) Less reliance on magic items for game balance thereby eliminating the Christmas Tree effect.

Heres another...

2) Less reliance on maths based feats, thereby retaining the relevance of the d20 longer.

Want another...?

3) Changing the monster stat block so they don't use all the same mechanics as PCs/NPCs, such as the elimination of feats for monsters, thereby greatly simplifying the game and monster design in particular.

4) Making all the core classes balanced and interesting.

5) Making races relevant beyond first level.

Lets pick this apart...

1. Less reliance on magic items? Sure, we could do with a few less. But there is no reason why DMs can't simple declare them to be a lot rarer. I say if you find a magic item, you obviously earned it and should be able to use it. Who cares if by 50th level you have 20 magic items. Most of them will be worthless anyways. Nice keepsakes from your younger years as an adventurer.

2. I love those feats. They let you customize your character in a manner akin to the way some people customize their cars. If you don't like using a lot of feat, put them all into stackable feats like toughness. It's a lot easier to figure out where to spend them if you know what you already want. And if you don't...then wtf are you doing playing an Epic Level Character? Epic is for experienced gamers, not novices. It never was for novices. The D20 is always relevant when you are combating creatures in your own power tier. If you aren't combating creatures in your own power tier, you are either a bully or just begging to die.

3. Yeah, I covered this one above. Let's not rape the monsters and NPCs. They have enough problems without being turned into useless blocks of immalleable text.

4. Balanced? From who's perspective? And how can you say this, when none of us has seen these so called "balanced" classes. And Interesting? Yet again...from who's perspective? From what little I've seen the classes they have made are no more than Diablo/WOW remakes with different names and slightly different abilities all rearranged and resorted into different level slots. I don't know about you, but I'd rather play the He-Man Masters of the Universe Boxed Set tabletop RPG than waste my time with poorly designed classes that have ability names that sound like they came out of a box of Magic cards.

5. Races are already relevant. Your race is supposed to be minor flavor text that you build your classes on top of. The point of D&D is to transcend racial limitations and become more than just a racial stereotype. Not some tired old race based board game where all elves are frivolous idiots and all dwarves are cranky heartless gold stealing jerks. The point of race is to say...this is where I started...not what I'm limited to.

 

[Alzrius]

3) Changing the monster stat block so they don't use all the same mechanics as PCs/NPCs, such as the elimination of feats for monsters, thereby greatly simplifying the game and monster design in particular.

This is one that I don't think is a good thing. The level of transparency between PCs and NPCs in 3E was a great stride forward, in my opinion. It allowed you to take PCs modifications (such as class levels) and easily add them to NPCs. Likewise, it let you easily run NPCs as PCs; playing "monsters as player-characters" was much much easier in 3E than in, say 2E.

I'm going to miss the level of detail that was given to us in that regard.