Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[ferratus]

My point to be extra-special-super-clear, was NOT that 4e had mutated to the extent it was a new game, but that those claiming that it still had too many 'holdovers' seemed to be hoping that it WOULD.

So why all this hub-bub on multiple threads that D&D is changing too much, and the initial knee-jerk response that change is usually bad rather than good. I'm sick of the current edition to the point where 3e is one of the last games I want to play because for about 3 years I've known most of of the problems with it. 3.5 fixed some problems (such as the Ranger class) but there are problems with the way the game is structured down to the root (such as multiclassing) that simply can't be fixed without a substantial overhaul.

So let me refocus yet again:
What about the rogue preview indicates a 3e holdover which cannot be justified on any basis but nostalgia or sacred-cow-ness? IOW, what's there which keeps 4e from being as much of an improvement over 3e as it theoretically could/should be?

Depends what you want. I could see an argument for D&D still being D&D if you did remove character classes altogether. A lot of people are complaining for example that the rogue
has too few weapons, others are complaining that they have to take skills they don't want.

I could therefore see the case being made therefore to remove the classes and simply have all the powers as a loose grab bag. Want a gang leader? Grab a few dirty fighting powers, grab a few leadership powers that the warlord has, and presto. All the abilities with none of the of the stuff you don't want. GURPS of course, is an example of an RPG that operates this way.

However, you would still have characters be fighting Dragons, inside Dungeons, with magic and weapons. That's really all the brand name really requires. Is continuity necessary over previous editions? Maybe from a marketing standpoint... but I see no moral imperative nor do I assume that there is an ideal form of D&D rules. I'm with Aristotle that forms are recognized by their function. You know it is a chair if you sit on it, you know it is D&D if there are dungeons being crawled and dragons being killed.

I myself am unsure what should have been scrapped or saved for the 4e rogue class. I like D&D roles, am pleased that they are being designed to work together, and I hope they have equivalent combat power levels. It will all come out of the wash when I find out the other 2/3 of what my rogue is supposed to be. I do know that elves are the best archers among the rogues, and that it is a deliberate design decision. I can only guess what the dwarves, halflings, humans etc. are going to do to customize the class by adding to the powers and weapon list. I can only guess what the other powers will be, how easy it will be to add more, or how much of a role feats will play in customization.

I will say that I would rather play a brawny rogue rather than a trickster rogue, because it is got a more exotic spice. I could come up with a pretty good approximation of the trickster rogue with 3e rules, but I don't think I could match the unshaven brutality of the brawny rogue. A fighter/thief might be the closest, but is there an ability to twist the knife in someone, and can a fighter/thief fight dirty when he isn't flanking?

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

whoops

No it wasn't sarcasm. I may have missed this the first 28 times. So what?

Oops... my mistake then... talk about a botched sense motive... *sigh* wow I am such a loser.... lawlz.

 

[Sir Brennen]

This makes sense if it can only be used against a charging/moving opponent, and I can see a one-square slide due to stumbling and regaining balance, but it's really hard to visualize a fighter holding his ground being tossed back 10+ feet simply because a rogue did some fancy footwork or even tripped him, without ANY regard to size/weight differences.

Because the charismatic rogue got him annoyed enough to *not* stand his ground? (It IS a attack vs. Will, after all.) There's also moving/rushing/leaping going on within the 5' square during battle, too. This ability simply takes advantage of that.

But again, I think the role of fighter as Defender will give him ways to deal with these sorts of attacks. Fighters might have "stances", which are actual class abilities/powers - a'la the Bo9S - one of which could make them immune to sliding. I think we're worrying too much about the "poor 4E fighter."

And we don't know how size differences affect the rules, yet. Like I said above, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that the size of a creature affects the number of squares it can be slid.

 

[SSquirrel]

So why would you prefer if Dungeons & Dragons changed even more from what it has been in the past?

What do you want D&D to be?

If what you want D&D is so different from what it's been, then why are you playing D&D and not some other game?

B/c it still retains some of the (IMO) terrible aspects it has had since the early game. I want D&D to be the best game it can be. It may well be that they won't accomplish this with 4E, but many of the changes are along my viewpoint of what would produce a better edition. They can always pull a Highlander 2 and then say "What 4th Ed, we never made 4E, we're still chugging w/3.5E"

 

[mach1.9pants]

This makes sense if it can only be used against a charging/moving opponent, and I can see a one-square slide due to stumbling and regaining balance, but it's really hard to visualize a fighter holding his ground being tossed back 10+ feet simply because a rogue did some fancy footwork or even tripped him, without ANY regard to size/weight differences.

So do I. But (we hope) that 4E is going to be balanced within the classes. The only(?) way to do this, and keep all the magic, is give all the classes magic. Even if they call it by a different name.
I reckon that 9 months ago I would have been the biggest anti-4E simulationist out here. But since I have tried Bo9S and realised, 'sod it, it is a game. I want fun and options for all PC classes not a world sim' I am now looking forward to it, LOTS!
I reckon if you are going to get annoyed by 'unrealistic' powers 4E will be really stressful to read. They have gone for class balance and options rather than realism. And as long as they have the balance sweet, I am happy to have my uber-heroic PC actions

 

[Lizard]

So why all this hub-bub on multiple threads that D&D is changing too much, and the initial knee-jerk response by you and Wolfspider on this thread that change is usually bad rather than good.

Actually, I said "Change is not always good", not "Change is usually bad". There's a difference.

And the original conversation was about the complaint that SA is still in (though changed) implying the game wasn't as good as it could be, because not EVERYTHING had changed. This is what led to my comments that the idea that a lack of change==a lack of improvment, IN A SINGLE SPECIFIC AREA, is an invalid concept.

Obviously, if 4e was 3e with a different cover, it would not have changed. But it has changed -- in many, many, areas, and those who claim it hasn't changed *enough* need to explain how it should have changed, instead of just deciding any resemblance to 3e is too much.

However, you would still have characters be fighting Dragons, inside Dungeons, with magic and weapons. That's really all the brand name really requires.

I can do this in a dozen different games. A hundred. If you took Palladium Fantasy and rebranded it "Dungeons&Dragons", would it BE Dungeons&Dragons? What's in a name?

You know it is a chair if you sit on it, you know it is D&D if there are dungeons being crawled and dragons being killed.

Aristotle needed to count women's teeth. And by this logic, I played D&D when I played Fantasy Hero, RIFTS, FUDGE, or GURPS.

 

[Lizard]

Because the charismatic rogue got him annoyed enough to *not* stand his ground? (It IS a attack vs. Will, after all.) There's also moving/rushing/leaping going on within the 5' square during battle, too. This ability simply takes advantage of that.

So the rogue says "Catch me if you can, dumbass!" and runs off, leading the fighter on a merry chase? OK, I can see that...but, uhm, wouldn't that mean the rogue moves, too? This doesn't seem to be implied.

And we don't know how size differences affect the rules, yet. Like I said above, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that the size of a creature affects the number of squares it can be slid.

Fair enough...

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

B/c it still retains some of the (IMO) terrible aspects it has had since the early game. I want D&D to be the best game it can be. It may well be that they won't accomplish this with 4E, but many of the changes are along my viewpoint of what would produce a better edition. They can always pull a Highlander 2 and then say "What 4th Ed, we never made 4E, we're still chugging w/3.5E"

You must keep in mind though, your version of what "the best" is and the developers version via marketing research and playtesting, could be very different. My version of best is certainly different than both of those.... but the question remains that you need to pose yourself, "What exactly do I want Dungeons and Dragons to be?" and the logical follow up "What could I fix about this system that I don't like, and what worked well?" And once you have that - why not work on a system of your own? That's what my DM did, while he still houserules a good bit, we still play D&D, but in his off time, he works on his own system, which works quite from what I've seen.

You never know, publishers may be interested in your system, and you could gain a hefty indie following, nothing ventured, nothing gained I suppose.

Either way, this is just a bunch of pointless rambling on my part, sprinkled with bits of actual intelligence, run with it as you will.



Peace, Love, and Bloodstains,
~ Me.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Is this whole "It's still too 3E" conversation a good example of when to fork a thread?

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

[Witty Title Here]

Is this whole "It's still too 3E" conversation a good example of when to fork a thread?

duely noted... so... what were we talking about again?