D&D 4E Concerned with 4e now, do you agree or not?

[malladin]

as I said before...if the feat is on a player's character sheet and they don't know what it does, that's not the game's problem, that's the player's problem.

Brad

So basically are you saying its not good design to use names that give players a clear, easy to remember ability/power/feat name to make accessing their abilities easier, act as memory aids and enable them to concentrate on playoing their characters. Personally, I don't set an intelligence or commitment requirement on players through design, I aim for general accessibility. Frankly, blaming stuff on players rather than systrem design choices is elitism and that'll drive players away quick time.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No, in fact we've seen quite the opposite. We've seen feats that are not named anything remotely resembling their function: Dragon's Tail Cut being the most notorious example (although now thanks to Golden Wyvern, perhaps not the most egregious).

It's not even that there are examples of feats like this. It's that we have been shown that there is a designer desire to name feats in this manner, which is more worrying than a handful of poorly-named feats.

 

[Najo]

Hey dude,

Just yesterday some guy was telling me that he knows an insider and that the WotC guys playing 4E love it. As a matter of fact it makes 3E look primitive and awkward. And I trust the guy. He has never lied to me before and I believe him.

So just cast your worries aside. It is all good.

I will find out tomorrow. When I spoke to him before he hadn't mention anything about either of these issues. For all I know he likes these features, but things could have changed and Andy Collins article has me spooked out a bit, just a bit. Never said the sky was falling though.

 

[Najo]

I don't get where you get this "Golden Wyvern Adept" equates to Exalted-like names (such as "Dipping Swallow Defense"). It's a feat that invokes the name of a wizard tradition described in the core book and provides the benefits that the tradition is described as having (ability to shape AoE spells). It's really no different in concept than "Initiate of Bane," from the Player's Guide to Faerun, which merely demonstrates that you are the member of an organization (Golden Wyvern or Church of Bane) and you gain some benefits from that association (ability to shape spells or deity-specific spells).

It is because the Golden Wyvern order (or whatever it is) is tied directly into the wizards, and I might not want there to be a golden wyvern order in my game setting. Those sort of things belong in Campaign Setting rulebooks, not the core.

 

[Najo]

I love how everyone seems totally scared by multiclassing and acts like their character is in an Order of the stick world, were you actually walk around say:

"I'm a fighter14 with two rogue talents and one wizard spell."

They don't. That character might refer to himself as master of the [insert name]. Fighter, rogue, wizard, multiclass etc is just text on a paper...

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but there is a point where what is on paper reflects the story that is behind the character. For example, you stat up Conan and you get levels of barbarian, rogue and fighter. When you read the conan stories you can see where he learned those skills and how they tie to certain classes.

So, they need to be careful to not pigeon hole the class features so much that I have to take a level of ranger to get two weapon fighting. That is a skill that rogues, fighters and rangers should have access to, if not all of the martial classes, except paladins.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Not sure I like the descriptive names, but I am not that fussed either way.

I do NOT want a system where everything is a free-for-all. I like the idea of class sets of abilities. Just as another wrote for 1E - that was all. I like a bit of free choice, but I would really like to see abilities tied to a class stay that way. As has been done in Star Wars Saga. If there are classes, there must be something that makes that class attractive. Easier multiclassing should be the way to pick up other abilities, rather than just allowing all powers/feats/abilities/powers be a choice. I have always loved the class system of dnd and I hope it stays that way.

 

[rounser]

Hey dude,

Just yesterday some guy was telling me that he knows an insider and that the WotC guys playing 4E love it. As a matter of fact it makes 3E look primitive and awkward. And I trust the guy. He has never lied to me before and I believe him.

So just cast your worries aside. It is all good.

My suspension of disbelief just goes AWOL at the word "warlord" used as a misnomer. Maybe their attention is elsewhere too much - maybe the game's so fun that they're not taking care of (what are to some of us) rather important details?

But then, these were the folks who came up with the aesthetics of Eberron and names like Warblade for a class. That sort of explains stuff - if they're totally cool with that, they're cool with a lot - you know, that sort of "wahoo, half-celestial haberdashers for everyone!" style of play, where more over the top is more (and can be fun, once in a while, but not 24/7. Not in the core).

And why I 50/50 keep getting that "nails down a blackboard" vibe from what we know of 4E's flavour.

 

[The Little Raven]

Frankly, blaming stuff on players rather than systrem design choices is elitism and that'll drive players away quick time.

This may smack of elitism, but any player at my table that doesn't know what everything on his sheet means needs to step away from my table and read the damned book.

I know it's asking a lot, but I usually require my players to know their characters before they try to play them.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

So basically are you saying its not good design to use names that give players a clear, easy to remember ability/power/feat name to make accessing their abilities easier, act as memory aids and enable them to concentrate on playoing their characters.

No.

I'll note that I think that Golden Wyvern Adept is a perfectly adequate name for a feat; it requires context for complete understanding, but by the time that you can take that, it is not unreasonable to assume that a player would have an understanding of that context.

There is a proper place for detailed information on the feat's mechanics, and that's in the feat description.

Personally, I don't set an intelligence or commitment requirement on players through design, I aim for general accessibility. Frankly, blaming stuff on players rather than systrem design choices is elitism and that'll drive players away quick time.

Personally, I think that Mourn answered this very well. I feel that a player should be intelligent enough to know what they are choosing to take for their character. They don't necessarily have to understand it well enough to write a 40-page dissertation on it, but they should have at minimum an understanding of what that feat does for the character.

If a player does not understand a feat, power, or other character ability that they chose for their own character, that's a sign that the player is not someone I would care to game with. Certainly if they're not willing to make sure that the appropriate reference material is available for a refresher (by bringing the book or making sure someone else in the game has it available). I'm not sure how requiring a basic level of competence is elitism, though.

Brad

 

[pawsplay]

DMs have managed to do it for more than 30 years. You can do it, I have faith in you!

If the AD&D experience is what we have to look forward to, that's not a big selling point to me.