Cynicism of an AD&D refugee

[Imp]

Except that you are percepting incorrectly...

What did you do in 3.5e to distinguish your fighter from the other fighters...

I was talking about multiclassing. No, you're not going to convince me otherwise on that count.

 

[Imaro]

If you feel that there wasn't enough in there to entertain you for the amount of money spent, that's fine. I disagree. I'm someone who likes playing non magical classes, so you can probably figure out why I like 4e core more than 3e core- 4e made a design choice to focus on depth of class rather than volume of classes. So, we get Fighters that have, in core, as many or more viable choices than Fighters did over the course of years of 3e development. But then we don't get Druids at all. Its a design choice, and you're free to like it or hate it.

I love how so many people have played levels 1 -30 in every class, and thus are assured that the game's classes are perfect at every level...

I also love this fallacy that, if you aren't loving everything about 4e... well you musta played a spellcaster before...

Yet a fighter could multiclass, with other warrior types in 3.5 to become more diversified...I mean what does the fighter do in 4e that he didn't in 3.5 with the right feat selection and multi-classing choices? Especially once later splats are introduced? He sure can't do more damage than a Ranger or Rogue now...but he could in 3.5...

But white space is a meaningless metric. The 4e Rogue isn't vastly better than the 3e Rogue because it takes up more pages. Its vastly better because its better written, and doesn't contain absolutely moronic design choices like a decision to make the worth of its attack rolls entirely dependent on whether you take a certain feat that only becomes available at third level.*

Or you might like the Rogue in 3.5 better because he can actually be a specialist in certain thievery-based skill...instead of being basically the same in all of them...but wait a character's enjoyment is only measured by combat effectiveness in the new D&D paradigm...

And the attitude that says, "I paid X dollars for this product, and there's WHITE SPACE! I've been robbed!" is stunning in just how thoroughly it misses the point.

As is your hyperbole...stunning in how it both exaggerates to absurdity, yet still misses the point. I'm saying when you can look at other rpg's by smaller companies and their games give you just as much or more bang for your buck...or designers come out and basically say... "Yeah, we knew you guys wanted this in core...and we knew it was popular and a staple of D&D...but we are going to purposefully hold it back so you have to buy another book to get it, not because we need more development time to do it right or don't have it ready."... Honestly was this attitude ever espoused by the designers or developers of previous editions? Because I sure don't remember it.

 

[Lanefan]

That's apples and oranges though. 4e is a new system with a slightly different way of approaching combat (finally truly abstracting HP). Everything does damage, but damage isn't direct physical damage. Believing a yawning portal just opened up under your feet and that you are falling as you drop to the ground

Yes, but does 4e even *have* a spell or ability that can do this? I haven't heard of one yet.

does "damage" because thats the way the system works now. 4e doesn't do non-damage attack spells, which include illusions. They have an effect on an enemies ability to wage war, that effect is measured by loss of HP.

As opposed to loss of mobility, loss of powers, loss of senses, etc. I think those are all still in 4e (though nowhere near as prevalent or powerful as any earlier edition), and would be the bread and butter of illusionists. You think the cliff just fell on you. You think you're in quicksand. You think you can't see anything but fog because...well, suddenly it's foggy. Or dark. And you keep hearing those strange voices from just off to your left yet you'd *swear* nobody's there. And where the frak did that Dwarf come from?!

That would be truly a sad thing to see. Thankfully, that's up to the players and DM, so it's not anything I'm going to see. It's certainly not anything D&D has ever condoned.

Explicitly, no. Implicitly, yes, at least in 3e...the build became the character. I really hope 4e doesn't end up the same way.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Are you talking about the mechanical difference or about the thematic difference? Causing direct, physical damage is abstracted (correctly, IMO) and no longer means that you're taking a dagger or a fireball to flesh. It represents harming the individual's ability to defend himself. Look at the (free) Dragon Article "Characters with Class: Wizards", in which illusions are featured. They still do damage most of the time, representing the mental toll they take on the target.

To be honest, I've actively avoided the D+D part of the WotC site pretty much since 4e came out, so if something's appeared there I haven't seen it. Question is, can they do things other than raw damage?

How odd. You first point that 4e is not varied enough in a mechanical sense ("I can't model an illusionist"), then you say that mechanical variety is unneeded. The mechanical options in 4e give you far more variety in character options than was possible before in the case of non-pure wizard characters. Want a reasonable fighter/mage? No problem, 4e can do that. Want a fighter that has a good base of skill support? Sure, you can do that too. Want to play a cleric of a god of thieves without gimping yourself? Check!

Touche. I know what I'm trying to say but not sayng it well. Perhaps, invent more classes instead? Make, for example, Illusionist and Necromancer their own classes, rather than wizard kitbashes. Make Swashbuckler its own class, ditto Archer. Then admit that one member of any given class is going to mechanically function very much like any other member of the same class, and emphasize that the in-game difference between Lanefan* the gonzo and James* the steadfast comes from personality, not mechanics, and not "build".

* two old 1e Fighters that ran in the same party on occasion; James was played by a long-time friend of mine. Mechanically almost exactly the same, yet you'd be hard put to find two more different characters if you watched them at work.

If you're looking for a dedicated illusionist from core, then 4e fails. I'll argue that your demands there are fairly narrow, though, and won't apply to anyone looking to make an organic character- why wouldn't a wizard who prefers illusions not want to learn even the most fundamental attack spells if he's going out adventuring, for example? I'd figure he'd want magic missile or fire burst as a backup, no?

Remember, I'm looking for direct backward compatibility here. 1e illusionists couldn't cast Magic Missile until umpteenth level...giving it to them now at low level is incompatible.

And illusionist isn't the only one - there's Druid, Monk, Cavalier, Assassin - and while you can vaguely approach some of these via tweaking the 4e mechanics (Cavalier can get fairly close, in fact) it's a headache.

I'll give them a pass on Bard...that sorry class, while loaded with potential as an idea, has yet to work well in any edition.

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Y'know, it may have been meant as snark, but I 100% agree with this statement, literally. There were too many spells in 3e. A lot of them could have been limited or codified or condensed or turned into class abilities or whatever.

Turning them into class abilities doesn't actually change anything. Spells are just the class abilities of spellcasters.

The only problem of the number of spells is that spellcasters get a lot more class abilities then non-spellcasters. Every little spell is a class ability that your spellcasting character gets access too. He can customize from them as he sees fit, often he can even customize his character every in-game day!

The powers in 4E are the individual class abilities you can use to customize your character. And every character gets them, not just some privileged spell casters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, but does 4e even *have* a spell or ability that can do this? I haven't heard of one yet.

Yes and no - not Core rules, but one of the first Dragon Class Acts article did introduce new illusions. I think there was a spell like this one among them.

To be honest, I've actively avoided the D+D part of the WotC site pretty much since 4e came out, so if something's appeared there I haven't seen it. Question is, can they do things other than raw damage?

The illusions or spells in general? In general, spells can do damage + effect. Or just effect, too. Web and Sleep don't deal damage.

Touche. I know what I'm trying to say but not sayng it well. Perhaps, invent more classes instead? Make, for example, Illusionist and Necromancer their own classes, rather than wizard kitbashes.

It might please you to hear that this is what they are going to do, according to the information provided so far. While the Wizard gets some illusions, the PHB II is supposed to contain the Illusionist class. The Necromancer doesn't appear to be there, yet, though. It might be something for PHB III. (I can see why they delay them, they might want to introduce a new power source AND the Necromancer isn't exactly a "good" character type and evil classes can wait.)

I'll give them a pass on Bard...that sorry class, while loaded with potential as an idea, has yet to work well in any edition.

It looks good for the Bard - a first preview was already around (but I am afraid it now requires a subscription, but I am not sure.)

 

[justanobody]

This whole "pay by the page" attitude annoys the heck out of me. You're not paying by the page. That's a silly perspective. You're paying for a game. The game is either worth the cost or its not. The number of pages it took to write the game has nothing to do with it. The word count of the game has nothing to do with it.

Go take a short walk over to the board game side of geekdom. i recently purchased a board game that cost me about ten bucks. The components included only four decks of cards, with forty cards per deck. Did I get ripped off? ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW FROM THE INFORMATION I'VE GIVEN! The thing i bought wasn't the physical deck of cards, it was the game. The game was either worth ten bucks, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then increasing the number of cards from 160 to 500 wouldn't have made a darn bit of difference if the game itself weren't altered thereby.

Deciding whether an RPG is worth its cost by looking at page count is like deciding whether to date someone based on their mass.

How would you feel if there was only a single word per page and the book price accounted for it.

You still get all the words, but the book is 100 times the size and cost.

Will you still enjoy the game as much paying $12,000 for the core books giftset because they wasted page space?

I mean it would only be a bit over 90,000 pages in the three books to carry with you.

 

[rounser]

I'll give them a pass on Bard...that sorry class, while loaded with potential as an idea, has yet to work well in any edition.

The 2E bard with the "blade" kit kind of worked, from memory. The name seems a bit arbitrary, but the flavour worked, and it could hold it's own in combat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Turning them into class abilities doesn't actually change anything. Spells are just the class abilities of spellcasters.

Well, by that I meant turning spells that were pretty much guaranteed spells into shorthand class abilities. So that fireball, rather than take up the space that it did in the 3e PHB, would look something more like this:

Fireball (Sp): You fill a 20' radius space with fire, dealing 1d6 fire damage per level (reflex halves). You can do this once per day per 5 levels.

Takes up a lot less space, and puts it in a place where every wizard will have it.

The only problem of the number of spells is that spellcasters get a lot more class abilities then non-spellcasters. Every little spell is a class ability that your spellcasting character gets access too. He can customize from them as he sees fit, often he can even customize his character every in-game day!

This is potentially a virtue, not a flaw. A lot of people who played fighters did really prefer to have less complex class abilities, and being able to address a multitude of challenges was the Wizard's goal. This came from balance being about dungeon exploration, and not about being in-combat, though.

Plus, in the RAW, Wizards were a bit more limited than that. Divine casters were a bit out of control, but Wizards (and Sorcerers) had to pay a lot of gold for their class powers, if they wanted more than about a dozen spells.

The powers in 4E are the individual class abilities you can use to customize your character. And every character gets them, not just some privileged spell casters.

Not everyone WANTS powers. I don't. I never played a Wizard in 3e because I am turned off by selecting cards to play from my deck like that. I'd rather have a small core of abilities that gets better, and a few new abilities added at significant levels, than some unwieldy pillar of spells.

That's not to say that the fighter probably didn't need some lovin' in that respect, and that the wizard could have used a tone-down. Making Rituals universal noncombat "spells" is a very good idea. Giving Fighters "swordball" instead of fireball and "mundane missile" instead of "magic missile" and "crossbow bolt" instead of "lightning bolt" isn't, in my mind, the way to go. It just means that chapter of the 3e PHB that was so intimidating gets quadrupled as we add "new spells" for the other classes, and that diversity gets pushed to the side.

That's not really an acceptable sacrifice for a sub-par system, in my mind.

 

[Raven Crowking]

KM, since I can't give you any more XP right now, may I instead thank you for your even-handed approach to examining the current edition? Along with the posts of some other folks like MerricB (more should immediately spring to mind, but I am at work, and have had only one cup of coffee thus far), I am finding yours an immense pleasure to read.

Kudos.


RC