Cynicism of an AD&D refugee

[Puggins]

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.

Fortunately, the 4e designers thought so too. Fighter exploits are vastly different and far more understated than wizard spells. Some higher level exploits start doing things that might seem fantastic, but 3.5e had that too- whirlwind, for example, which has an analog in the fighter's arsenal. But there is no "swordball" or "crossbow bolt," or anything even coming close to resembling them.

From the comment you made, I think it's reasonable to infer that you haven't actually played 4e, at least for any substantial amount of time. If I am wrong, my apologies.

In practice, the classes play drastically differently. Thus far, I have seen six of the eight in the PHB, and they are all as stylistically distinct as any two 3.5e classes were. The 4e paladin plays very differently compared to the fighter. The rogue plays very differently compared to the ranger, and none of them play at all like the wizard.

I will say that the format in which they are presented makes the classes appear to be homogenous, but appearances belie the feel of each character in actual play.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Hey, we're talking about the illusionist - we can't even trust what we see!

How very true.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think 4e powers represent an unwieldily pillar of spells

Congratulations, you've just described the 4e power system. A small core of abilities that get better, with a few new ones spread out over level ups...

How is this not exactly what 4E is?

There is a continuum, and it is a subjective call, but for my milage, even sitting here as the player of a 2nd level swordmage, yes, 4e already has an unwieldy pillar of spells. When I'm 30th level and I have a deck of 17-20 different spells to use, that's unwieldy. It's pretty friggin' awkward with only my six or so here at 2nd level. When you look at the Classes chapter and see 100+ powers per class, yes, that's TREMENDOUSLY messy.

In actual play, in so many ways, and this goes one-hundred times for 4e minis combat, I long for more simplicity.

Part of the thing about wizards in earlier editions is that, by jotting down your spells, it helped you feel as if you were "keeping your spellbook." It was very in-character to have a library of different effects that you could pull out of your head at-will. In many ways, that's what a wizard WAS.

When I'm playing a fighter who just wants to stick pointy things into squishy things, I shouldn't have to bother with having to keep a spellbook. It's a hassle.

And it's a hassle that ate up a massive amount of pagecount, culling out a lot of diversity (to bring it back around to what started the tangent).

 

[amysrevenge]

And it's a hassle that ate up a massive amount of pagecount, culling out a lot of diversity (to bring it back around to what started the tangent).

Normally I disagree with you but understand your position. This one I'm not really getting though.

Am I misreading this, or are you saying basically "There are too many choices, which leads to a lack of diversity"?

 

[Imaro]

Normally I disagree with you but understand your position. This one I'm not really getting though.

Am I misreading this, or are you saying basically "There are too many choices, which leads to a lack of diversity"?

I think what he's saying (and I could be wrong) is that the choices for any one class are so small that in effect alot of pages were eaten up, yet at low levels a class played by one player is going to be pretty similar, as far as their powers, to another fighter played by someone else.

Now before anyone starts...yes this was like 3.5, but 3.5 used way less pages and whitespace to accomplish it in, so we could have the Druid, Barbarian, Bard, Monk, etc...so it wasn't like now where my reskinned ranger to be a monk, plays just like Kyle's Ranger.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Am I misreading this, or are you saying basically "There are too many choices, which leads to a lack of diversity"?

It's probably more apt to say that there isn't diversity where it counts.

There's hundreds of different ways to deal damage and cause an effect.

But we don't have one book that contains bards and barbarians and half orcs and illusionists.

I'm not looking for hundreds of different ways to deal damage and cause an effect. Really, if I have about 4, I'll be okay (especially if they're highly customizable).

I could do with another 10 or so race or class options, though.

I'm not going to miss half of the powers.

I do miss half-orcs and druids.

A lot of power-diversity (which is probably a debatable ideal) means that there's not a lot of diversity in other places.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Betote]

I'm not looking for hundreds of different ways to deal damage and cause an effect. Really, if I have about 4, I'll be okay (especially if they're highly customizable).

I wish they'd done something similar to Mutants & Masterminds, with effect-based powers to which you could add descriptors and modifiers.

So, instead of, say, 30 different "[w]+ability damage, X side effect" powers, we could have 1 "[x]+ability damage" power with 30 possible modifiers as "stun", "push", "shift"...

And that's still "exception-based design", just done right.

 

[RFisher]

But maybe the products you would have bought are products others wouldn't have bought? Or are products WotC just can't make because they are bad at it?

Of course. The point, however, is that it has nothing to do with how I feel about Wizards making a profit or not.

What you are describing, though, is the AD&D 2e in its death throes. That model was ultimately not successful. The fan base revolted, sales shrank, and the design team ran out of steam. TSR went out of business.

The problem is that TSR had so many problems it’s hard to say that any one move they made is poison.

 

[garyh]

I wish they'd done something similar to Mutants & Masterminds, with effect-based powers to which you could add descriptors and modifiers.

So, instead of, say, 30 different "[w]+ability damage, X side effect" powers, we could have 1 "[x]+ability damage" power with 30 possible modifiers as "stun", "push", "shift"...

And that's still "exception-based design", just done right.

You probably are already aware of it, but GR is releasing a M&M tailored to fantasy - Warriors and Warlocks.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Warlocks-Mutants-Masterminds-Sourcebook/dp/1934547190/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226549765&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Warriors & Warlocks: A Mutants & Masterminds Sourcebook: Dale Donovan, Matthew E. Kaiser, Steve Kenson, Aaron Sullivan: Books[/ame]


While I enjoy 4e, I also really like M&M, and have already preordered W&W. Can't wait to see how they've tackled the genre!

 

[pawsplay]

The problem is that TSR had so many problems it’s hard to say that any one move they made is poison.

I don't see the problem there. Anyway, my D&D celebration book goes into detail into exactly how that business model was choking them to death.