D&D and World of Warcraft (Not a Rant)

[Jack99]

The funny thing about the WoW criticisms is that the stuff that people complain about, for the most part, are things it does LESS than EQ1 before it did. It's a much more reasonable game, which is why it's so successful. (Nothing like spending 6 hours trying to recover your body when you wiped in the Plane of Fear on a work night. Wheee ... are we having fun yet?)

Naked PoF breakins were fun - where is your sense of adventure?

 

[WhatGravitas]

@Gloombunny & hong: Thanks for the comparison, was detailed and helpful. And sounds good, now I *want* some GW influence in D&D!

5. Get something every level.

I know that you weren't criticising that, but out of curiosity, why does it bother people, if classes get something shiny every level? I remember the outcry, when the 'Dead Levels' were published on the D&D website.

From my point of view, this development should be universally accepted. People like toys and getting new levels, why deny it? And I think it even encourages slower levelling - and the people disliking 'get something every level' often like to have slower levelling. No dead levels mean, you can slow down the levelling, yet the players get the same amount of 'level-up fun':

If you're levelling slower and the players only get every second or third level something, that makes them happy (new feat, new spell level), then you lose out the 'fun aspect' of levels, because you get them so slowly and then, you often only get some numerical bonuses.

But without dead levels, with spread-out power, you can slow down levelling, while preserving the 'fun', because then every level feels worthwhile, you it doesn't hurt that much, if they don't come less often.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Reynard]

I know that you weren't criticising that, but out of curiosity, why does it bother people, if classes get something shiny every level? I remember the outcry, when the 'Dead Levels' were published on the D&D website.

One problem is that if you get something shiny at every level, and your level range is 10 or 20 oer 30, that's a lot of abilities to try and keep track of an utilize, which makes the game more complex. Remember, the "dead levels" article indicated that just getting better didn't mean it wasn't a dead level; you had to get something new. Every level should make the PC better in his core abilities -- one of my problems with 1E and fighters -- but the need for a shiny new toy isn't appropriate for every campaign or certainly every character archetype.

Now, one advantage of getting rid of dead levels is that for some players it will mean less random multiclassing. Some players *have* to get something shiny and if 5th level fighter, for example, doesn't provide that, they'll jump to Ranger 1 or whatever just to get a bennie. It can cause problems with niche protection, versimilitude and other not-quite-mechanics-not-quite-fluff aspects of the game.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Naked PoF breakins were fun - where is your sense of adventure?

It usually collapsed around 2:30 a.m. when I had to be at work at 7.

 

[delericho]

I know that you weren't criticising that, but out of curiosity, why does it bother people, if classes get something shiny every level? I remember the outcry, when the 'Dead Levels' were published on the D&D website.

My problem with the "Dead Levels" article was that it didn't consider getting access to a new level of spells to be 'getting something'. So, Wizard level 17 was a 'dead level', despite the Wizard gaining the ability to cast Wish.

 

[Imaro]

@Gloombunny & hong: Thanks for the comparison, was detailed and helpful. And sounds good, now I *want* some GW influence in D&D!


I know that you weren't criticising that, but out of curiosity, why does it bother people, if classes get something shiny every level? I remember the outcry, when the 'Dead Levels' were published on the D&D website.

From my point of view, this development should be universally accepted. People like toys and getting new levels, why deny it? And I think it even encourages slower levelling - and the people disliking 'get something every level' often like to have slower levelling. No dead levels mean, you can slow down the levelling, yet the players get the same amount of 'level-up fun':

If you're levelling slower and the players only get every second or third level something, that makes them happy (new feat, new spell level), then you lose out the 'fun aspect' of levels, because you get them so slowly and then, you often only get some numerical bonuses.

But without dead levels, with spread-out power, you can slow down levelling, while preserving the 'fun', because then every level feels worthwhile, you it doesn't hurt that much, if they don't come less often.

Cheers, LT.

I think one of the problems as has been addressed above is an increase in complexity...now this would be fine if leveling was slowed down, but it's been alluded to that 4e will have faster leveling + a longer level spread...actually means more abilities faster. I don't get how this is new player friendly. Give them some time to really understand the abilities they have before throwing another piece of complexity at them. I guess for established players they can cope with more abilities at a quicker pace, but I still think there's enough intricacies within numerous feats and spells, that a new player has to have time to explore and understand them.

This " no dead levels" model works better in videogames than in table top games. The computer is doing all the actual mechanical implementation, so all a player really need know is the general function of an ability. In other words, using a fairly simpe example...power attack...in a videogame all you need to know is my chance to hit suffers but I do more damage, I mean in most computer games you could probably set your power attack at a static level of - to attack vs. + to damage and only change it if you want to. In D&D you need to know exactly how it works to implement it during the game; decide how much - vs. + you want to take apply this to your stats and announce it each round. In a table top rpg, either the player or DM needs to know how to implement the mechanics of an ability, and even in 3.5 I had players who didn't remember exactly how a certain ability or spell worked at times.

On a side note, one of the things I'm very wary about with 4e, and feel it is videogame influenced, is how they are doing monsters. They are being constructed, as far as I've seen so far, to be purely combat oriented. Not sure how far that will go but I think alot of the abilities people dismiss as "useless in actual play" are really just abilities that require creative thinking to use during play. and aren't as "useless" as some claim. Even if they allow me to construct a better story around a monster or concieve a nice hook, then they've served a purpose. I kind of felt this coming with the delve format, which basically boils down every encounter into a D&D skirmish mini-game, but I'm not sure I really like it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

On a side note, one of the things I'm very wary about with 4e, and feel it is videogame influenced, is how they are doing monsters. They are being constructed, as far as I've seen so far, to be purely combat oriented.

As it currently stands, 95% of monster abilities are PHB spells. And 95% of PHB spells are combat-oriented or at least useful in combat. So monsters as they currently stand are combat-oriented. The problems are that they simply have too many SLAs, their abilities are not sufficiently highlighted in the text and some are far too weak for the monster's CR causing the good ones to get lost amid the junk.

I find that I never seem to miss MM4 and MM5 abilities, the format is really good. But I often miss MM powers, probably mostly for visual reasons. For example I missed sound burst in a fight with 30 derro which could've made a huge difference.

 

[Henry]

I find that I never seem to miss MM4 and MM5 abilities, the format is really good. But I often miss MM powers, probably mostly for visual reasons. For example I missed sound burst in a fight with 30 derro which could've made a huge difference.

Are you kidding? I missed that VROCKS have SPORES until Dave Noonan mentioned it on the D&D Podcast. I always got to Dance of Ruin, and the SLA's, and quit. I blame equally both the format, which has them kind of cribbed next to the picture, as well as my own slackness.

 

[YourSwordIsMine]

SoW at Lift for Corpse Run!

 

[Gwathlas]

Ok, alot of talk gets thrown around about the influence that World of Warcraft might be having on the next version of D&D (and even some 3E stuff), lets try and have a civil conversation about this.

I for one think D&D had a ton of inspiration on Warcraft and WoW. Just like I don't think Diablo or games like it would have ever existed without D&D. I don't think if one or the other has a good idea that the other should not use it.

So "if" 4E is influenced by World of Warcraft and they are good influences I see it as the father learning something from his son and getting better for it.

Races:
Human - both D&D and WOW (no surprise there)
Elf - new core elf is nature focused getting back to woodelf role, WOW has Night Elves very woodsy themselves
Eladrin - a more magical elf tied to the Feywild, WOW has Blood Elves a more magic elf from another plane
Dwarf - well a dwarf is a dwarf both have them
Halfling - D&D has them, WOW does not
Gnome- now in the MM, WOW has them as PC race and stole most of thier flavor from Dragonlance IMO
Orc - looks like them and half-orcs are no longer in PHB, in WOW they are a major race
Tiefling - weird looking ancient race with other worldly ties, WOW has them they are called Drendari ??? I think
Half-Elf - only in D&D

Classes and Roles
Fighter- Warrior
Wizard- Mage
Cleric- Priest
Rogue- Rogue
Warlock- Warlock
Ranger- Hunter
Paladin- Paladin (now both games let them be bad guys too)
Warlord- Maybe compares to a new class coming soon called Deathknight? IDK

Defender= Tank
Leader= Healer
Striker= DPS
Controler= Controler

What about mana recovery and atwill/per encounter/per day ability comparisons?

What other similarities are there?

Again, I think that if 4E is taking good stuff from any resource like WoW, novels, movies, ect and they make the game more fun go ahead and do it. Why not take the best ideas from around you to make your product even better?

My experience with D&D is about 22 years or so, my experience with World of Warcraft has been off and on for the past two years currently off. I never played the latest expansion, and only ever got to about level 55 or so before I got bored. I find MMORG's repetative for the most part and not the same thing as table top play in the slightest. Real in person role-playing is so much more dynamic then voice chat with a guild over the net doing the same instance over and over again.

If I wanted to play WOW or starwars I'd buy them. Secondly I hope they are unique enough to feel like your playing something different from D&D. Otherwise it's one size fits all.

I'm also completly against the whole martial powers thing, it's to jedi or eastern mystical for my tastes.