D&D 4E I'm really concerned about 4E

[Doc_Klueless]

I'm viewing it as "Some things will fit; some won't, so let's put stuff that isn't used much in another book."

While totally anecdotal and, therefore, worthless as real evidence of anything, I've never been in a campaign that used druids (beside me as a DM) and/or Frost Giants.

As a DM, I *love* the different types of giants, but I'm not surprised that some of them got shunted to another book. I "knew" already that my love of giant sub-types was a rare thing.

Now, if they'd move some of the dragons to another book, I'd be cool with that, but I also think that many more people used the different types of dragons than different types of giants. I could see and empathize with the uproar over that.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Am I the only one who still believes that when a WotC employee talks about something being 'Core' simply means 'not setting-specific'?

Ooooo, I like your definition. It may, in fact, be the one they're using... It would make sense, according to what little we know about what they are doing, that they are.

 

[Imaro]

Am I the only one who still believes that when a WotC employee talks about something being 'Core' simply means 'not setting-specific'?
It's the term they've always used in their future product listings to express exactly that.

IIRC, they never used the term 'Core' to describe 'everything that is in the SRD' or 'the bare minimum required to play the game', which are the two meanings most often associated with 'Core' on these boards.

The funny thing is nothing except the PHBI, DMGI and MMI are marked as "core" on their covers. So I wonder if that was really the definition of "core" with 3e?

 

[Jhaelen]

Its not a question of clear articulation. Its like some hippie telling you that she can tell you've changed because your aura isn't blue anymore. If you don't believe in auras, can't see auras, and she can't point to anything else about you that's changed other than your aura, what are you supposed to do with that? Give her opinion a serious and sober consideration?

How about a scientist telling you he can tell what you think or feel by measuring and recording your neuron activity?

What if the scientist happens to look like a hippie to you?
What if the scientist calls your neuron activity your aura?
What if you don't believe neuron activity can be measured or recorded?

 

[Raven Crowking]

How about a scientist telling you he can tell what you think or feel by measuring and recording your neuron activity?

What if the scientist happens to look like a hippie to you?
What if the scientist calls your neuron activity your aura?
What if you don't believe neuron activity can be measured or recorded?

The statement is non-evidenciary. You cannot say that it proves anything, or disproves anything.

While neuron activity can be measured or recorded, what you think or feel cannot be (or at best can only subjectively be), so no correlation between the two will be firmly objective.

RC

 

[JohnSnow]

The difference here, though, is that a lot of what people consider core (i.e. specific classes, races, monsters) are being intentionally diverted to books beyond the "1st Core Three". It's potentially a shrewd marketing move, but it's also fueling the concern.

There's something else worth bringing up in this particular context. And that is "what deserves to be in the first three books?"

Should a class, race, or monster be included in PHB I or MM I simply because that's where it was in 3e? Don't more popular classes or races or monsters introduced later on in 3rd Edition deserve their chance in the limelight?

Recall that by the standard of "once core, always core," both the githyanki and drow would have been relegated to a book other than MM I when 3.5e came out.

I imagine most of the moves have been made for that reason.

 

[Nifft]

How about a scientist telling you he can tell what you think or feel by measuring and recording your neuron activity?

I'd believe it in theory, but be quite skeptical on practical application of a non-intrusive measurement technique.

What if the scientist happens to look like a hippie to you?
What if the scientist calls your neuron activity your aura?

This "scientist" better be hot if she wants me to keep playing along with her perverse terminology.

What if you don't believe neuron activity can be measured or recorded?

Then I'd be woefully ignorant of neuroscience.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

While neuron activity can be measured or recorded, what you think or feel cannot be (or at best can only subjectively be), so no correlation between the two will be firmly objective.

There are a slew of external emotional indicators. Those should be rather easy to measure. Heart rate, pupil dilation, white knuckled grip on an axe handle -- these can all be objectively confirmed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

There's something else worth bringing up in this particular context. And that is "what deserves to be in the first three books?"

Should a class, race, or monster be included in PHB I or MM I simply because that's where it was in 3e? Don't more popular classes or races or monsters introduced later on in 3rd Edition deserve their chance in the limelight?

They introduced a bunch of new critters in the core MM-I, and I'm not terribly unhappy with all of them. Some should go away (e.g. Fantom Phungus and Ethereal Filcher), but some can stay (e.g. Gricks), and there should be some new stuff too.

In short: gimmie some classics and some new stuff.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Raven Crowking]

There are a slew of external emotional indicators. Those should be rather easy to measure. Heart rate, pupil dilation, white knuckled grip on an axe handle -- these can all be objectively confirmed.

We tend to accept that there are "a slew of external emotional indicators", but unless you can objectively determine the emotions of a subject, you cannot objectively correlate the indicators to the emotion.

From a subjective standpoint, you may believe that these "indicators" indicate the emotions/thoughts you think they do, but you cannot actually know.

RC