D&D 4E Mouseferatu weighs in on 4e

[The Ubbergeek]

Good is dumb, they are against using underlings to do the show. Unsportive tactic, they say.

 

[Gort]

I don't see how that pitiful thing they call a pit fiend could hold it's position against anyone but it's self-destructing summoned lackeys.

I'm gonna have so much fun quoting people once this game is out. Remember when all 3rd ed characters were going be dwarf rogue/monks? (one level of rogue for the skill points and the rest in monk cause they get a power every level!!!)

Seriously, even if the pit fiend does turn out to have low damage (and I haven't really heard any other complaints about it - it has lots of HP and AC) it doesn't take a genius to add +20 damage to each of its attacks.

 

[Incenjucar]

I would assume that a pit fiend would have either a second in command or a body guard (defender, controller, or leader), and then a minion swarm to be the first wave before his summons hit home.

 

[Rechan]

Are we sure that his status means that there will be two of them?

The assumed standard encounter for 4e is 1 monster=1 PC.

An Elite monster is as powerful as two regular monsters. Thus 1 Monster=2 PCs.

So, 2 Elites=4 PCs.

That's why people are saying "Two pit fiends in an encounter"; it's just an easy illustration of a full 4e encounter. Other examples of elites are bulettes, owlbears, death knights, and (I think) traps.

More than likely it'll be a Pit Fiend (Elite), Some minions (2 Minions=1 PC?) and another monster of equal CR.

 

[The Little Raven]

But IMO everyone is better served if a stand alone cookbook is provided and support material is also provided separately.

IMO, making new DMs buy additional material (4 books instead of 3) in order to learn from examples is a barrier to entry. Providing examples within the core rulebooks of the game makes the most logical sense when you're trying to get new people to check it out.

 

[kennew142]

But it is harder for a GM to say "no, you can play a tiefling warlock, they don't exist in my homebrew" when they are in the core book of your game and the existence of such races can "color" quite heavily a world.

As a GM I have never had any difficulty telling folks that they can't play gnomes or halflings. If you homebrew, you have to be prepared to tell players no.

 

[Roland55]

Well, I don't know if "courageous" is the word I'd use--it was actually pretty easy, since it (thankfully) turned out that I really liked the new game --but you're quite welcome.

Not that I was afraid or anything ... but I do appreciate the information.

If it matters, I find it very easy to simply take you at your word.

 

[Lizard]

It gets to the crux of this on page 4 & 5 of the first thread.

Sounds believable... and crappy.

It doesn't sound believable to me.

There are too many playtesters, and at least ONE would be morally outraged enough to come forth and say "I am Fred, I am a playtester, as proof here's a scan 1/2 a page of a playtest draft of the rules, and here's the letter I was sent. I don't care if I never playtest again, the world must know."

Few corporations are that stupid. This reminds me of the early paranoia about the OGL.

 

[Lizard]

As a GM I have never had any difficulty telling folks that they can't play gnomes or halflings. If you homebrew, you have to be prepared to tell players no.

I agree, but I also try to bring things players want into my world. My 'compromise' is, usually, "Yes, you can play Race X (if it meets campaign power level limits), but be prepared for the racial fluff to change a *lot*."

 

[Vigilance]

Obi-Wan: [Paizo Forums]: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

When a regular Paizo guy with a long posting history of anti-WotC/4e sentiment suddenly says that "his friend" told him about this email, I find it dubious on even my most trusting days.

Not one friend, multiple friends, who don't know each other!

And if you doubt that, he'll "brick fight" you!

It doesn't get more believable and non-hearsay than that!