D&D 4E Mouseferatu weighs in on 4e
- Thread starter Piratecat
- Start date
Dragonblade
Adventurer
I know a 4e playtester and his comments to me have been the same as Ari's and John's. He can't give me specifics due to his NDA, but he basically said he really likes it.
Shroomy
Adventurer
scruffygrognard
Adventurer
Shroomy said:
It gets to the crux of this on page 4 & 5 of the first thread.
Sounds believable... and crappy.
A'koss said:We've been getting tidbits every now again suggesting that combat is going to be much more mobile (and not just moving around, but being *knocked* around too) and that there is more inter-party (and I assume inter-monster) combat synergy. It sounds like there is an additional emphasis on strategy and tactics in this edition. Lots of new combat options for the melee types, maybe some kind of Iron hero-y stunts t'boot. I'm definitely looking forward to this.
I had a thought about the MM though after seeing the new Pit Fiend, the mention that Orcus would in the manual and remembering the reference to the 1,000 HP Red Dragon in one of the early previews. One of my fears was that the various Demon & Devil Lords would still be underpowered for their lofty status, leaving us bewildered as to how they could hold their positions. Can you say one way or the other? Is it Orcus, Demon Lord or Dragon Chow?
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.
Scholar & Brutalman
First Post
Shroomy said:
If the email mentioned is true, then obviously WotC has now given the playtesters permission to reveal that they are playtesters. Therefore we should now get to see a lot of posts from people saying they are playtesters, even if they don't go on to say anything positive about 4e!
cperkins said:
*shrug* The game is still in flux, so presumably they don't want playtesters complaining about problems they've fixed or will fix before release. That is the whole point of playtesting, after all.
It is a bit ham-handed, though. I think they'd have been better off to say, "You can announce your overall impression of 4E, good or bad, but we'd prefer you didn't discuss specific problems since we might fix them."
Dragonblade
Adventurer
Dausuul said:
This is kind of my take on things as well. People could be complaining about issues that have all been fixed. Still, I think that WotC staff sometimes doesn't think the negative PR of these things through.
For example, while I'm on board with the digital initiative, they should have kept the print mags around at least until after the DDI was established. They would have served as a valuable PR mouthpiece for the new edition of the game without also alienating subscribers who otherwise might have been predisposed to 4e had they not been upset about the loss of the magazines.
Irda Ranger
First Post
Which is exactly why I don't believe WotC would do this. If it leaked out that WotC was leaning on playtester reviews this way it would look really, really bad. WotC can't be that dumb.cperkins said:
As for the "We're going to fix it" issue, no one can talk about specifics anyway, only general impressions (as Ari and Jon have done). Even if Ari had a specific complaint about how a certain Fighter power worked, he couldn't say so because it was a specific rule, not because it was a negative comment. I wouldn't be surprised if WotC did say "Don't publish your playtester feedback because it's too specific."
