My first proper 4E game - Our reaction.

[Moon-Lancer]

Why would the Eladrin (aka the high elf) be mocked, considering he's been a staple part of the D&D elf's schizophrenia (am I tree-hugging hippie or a magic-loving wizard?)?

Perhaps its the lack of realistic eyes. Its harder to identify something that just has colored whites.

 

[The Little Raven]

Perhaps its the lack of realistic eyes. Its harder to identify something that just has colored whites.

So, in a game that has ridiculous owl-bear hybrids and were-<insert any animal here>, a fey race with pupil-less eyes of opalescent colors is a show-stopper?

 

[hamishspence]

coloured whites

Have been used a lot of times in comics, sometimes when they shouldn't (wolverine) maybe the white eyes represent plastic protection. At least I think it does for Batman.

Might be preferable if it was only for when casting a spell, but coloured whites aren't that much of a problem. Have seen eyes represented as flat red a lot for monsters (would do this for drow in low light or dark conditions.)

 

[malkav666]

My regular gaming group demoed KotS and had a decent time. one of the players ended up hating 4.e, but I suspect that has to do with the fact that he hates everything that isn't AD&D (he hated 3.x as well) But all in all the gorup had a pretty good time, and they have agreed that they want to attempt a 4.e campaign later this year (the 3.x one we are working on should draw to a close in the next few months, and then we have a single module of a popular survival horror type of modern game my group likes to run inline to go before 4.e).

The only playing of characters I have gotten to try out in 4.e was at the gameday event earlier this month, and it was pretty decent. I am going to be playing ina once or twice a month game that is starting next Friday with another group of friends that i don't typicaly game with, who want to run...KotS and theother modules in that series. I will be playing a wizard with a little cleric multiclassing in that outing, and to be honest im failrly excited about it.

4.e didn't really strike me as a rules upgrade when I first looked at it. in fact I still feel like its more of a D&D table top war strategy game, than a traditional RPG. but I am ok with that. Rules have never defined the scope or depth ofthe roleplaying in our group, and 4.e doesn't really change that too much. And I will freely admit the combats are Hella fun both from a DM and a player standpoint IMO.

I feel a synergy in my own thoughts when compared to most of the points the OP made.

love,

malkav

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, in a game that has ridiculous owl-bear hybrids and were-<insert any animal here>, a fey race with pupil-less eyes of opalescent colors is a show-stopper?

No, it's a mock-warranter. Don't overdramatize things, Mourn, no-one said "OMG D&D SUX CUZ ELDRINS HAVE BAUBLE EYZ!".

Humans are eye-centric creatures (ignoring severe autists etc.), and any creature that has shiny coloured eyes with no pupils, apart from just "looking kinda dumb" by human standards would be like trying to talk to someone who insisted on wearing tight mirrorshades 24/7 (if you were a teen in the late '80s/early '90s you probably met this guy).

Clearly someone at WotC has a fetish for it, because it's been randomly added to the descriptions of two races not previously known for that, with no particular explanation (like, confusingly I believe normal Elves DO have pupils, is that right?).

Also, don't confuse "monsters I kill" with "races I play". I know it's easy to do given the large crossover between the two in 3.5E (and smaller and neater one in 4E), but just because we like stabbing a Beholder to death doesn't mean we think a bloke with christmas decorations for eyes is kewl. Stabbing Eladrins to death, on the other hand, that sounds like fun, and the MM provides abundantly in that regard.

 

[williamhm]

I agree with a lot of what the op said, in addition to that Ill say that the classes are based on the same structure, but play completley diffrently. A warlock has a completley diffrent play style from wizard and both play diffrently then fighters (if a wizard tried to do what a fighter does he would die, though the right kinda warlock might be able to at least for a short while).

Still its nice to see a balanced review.

 

[SSquirrel]

Why would the Eladrin (aka the high elf) be mocked, considering he's been a staple part of the D&D elf's schizophrenia (am I tree-hugging hippie or a magic-loving wizard?)?

It seems odd to me that people act like the Eladrin is something entirely foreign and new, when it's just an old favorite with a new/tweaked name.

I mocked Eladrin b/c the art was almost an identical rip from Blood Elves in World of Warcraft. I don't really care, but I saw them and said "yet more fuel for the haters fire".

Me, I love 4E

 

[Lackhand]

Glad you had fun!

I think my biggest complaint about this edition will end up being art direction. I've decided that there are enormous tracts of fluff I'm perfectly fine with (most of the monsters. Feel free to disagree with me, but I see almost every change as a neutral-or-better. Some of the mechanics behind the flavor shifts could use work -- my 3.x DM is screaming out for devilish/demonic Panoplies, small templated sets of extra powers given to some fiends as equipment -- but that's neither here nor there)...
but as soon as the art gets involved, game is over.

I'm also still not sure how I feel about eladrin step and dragonborn breath. Eladrin eyes and tieflings, uh, everything, just aren't the way presented.


But none of this gets in the way of gaming

Edit: Hey waitaminnit. Does this mean that the other thing the GSL gives you is the right to put WotC setting-bible stuff in your art & trade dress? I mean, since you're not allowed to redefine Tieflings, doesn't that mean you have to make 'em look like Tieflings in illustrations and cover art?

That's... that's actually kinda neat.

 

[SSquirrel]

See I'm a fan of the Dragonborn breath weapon. Pick a type of BW, and do your level best to incinerate/freeze/melt/etc your foe. Pairing it w/marking abilities just gets sick

 

[rounser]

See I'm a fan of the Dragonborn breath weapon. Pick a type of BW, and do your level best to incinerate/freeze/melt/etc your foe. Pairing it w/marking abilities just gets sick

See, this is where D&D has all gone wrong IMO. I remember Willie Walsh going "what the..." on a visit to these boards with regard to AoOs in 3E.

Dragonborn are an even bigger "what the...". The number of Dungeon adventures with themes where these bags of arbitrary as PCs don't fit is large. The scope of what D&D can support just got one heck of a lot narrower, unless you outright ban them. I don't like banning things, or ignoring things referenced in artwork and throughout the text - it's annoying. I'd much prefer they just got it right in the first place.

I really think we'd have a better game if the flavour were up to Necromancer, Paizo or Kenzer. Unlike WOTC, they seem to get what makes the game tick, flavourwise, IMO. For me, at least, Mr Wyatt's work with regard to themes and imagery didn't work.*

But it's too late now. Bring on 5E.

*: Not entirely fair. I like the warlocks, and what's been done to rangers and paladins. Elves and dwarves are pretty good after their new coat of paint too. And my two favourite planes have come to the fore. And PoL is something I can get behind in places. The whole package is a bit lacking, though - it seems to lack synergy for me, and seems too arbitrary and specific in places. Why eladrin? Why dragonborn? What's up with "warlords"? Why LG and CE? But I can't really condemn 4E, because it looks one heck of a lot like the game I'd design from first principles if I was designing a D&D game. Problem is, I junked my version of that too, because it didn't get the vibe and flavour right either.