New Podcast Posted!

[netnomad]

Surely there must be a sneak/lurker/ambusher role too. Or is that covered by skirmisher?

I do believe they did mention a lurker type. I also remember they talked about a leader that buffed other in the group.

-NetNomad

 

[Rechan]

I can't wrap my brain around that one.

Imagine the PHB1. It has rules for combat, and skills. But instead of the core classes, it had new classes, and new rules for how their powers worked. That may be the PHB2 - the same combat rule/feat/skill rules (but new feats instead of the old ones), but instead of Wizards/Warlocks and Clerics (and rules for their powers), it might have Druids and Psions, and rules for how their powers work.

The same way that, if I owned the PHB 3.5, DMG 3.5, and the MM4, I could still run a D&D game. Having the MM1 or 5 doesn't impact my D&D game - all I need is monsters, and the MM4 can give them to me.

 

[DaveMage]

Imagine the PHB1. It has rules for combat, and skills. But instead of the core classes, it had new classes, and new rules for how their powers worked. That may be the PHB2 - the same combat rule/feat/skill rules (but new feats instead of the old ones), but instead of Wizards/Warlocks and Clerics (and rules for their powers), it might have Druids and Psions, and rules for how their powers work.

But are they going to print the combat rules in every book, or are the combat rules part of a class?

I see a lot of book confusion ahead if this plays out....

 

[Vigilance]

I can't wrap my brain around that one.


I'm probably too dense to play 4e.

This might not be the place to ask this question, and it will probably come across as rude, but I really am curious.

I have seen you say, several times, that you have no plans to play 4e, yet you're always here, pointing out how many bad calls they're making.

It just seems like a weird phenomenon to me, and you're far from the only one: folks who have decided, for whatever reason, that 4e isn't their cup of tea, but who seem to be in every major 4e thread continuing to let us know that yep, still not interested.

What's the fascination?

 

[Rechan]

Yeah, that's not super-clear, but I would interpret what they said thusly:

Brutes are big, strong, and dangerous by themselves, because they're hard to kill and hit hard too, whereas soldiers are defensive, strategic fighters, that work well with others and use intelligent tactics. Basically, I think one strong brute might be a de facto meatshield, but mostly an offensive threat, whereas a couple of soldiers might be there specifically to protect the artillery/controller types. But yeah, I'd like more information too, it's not totally clear.

Ahh. So from what I understand you're saying:

Soldier = Defender.
Brute = big ugly monster like a remorhaz or a bulette. You don't need it to have friends for it to be a dangerous encounter, all by itself.

 

[Rechan]

But are they going to print the combat rules in every book, or are the combat rules part of a class?

I see a lot of book confusion ahead if this plays out....

If I were doing it the way I am explaining, I would cut and paste the Combat/Skills chapter from the PHB1 into the PHB2. Probably with some refining or errata built into the system.

I would have a Classes chapter, then a chapter that explained those classes abilities.

Then I would have a Feats chapter (with new feats tied into the various classes).

For example, the PHB has some general feats, but many of the feats are also specific to the classes. Weapon Specialization/Combat Casting/Spell Focus, however, are class-specific feats.

If the PHB had psionics, and it had Psionic feats, those psionic feats would be keyed to the psionic classes. The same way you'd have the Powers chapter that's keyed to the abilities of the classes.

 

[DaveMage]

This might not be the place to ask this question, and it will probably come across as rude, but I really am curious.

I have seen you say, several times, that you have no plans to play 4e, yet you're always here, pointing out how many bad calls they're making.

It just seems like a weird phenomenon to me, and you're far from the only one: folks who have decided, for whatever reason, that 4e isn't their cup of tea, but who seem to be in every major 4e thread continuing to let us know that yep, still not interested.

What's the fascination?

Simple. I have 27 years of emotional investment in the "franchise". I care about the game I love.

I have only played D&D. I tried other RPGs - and found them lacking.

When 3E was initially announced, I balked at first. However, as more and more info came out, I was more and more excited and, of course, converted. Part of me undoubtedly hopes that that will happen again with 4E. Only this time, it's not happening. Each new tidbit drives me further and further away. And I'm finding that fact to be surprising, and quite a bit sad.

The whole thing depresses me. I'm no doubt posting about it as an expression of that depression - a way to deal with it.

I'll wager that many who are doing the same are feeling the same way. It's not that we're posting about it to be jerks - even though it may come across that way - we're trying to figure out why the appeal is disappearing. We want real answers, and all we're getting is market-speak. Very frustrating.

 

[Rechan]

Simple. I have 27 years of emotional investment in the "franchise". I care about the game I love.

I'll wager that many who are doing the same are feeling the same way. It's not that we're posting about it to be jerks - even though it may come across that way - we're trying to figure out why the appeal is disappearing. We want real answers, and all we're getting is market-speak. Very frustrating.

I say this with all due respect:

Replace D&D with Star Trek or Star Wars.

Both have been going since the 70s, and I imagine there are people just as emotionally invested, put their entire lives into these movements.

And I may be wrong, but they usually cope when a new Star Trek show comes out, even if it screws up the continuity of the last one. And many Star Wars fans, while offended by Episodes 1-2-3, still have the various video games, and the ginormous amount of Star Wars novels.

There in lies the problem with attaching one's life to something that other people control. Because they will do something that upsets the people who have untold amounts of emotional investments in something.

 

[DaveMage]

I say this with all due respect:

Replace D&D with Star Trek or Star Wars.

Both have been going since the 70s, and I imagine there are people just as emotionally invested, put their entire lives into these movements.

And I may be wrong, but they usually cope when a new Star Trek show comes out, even if it screws up the continuity of the last one. And many Star Wars fans, while offended by Episodes 1-2-3, still have the various video games, and the ginormous amount of Star Wars novels.

There in lies the problem with attaching one's life to something that other people control. Because they will do something that upsets the people who have untold amounts of emotional investments in something.

Can't argue with what you're saying - I agree.

But...I've hijacked this thread enough - sorry all - back to monsters!

 

[Vigilance]

There in lies the problem with attaching one's life to something that other people control. Because they will do something that upsets the people who have untold amounts of emotional investments in something.

And they'll do it for a reason that's even more troubling to someone who follows something (D&D, Trek, Forgotten Realms, Marvel Comics) out of love: money.

And really, that's a place they SHOULD be coming from.

In my lifetime both Marvel and TSR have gone through some very hard times financially. There has to be someone with an eye on the bottom line or the magic won't be made anymore.