Ok, just tell me Why

[Foundry of Decay]

You're right of course.
If it turns ou that 4th ed is as easy to play as Warhammer Quest for example, then it will probalby get used for one shots in those "beer and pretzel" moments. Otherwise I will probably never get more qualifed to comment than having read the books twice, cover to cover.

I've gone back and hunted down a couple of artists work from the "rogues gallery" and "slaves to darkness" just in case this art disappears for ever when my copies disintergrate. And unlike the cartoons of my youth it doesn't make me cringe. And yes it is a matter of taste.

I put Frank F's "death dealer" ahead of Boris V's work.
or is that just being arguementative ?

I've only played three games of it myself. We used the PHB 'lite' version of the rules posted here soon after the first demo's were run.

I won't say its for everyone. I know of one past player who wouldn't be too thrilled with the rules. However it worked phenomenally well for us despite being pretty limited in how much of the rules we had. This could change when we run a full game using the books (ours won't be arriving until next week). If it grows to be too complex with all of the official rules has yet to be seen.

And I completely agree with putting Frazetta's art before Vallejo's, at least for my tastes as well. I've always prefered the former to the later artist, and even miss some of those wonderfully dark paintings.

I'm also still a huge Keith Parkinson fan, despite his passing. I've always loved his artwork, and it rates up there still with my favorite 'digital age' artists such as Eva Widerman (sp?).

As for the really old guard, well.. I may not have liked Otus's artwork, but I have a soft spot in my heart for Russ Nicholson's work. I remember writing a whole Egyptian themed campaign after seeing his little Black and White Heuceva image (I think it was Nicholson that did that one.. He had a distinctive style to say the least).

 

[Soel]

I personally quite like the new MM.
-The artwork is wonderful.

Has anyone said why they re-used so much art from 3e? The high amount of re-used art is actually a factor in my not buying the 4e MM. I'd really like to know what was behind this terrible decision.

I actually thought a lot of the new art was lacking as well (only 3 or so pieces I like.) Seems like almost none of the artists tried anything conceptually either (please don't remind me of the stupid looking elementals...)

Finally, they went a little too crazy variant-wise, with some questionable choices for two or more versions (death giant, I'm looking at you.)

 

[cdrcjsn]

What I am waiting to hear about, especially at around 13th+ level, is if the game is really easier to GM. I quit 3.X because of DM burnout at the higher levels. So far 4E has convinced me it has increased the workload for the GM.

Hi.

Yes, the game runs just as fast at 13th as it did at 6th. 18th also feels similar to 13th.

You just get bigger and better options as you go up in levels, but the fact that your options are limited to less than a handful each of encounter/daily/utility powers mean that you're never overwhelmed by too many options.

The ease of judging is also what sold me on the edition. I feel sorry for all those people that skim through the books and declare that this isn't the edition for them. The books are a case of "reads bad, but plays good" and the DMs that only skim are losing out.

If you've ever written a 3.5 adventure for other people to read, you know the headache of stat blocks, especially at higher levels.

 

[Ahglock]

Hi.

Yes, the game runs just as fast at 13th as it did at 6th. 18th also feels similar to 13th.

You just get bigger and better options as you go up in levels, but the fact that your options are limited to less than a handful each of encounter/daily/utility powers mean that you're never overwhelmed by too many options.

You know, I've played and GMd a wide variety of games, and I've never had a player overwhelmed by options. This entire less is more mantra about the limiting off options I just don't buy since I've never seen a problem with the more. Sometimes less is just that, less.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Has anyone said why they re-used so much art from 3e? The high amount of re-used art is actually a factor in my not buying the 4e MM. I'd really like to know what was behind this terrible decision.

I don't have all books from WotC, but I had the impression that there is a ton of new artwork, and only a very very small subset is re-used. But I couldn't give you any percentages.

When it comes to Monsters I don't understand the whole concept of "give me stats I'll fit it in". If all I wanted was a bunch of stats, I don't need a book for that. I have put together a monster where I write down an AC and HP and fudge the rest, making it up every turn.

Whether I have to "fudge" stats or create them on my own. Both is work that's mostly "mechanically". It can be fun, I think. But I believe that coming up with a new creature idea or with some fluff for a monster is a lot more rewarding and entertaining for me.
That's why I like having prepared stats, and the ability to file serial numbers of and substitute my own. In 4E, I can do less filing and more writing.

On the other hand, 4E also gives me the tools to easily create new monsters for which I am basically guaranteed that it's statistics are "fair" for their level. 3E gave me tools to create monsters, but did barely give me hints of what was fair. And sometimes, these hints were even practically wrong (slap the Half-Fiend template on an high HD monster and see how Blasphemy wracks the party, even if the CR is by RAW below the party level...)
3E monster had more flavour text, but a lot of "unncessary" flavor was also in the stat-block. Spell-like abilities that didn't matter in combat made the use a little less comfortable, and I wanted to refluff the monster, I'd remove or exchange them against other abilities to better fit the details. Off course, it was a little... naive of me to do all this work. It's not like the PCs or the players would ever know...

 

[Staffan]

For example, take a look at the white dragon. How hard would it have been to give *one* dragon, and provide an advancement section?

The reason they didn't do that is that they want you to be able to open the MM to page 50 (or whatever it is), and use the dragon right off the page. In 3e, you basically had to build your own dragon, and it was a pain in the butt. I rarely used dragons, and that was one of the main reasons why.

 

[IanArgent]

The reason they didn't do that is that they want you to be able to open the MM to page 50 (or whatever it is), and use the dragon right off the page. In 3e, you basically had to build your own dragon, and it was a pain in the butt. I rarely used dragons, and that was one of the main reasons why.

My wife does editing for a couple of OGL publishers, and she is very happy she will never have to proof a 3.5 NPC stat block again; especially once you start layering the templates. That says something to me about 3.5 NPC design...

 

[Kichwas]

Art is very generational and taste driven, and like smell, works well to trigger memory and emotion we are not always aware of.

The art in 4E is one of the things that even this early and this skeptical, I am willing to say they did a very good job on.

It has a consistent theme and style which I can easily identify a target audience for, and it evokes for that sort of audience emotive memory.

Lets just say this is one reason why so many are comparing the game to WoW, even if its MMO similarities are actually closer to Everquest and City of Heroes.

It triggers for a certain group, which is younger than me, and has different norms than me, but I think it will trigger for them.

 

[Imaro]

I just have two questions for those who like less fluff in the MM...how is this in anyway better for new DM's? I mean an experienced DM can change things confidently, a new DM is just trying to understand how everything works and fits together, he's looking for inspiration and the MM is lacking big time in this department. It seems a default that can be changed would have been a better route.

Second question, Where are the "more monsters" this format allowed. Or do you consider different roles/same monster as a "new" monster?

 

[IanArgent]

I just have two questions for those who like less fluff in the MM...how is this in anyway better for new DM's? I mean an experienced DM can change things confidently, a new DM is just trying to understand how everything works and fits together, he's looking for inspiration and the MM is lacking big time in this department. It seems a default that can be changed would have been a better route.

I would advise a new GM to pick up a setting book; or run modules.

Second question, Where are the "more monsters" this format allowed. Or do you consider different roles/same monster as a "new" monster?

I do consider a new role a new monster for the purposes of encounter design.