D&D 4E Paizo and 4e.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A Charm Monster heavy bard can most definately be a big frontline boost. I thought they were really kinda weak, until the Greater Spell Focus: Enchantment 22 Charisma bard was charming ogre barbarians and hill giants left and right!

That's not really how I define a front-line fighter. Summoners would also make good front-line fight with this definition, wouldn't they?

 

[dmccoy1693]

To my mind, D&D has always had pact casters: we call them 'clerics'. I would feel confident in saying that in the vast, vast majority of campaigns, Clerics serve gods instead of taking the 'no god' or 'philosophy' approach. It's no different promising to serve a god than making a deal with a faerie creature or whatever for abilities.

Ok then.... DOWN WITH CLERICS!!!!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You're dodging the main point of my posts by addressing technicalities. My point is is that pacts are now commonplace. That's a different kind of magic system. That kind of magic requires you to make a pact with SOMETHING for power. Editions 1-3.5 of D&D don't make the assumption that this is commonplace in the setting (I'm not talking about among players, I'm talking about in the setting). 4E makes that assumption. So 30 years of setting development is now flushed straight down the toilet.

Ah, that old chestnut. The new doesn't supplement the old, it erases it. Well, if that's how you want to run your campaign, be my guest.

 

[Twowolves]

That's not really how I define a front-line fighter. Summoners would also make good front-line fight with this definition, wouldn't they?

Well, sorta. The charm/dominate spells last a lot longer, so you enter combat with the meatshield already in place most of the time.

But at lower levels, the bard isn't far off. Better armor and weapons than a pure rogue (almost as good as the fighter can afford), plus self help (buffs and song). But that probably ends before 4th level.

 

[carmachu]

Which brings to mind the whole "4th ed = New Coke" comparison made elsewhere in this forum.

I suppose I'll patiently await 5th ed: D&D Classic!

Actually I just made it one page ago.

*shrug* We'll see if its accurate. Much like new coke...they did all the market research and had a good product, so to speak, but just didnt expect the backlash of public opinion.....I can see that as a possibility here. Not to as the great extent as coke/new coke....but divided fanbase could happen.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Coke botched the market research badly.

Sip tests for tasting heavily bias towards the sweeter Pepsi in all drinkers.

Full drink tests show that a large proportion like the "drier" "battery-acid" tastes for general drinking.

 

[Hussar]

You're dodging the main point of my posts by addressing technicalities. My point is is that pacts are now commonplace. That's a different kind of magic system. That kind of magic requires you to make a pact with SOMETHING for power. Editions 1-3.5 of D&D don't make the assumption that this is commonplace in the setting (I'm not talking about among players, I'm talking about in the setting). 4E makes that assumption. So 30 years of setting development is now flushed straight down the toilet.

The problem, as has been pointed out before, is that the idea isn't new to 4e. All of the divine classes, not just the cleric, had to make a pact with something to get their powers. In every edition. So, other than the fact that the Warlock won't be making pacts with divine outsiders, what's the difference?

 

[Holy Bovine]

I predict, without reservation, that 4E will be a fundamentally more successful business based on what I've seen. I think a lot of people who are bent out of shape about what they have heard so far are going to buy the rules, like them, and convert their campaigns. I think others will be pulled along by their friends and will grudgingly go over, and find out that they like the system.

I am trying to take all of the support for a 3.5 "legacy" offshoot with a giant grain of salt. I think the majority, perhaps a sizable majority, of the existing audience will convert within a year or two. I think a lot of people who are steadfastly posting against 4E on EN World are going to be excited as hell about the game in two year's time. A system can change a lot without really making an old RPG product worthless. So as long as the rules "feel like" D&D, people won't feel like they've wasted their investment. I think Wizards knows this, and I think they've likely made "make sure it still feels like D&D" their #1 design goal, their "golden rule," so to speak. And these guys are really good game designers, so I trust that they're on the job.

--Erik

Huh. I wonder what Mr Mona would say now...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just because WotC is doing Necromancy right now, it does not mean Thread necromancy is appropriate...

why not post it in a new thread?

 

[Holy Bovine]

Just because WotC is doing Necromancy right now, it does not mean Thread necromancy is appropriate...

why not post it in a new thread?

Not to put too fine a point on it but I can post to any thread I feel like. Erik Mona's comment in this thread echoed some things I have heard said around here and CM so I thought it might be interesting to contrast and compare not only things Mr. Mona said but others can take a look at some of the predictions made almost 4 years ago now and see if they were right or not. Starting a new thread would be a waste since all the relevant things said/predicted are right here.