pawsplay's dealbreaker list

Pistonrager

First Post
then go away.

Ok... I read the first post and that's enough...

OP.... good riddance... seriously... leave. If fourth edition isn't for you don't complain just don't buy it... and get off the 4E board.

Go. Seriously.

This isn't flaming or baiting, it's the truth, complain elsewhere.

If you had concerns you might be consolable but "dealbreakers" if that's really the case, leave, you're beyond help.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lackhand

First Post
Pistonrager said:
Ok... I read the first post and that's enough...

OP.... good riddance... seriously... leave. If fourth edition isn't for you don't complain just don't buy it... and get off the 4E board.

Go. Seriously.

This isn't flaming or baiting, it's the truth, complain elsewhere.

If you had concerns you might be consolable but "dealbreakers" if that's really the case, leave, you're beyond help.
<-- not a mod.

It's really rude to be psychic (assume you are an authority on what other posters are thinking) or to make recommendations like "get out".

We're all one big, happy family! He's free to make a mixture of excellent complaints and left-field misapprehensions into a constructive thread, and I'm free to (fail at) rebut(ting) it. :)


I'm really torn about the "wowie" factor in 4e. On the one hand: full wizards get magic missile all day long, eladrin teleport all of the times.

On the other hand, you can build someone with less magical potency than a 1st level wizard (finally!) allowing "apprentice wizard" to exist; the game-setting has been looked at again to make it more... mythic, from what I can tell... and in general, a bit more care seems to have been spent on ensuring that there is a flavor for each mechanic (which I approve of, though I understand not everyone does).

I'm really going to need the books in front of me before I can definitively come down with this edition's wowee index.
 

DandD

First Post
Pistonrager said:
Ok... I read the first post and that's enough...

OP.... good riddance... seriously... leave. If fourth edition isn't for you don't complain just don't buy it... and get off the 4E board.

Go. Seriously.

This isn't flaming or baiting, it's the truth, complain elsewhere.

If you had concerns you might be consolable but "dealbreakers" if that's really the case, leave, you're beyond help.
He won't. He will stay and observe the threads in the 4th edition forums. Then, he will buy the 4th edition rulebooks. He will be playing and enjoying them months later, and he will be embarassed to have started this thread. Then, he'll participate in other discussions about what sorts of campaign might be fun to play, what classes might need tweaking, if it's a good idea to advance the campaign in a higher tier and so on.
The longer one rants against a new edition on a message board dedicated to it, the more you can be sure that the one who "dislikes" it is in approval of it. :D
 

Aristotle

First Post
I'm likely too deep in this thread for the OP to notice and I certainly don't think I can change your opinion. I would urge you to play a few sessions, as I think (having been on the fence a little myself prior to DDXP) a lot of the perceived flaws of the game simply don't come up at the table. There are a ton of fun games on the market. Wizards doesn't own the industry by any means. I'm sure, if this isn't your cup of tea, you'll find the experience you want somewhere.

pawsplay said:
*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.
I didn't even know the kobold minions at DDXP only had one hit point. They stayed standing long enough to make for an interesting encounter. It didn't drag out like some "minion encounters" have in previous editions. I think I could easily roll a few hit dice and apply hit points to a minion if I wanted to. Also, I think it's a given that most humanoid races will get racial write ups either in the book or via third party.

*I* had a huge issue with mob entries for humanoids when it was announced. I hate the idea that different races are only challenges at certain level ranges. That said: I really like the mob entry we've now seen. I intend to use it "out of the book" within that level range... but I'm also still counting on the ability to make leveled NPC orcs for other situations.

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.
I need more info before I make up my mind on this. I don't think we have all the facts.

*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...
I can't fault a company for wanting to continue to produce products that people want, and there is only so much room in a book. Tastes change over time and different monsters gain or lose popularity. This has always been a game with multiple monster books. I can accept that. I'm more concerned as to what they left out of the DMG, or what they think they can put into multiple supplemental DMGs.

*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?
This boils down to style of play and the campaign setting. 4e is sort of 'high magic' and I like a setting where my wizard can cast spells as frequently as my fighter can swing his sword (realistically that should be a finite number of times per day too given exhaustion.)

*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.
I'm with you. I'm not happy about the changes to gnome. Hopefully we will get our illusionist class.

*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.
I humbly disagree.

*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.
Not really a big deal in play (in my experience), and not much different than playing a race with wings, digging, or other extra locomotive ability.
 

Im coming late to this thread, so I'll just throw all of my thoughts in a single post...

pawsplay said:
I'm less interested in comparing D&D 4e to Radiohead than I am to D&D 3e, which was seemingly a very successful game.

Not really... As of today, the number of roleplaying gamers in the world has not increased significantly since the days of 2nd edition AD&D.

However, it seems that WotC's strategy with 4E is to simplify/clarify the rules, make the game more accessible and fun.

This, combined with Hasbro's marketing know-how, could mean that D&D could actually enjoy a second golden age of popularity. If I am reading the signs right, the Beholder in Seattle is just a taste for whats coming, I would expect product placement in TV shows and movies, a few TV commercials (maybe featuring Vin Diesel or other D&D-playing celebrities), a print ad campaign in teen/young adult magazines... etc.

pawsplay said:
Have you? I think you must be confused, because the GSL is not an open license.

The OGL was not open either, at least not in the sense of the Creative Commons, GFDL or other "truly free" licenses.

The whole economic point of both the OGL and the GSL is to let third parties make supplements for Dungeons and Dragons. Period.

Both licenses allow third parties to do that, and therefore both are useful.

hong said:
"Last night's 'Itchy and Scratchy Show' was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured, I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world."

Thank you Hong. As always, we can count on your jokes to provide enlightenment. You are like a Zen master in that.

ryryguy said:
I find this "two weapons must grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting. Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.

I practice historical fencing on Sundays, and let me tell you: Fighting with sword-and-dagger (and also sword-and-cape) really adds a whole level of complexity to the whole thing and it mainly helps with defense.

The whole point of melee combat (IMHO) is that there is always a rhythm: Strike, parry, counterstrike, riposte, etc. You constantly try to break your opponents rhythm in such a way that you can land a blow without leaving yourself open to attack (since its kinda useless to kill your opponent if you are stabbed in the lung doing so).

Using a weapon in your off-hand helps you use one weapon to cover yourself while attacking with the other one. It really doesn't grant you the ability to land more hits. Of course, having a dagger in your off-hand also helps when you are too close to the opponent and already past the threatening range of a sword, but then you are grappling, not in straight melee.

And let me tell you, at this point in my training, I am more liable to lose a match when I try to TWF than when I use the sword alone.

So I am really ok with people needing feats/powers in order to do the Drizzt-cuisinart thing, although Two Weapon Defense should come for free to those spending the feat (or whatever) to do TWF.

(but of course, Precocious Apprentice said this a lot better)

And sorry Paws, the boxing analogy does not fly... And as much as it looks cool, wielding two long (and heavy) weapons is not better than wielding a long weapon and a shorter one in your off hand.


And Finally, about the monsters we are not getting in the 1st edition MM... Clark Peterson already promised those in the Tome of Horrors 4e, and besides... Not having good dragons or frost giant stats for a few months is not going to kill my game.
 

cignus_pfaccari

First Post
Darth Cyric said:
What "experience" led you to this utterly WRONG conclusion?

The new archaeological discoveries displayed in that wonderful documentary 300, especially with the Immortals being ninjae!

Oh, I could almost say that with a straight face, too. :)

Brad
 

Amphimir Míriel said:
... Not having good dragons or frost giant stats for a few months is not going to kill my game.
Its not going to kill mine either.

However, as I understand it, those two monsters are different cases.

The metallic dragons (and some good aligned fey, I believe) were left out because the designers thought the space could be more usefully taken up by "monsters". I disagree, because I like having pre made stats for a wide variety of creatures for "world building" purposes, but I can see where they are coming from.

The frost giant was left out so MM1 would feel incomplete, and to legitimise MM2.This annoys me. (And for what its worth, in 3rd edition I have MM1 to 4, and Fiend Folio but I know a fair number of people who only have the three core books.)
 

MaelStorm

First Post
amethal said:
/snip
The metallic dragons (and some good aligned fey, I believe) were left out because the designers thought the space could be more usefully taken up by "monsters". I disagree, because I like having pre made stats for a wide variety of creatures for "world building" purposes, but I can see where they are coming from.

The frost giant was left out so MM1 would feel incomplete, and to legitimise MM2.This annoys me. (And for what its worth, in 3rd edition I have MM1 to 4, and Fiend Folio but I know a fair number of people who only have the three core books.)
Yep, I'm on the same page too. I hate incompleteness. That's also why I hate to wait until PHB II to get the Druid, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Shaman and Bard classes. This is also why I hate Mini boosters too, if you want 20 minions you have to buy 45 boosters, or buy them individually at a bigger price, or use crappy tools.

Aside the incompleteness, which utterly annoys me, I find the game mechanic of 4E is wonderful and I'm happy they did what they did.
 
Last edited:

pawsplay

Adventurer
Counterspin said:
If they have a negative effect, you're using them wrong. If you can't imagine a scenario where they'd be useful, just skip them. They're a tool that's being provided, and they're not a requirement.

In other words, they are useless.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top