D&D 4E Rant on the 4E "Presentation"

[Raven Crowking]

Finding secret doors? From 1d6 to 1d20 + modifiers. Huge change. Initiative? From 1d10 (lower is better) to 1d20 + modifiers. Huge change.

IYHO, of course. Not IMHO.

Misinformation again. It's not gone, it's role is reduced. It is still the primary spellcasting gimmick for the wizard's per-day abilities.

What per-encounter abilities exist in Mr. Vance's magic system, pray tell? Have you read the source material, or are you just guessing?

That's better than the whole "wake up, run into first fight, burn important resources, rest" nature of the per-day balancing.

Again, this is perhaps true IYE. IME, "wake up, run into first fight, burn important resources, rest" never happened. Of course, I'm old enough to know that barbarians and monks were in 1e, as were half-orcs. As was the first "prestige class" (although it was not called that at the time). So perhaps this is a matter of perspective.

You're entitled to your opinion.

RC

 

[The Little Raven]

I think it is pretty clear that WotC didn't want word of 4e to leak before they were ready for their announcement.

As is the case with every other publicly-traded company in the world.

Your hyperbolic equation of "Wizards lied" to crime, conspiracy, killing JFK, and tinfoil hats is an example of the "argument through ridicule" fallacy (and possibly an "ad hominem" attack). It doesn't help to make your position seem more well-thought-out, IMHO.

I use it because it's ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Because every claim of their deception has been debunked thoroughly, yet people still spout it off like it's gospel truth.

Really? So if 3e supports movement on both real-world and minis scale, and 4e supports movement on only mini scale (unless, of course, you do the math!), that isn't more minis-centric? If you believe that, we obviously have a difference of opinion.

I'll concede this point. If movement is presented strictly in squares, then yes, movement has been noted to be more miniatures friendly (and to mesh with DDM).

However, remember what your evidence for that is... monster stats for the D&D Miniatures Game. Now it makes sense for the stats for the miniatures game to favor miniature movement, but that doesn't necessarily tell us what the D&D Roleplaying Game says.

Are you fixated on hyperbole and ad hominem attacks?

So, explain how pointing out that you're just perpetuating disinformation that has been debunked is hyperbole or an ad hominem attack.

Have the books already, do you?

I don't time travel, but I do read.

Did you miss the part where I said "Obviously, we don't know which books the traditional core of the game will be spread into; this is just a guess for illustration's sake." or did you simply ignore it because it didn't make your ad hominem attack any easier?

Did you miss the part where Andy Collins verified on his blog that gnomes are in the MM as both monster and race? Or did you just simply ignore it so you can continue spreading misinformation since you seem hell-bent on being negative about every aspect of 4e you can?

Will humans, warforged, or elves appear in the PHB?

Humans and elves, yes. Warforged, no.

Or will they also simply appear in the MM in both monster and race format?

I assume elf will, since it always has before. The lack of human in 3e makes me wonder if we'll see it in 4e's MM, or in the NPC section in the DMG. Warforged will be in the MM as a monster, and will possibly receive a race writeup in there, as well. Andy Collins said the decision hadn't been made on every monster to get a race writeup.

If the PHB write-up and the MM write-up are the same thing, why would any race need appear in the PHB at all?

They aren't. When something is written as a monster, it is not intended to be used as a player race at all. It's intended to be run as part of an encounter. Races are written to be played and will differ in certain ways from the monster writeup.

Again, readers can judge for themselves what they think makes sense, and what they think does not.

Stop spreading disinformation so they can make an informed decision. That's all I'm asking.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because every claim of their deception has been debunked thoroughly, yet people still spout it off like it's gospel truth.

I recall asking for a link to that thorough debunking. I am not surprised to not have received it.

So, explain how pointing out that you're just perpetuating disinformation that has been debunked is hyperbole or an ad hominem attack.

Mourn, meet Ignore List. Ignore List, meet Mourn. Better for both of us this way, I think, because the alternative is to respond to you in the same way that you respond to others, and that would violate EN World's rules.

And if that link does come up, can someone else quote it so that I can examine the evidence?

RC

 

[broghammerj]

If they give you everything you wanted, would there be a book to purchase? Wow, talk about an overreaction to my very neutral Email. Look, I'm sorry WotC isn't giving you everything YOU want. You're just proving my point that not everyone is going to be happy with what WotC is doing.

I apologize. You took personal issue with how I wrote my post and upon re-reading it I see how it can easily be inferred that I was attacking you. I was making more a generic statement. I just don't think releasing more crunch would cause people to not buy books. Especially when you're talking about a niche hobbie with rare alternatives that is upgrading to a new edition. I agree that you could release everything and then have no reason to buy a book but that is just silly. I, nor anybody else is really expecting that.

How many people have to be unhappy to be considered signficant? I don't know the answer but it is food for thought.

Right, which is neither here nor there. I hear you saying, "I want more information, and as a paying customer who has no other choice (which you do) I think its only fair that you give it to me." That's absolutley fine and dandy to believe, but how much is enough? How much do they have nailed down that may not get slightly shuffled? Should they throw out everything for their customer base to comment on? If they don't give you what you want, are they beign a faceless corporate entity hell-bent on wrecking DND for you? And who didn't get what they wanted because you did? If you don't have a personal say in what comes out, it means they're trying to marginalize you?

The choices to play "DnD" are limited if it is redefined with a new edition. If stuff is not nailed down by now to reveal a few feats, spells, etc then I am a bit worried.

You will find no where that I have implied they are a faceless hellbent corporation. I am simply saying their marketing campaign doesn't do it for me and is a bit poor. I don't think they're personally trying to marginalize me but if enough people are turned off and disinterested there will be problems. I think the history of 2E and player loss speaks for itself.

In my mind look at the big picture. DnD Insider has hardly proven it's something I want to subscribe to. If this is the preview information I am getting for a major new release, then why bother with all the previews for the future splat books?

People bitching on a internet forum represents very little, IME, except mental masturbation.

Except for the fact it got the Eberon timeline to stay static and got rid of things like Dragon Tail Cut.

I think you're misunderstanding me here. You want a system that works well, and are vocalizing your concerns, therefore you want to contribute. Of course, what works well for one, may not for another. So someone, somewhere is going to be houseruling regardless. Therefore, sometimes you gotta meet find the best answer that satisfies the most people. Not satisfying you or even me on a specific point or points does not imply it is heading in the wrong direction, or won't work well "out of the box."

You and I are on the same page. I agree their will be changes to the system, some of which I have been vocal about. However, I don't think my comments have been directed at the system. I have tried to direct them toward the poor marketing.

Me too! And I have no illusions that the marketing is hyped. Marketing often is. Though many times within that hype is mixed the actual excitement of the people involved in its creation, and not necessarily some corporate entity shoving their hands up the rear ends of the developers and designers and telling them what to speak.

Marketing should provide both hype and real info. I think the scales are tipped to include more hype. I have no doubt the designers are passionate about the game. The problem is they haven't made me passionate about it. It's not because I don't want to see a new incarnation of DnD. On the contrary I do. Regardless, I'll buy the core to see for myself but I am not so sure everyone else will.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Thieves don't exist in 3e. Did all the old Thief players skip 3e and 3.5e?

Half-elves do exist in 3e. Do all the players who used to go crazy for half-elves still play them?

Between the answers to these two questions, you'll see a deeper truth. The names matter less than the mechanics, and the mechanics are only evaluable in context.

Cheers, -- N

But we knew the rogue was killing the thief and taking his stuff realtively early on. It's not like the rogue just came out of nowhere and people were like, "Man, thank god there' a thief style class here! We knew nothing about it!"

 

[JoeGKushner]

Yes, those pieces of information will inform the choices of individuals. But I don't think it is reasonable to say that there's a real need for WotC to make sure all the information is our there six or eight months before product release.

Heck, I'd settle for a Spotlight On with one race and one class a month talking about how they're going to fill X role in the game, what they did in the past or if they're brand new, how the mechanics are going to work to make this a viable race/class at every level etc... as opposed to... did anyone see that South Park about Imagination Land? I keep picturing the WoTC previews as the Army talking to Michael Bay. "And then it's all like Boom! and then there's this explosion and it's so cool and..."

 

[DandD]

Seeing as Raven Crowking always spreads misinformation, I will also put him now to the ignore function.

It's one thing to not like the coming changes. It's another to just tell wrong things for the purpose of rallying people against the coming edition.

 

[Nifft]

But we knew the rogue was killing the thief and taking his stuff realtively early on. It's not like the rogue just came out of nowhere and people were like, "Man, thank god there' a thief style class here! We knew nothing about it!"

True.

So what role / style / shtick do you want to hear about? It sounded to me like they'd put a lot of thought into covering all the bases, but maybe I missed something.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Vigilance]

Heck, I'd settle for a Spotlight On with one race and one class a month talking about how they're going to fill X role in the game, what they did in the past or if they're brand new, how the mechanics are going to work to make this a viable race/class at every level etc... as opposed to... did anyone see that South Park about Imagination Land? I keep picturing the WoTC previews as the Army talking to Michael Bay. "And then it's all like Boom! and then there's this explosion and it's so cool and..."

Again, there has been WAY more specifics than that.

It's not all glittering generalities.

No, they haven't shown us an entire character class, but knowing that rangers will be able to counterattack with a bow when missed by a surprise attack is hardly "BOOM! It's so cool!"

Not to mention, you just revealed what I think is the problem for people demanding "more more".

Nothing other than the books will satisfy you.

You want to know how a class will be worth playing and balanced at EVERY LEVEL?

Seriously, think about what you'd have to know, to have that information.

You'd have to have the whole class.

And all the other classes, because its only viable if it isn't completely overshadowed by the other classes right?

Sheesh.

Chuck

 

[SSquirrel]

Tieflings ARE NOT CORE, neither are WARLOCKS so tell me why you aren't worried this isn't going to be a mass blunder on their part...

Technically speaking, whatever WotC says is Core is Core. Then the individual DMs Rule 0 the stuff they don't like and replace it with other stuff. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who play in FR that hate the new changes they're making and will continue to play in the pre-4E Realms, even if they update their characters to work in the new system.

Nothing that is or is not in a book stops a DM. If you don't like something, remove it. If you love something that isn't found, create it and put it in. If you want to use D&D to mimic a more accurate, extra minimal feudal game...try Rolemaster w/o the magic supplements I'm somewhat teasing about Rolemaster, b/c I do enjoy the game, but it goes a lil overboard at times.