Well that was fun...

breschau

First Post
Hey, thanks to everyone who has responded. I appreciate the comments, both straight and snarky.

1. Minis. Yes, minis have been implicit in the game design since the beginning. I am one of the people who have used them from the start. I only commented about non-minis users being silly to show how much in the minis camp I am. So, if that pissed you off, sorry.

Minis are far more essential to the game now than ever before. Why? Because so many powers push, pull, slide, or scoot the target a square or two. Spells and weapons have always had specific listed ranges. Sure. But before you could guess and fudge a little without too much worry. So much of the new stuff is short-ranged (1-3 squares) that you have to keep precise track or you lose out on the RAW.

2. Warforged. Yes, the MM intro text states it's more for NPCs, but as already mentioned, WotC staffers have claimed we could play them from the start. To have an article that supersedes that part of the core rulebooks on day one is ridiculous. To some that says, "we're serious about DDI and it's usefulness." To me that says, "we're not going to put out the best books, we're going to save some stuff that should go in the books for people who pay more." I like the warforged article. I like the changes and additions. I just think if they were going to have that info ready this early in the release it should have been in the books.

3. Burn out / inspiration. I'm not burnt out. I've been hounding my regular group and other gamer friends to play for the last two months trying to set up times to play, etc. I have games scheduled and I'm still going to play because I want to be wrong. I want this game to rock as much as I hoped it would. I hope I'm wrong. I love RPGs and have played for years. All different kinds of games over the years. Lots of books and lots of money. I'm even a freelancer for one of the d20 publishers (won't disclose, don't ask). I'm a gamer. This is my hobby of choice. I buy books all the time, far more than I have time to play and read all of them just because I like to read them and learn about new settings, systems, npcs, and story ideas. Not burnt out. Just disappointed in this particular game. The substance has yet to live up to the hype.

So many things seem so cool as a kid. Watch an old movie you used to love as a child and you'll likely grimace. I have. But that doesn't change my love of the game. I don't expect WotC to sell me back my childhood. That's just silly. As pointed out, that'll never happen. I don't expect them to. What I do expect is something more than just rules. Something. A bit of imaginative text about the races, classes, skills, something. No, an italicized single-line quote doesn't count.

4. Layout / design / art. These are all about the look of the game. Design here is part of layout and design; graphic design, not the game mechanics. I'm also a book designer. The graphic elements to this edition are far better than all previous editions. Very well done. I absolutely compliment the crew who worked on the graphic design. It's fabulous. My complaints are all about the game mechanics. It's that tricky design word. It's screwing things up.

5. Powers. You get just enough through the levels to keep up with the two pre-fab builds. I don't think that's enough. I like that they included quick start builds. That's great. I just don't like that powers tailored to those two builds are basically all that was included. To me, that's lame. Just that you have 10 pages of powers per class (not including paragon paths, epic destinies, or rituals) times 8 classes, for 80+ pages of powers. In a 320 page book. A full quarter of the book. In AD&D the PH was 132 pages, 60 or so were spells, nearly half the book. Yet, the managed to get druids, wizards, clerics, and illusionists spells in there. All different enough and mostly useful. In this edition the powers are stock.

More later I'm sure...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MerricB

Eternal Optimist
Supporter
breschau said:
AD&D the PH was 132 pages, 60 or so were spells, nearly half the book. Yet, the managed to get druids, wizards, clerics, and illusionists spells in there. All different enough and mostly useful. In this edition the powers are stock.

Hmm. I'm not sure about "mostly useful". All low-level magic-users basically took "sleep" or sucked. By high levels, magic missile was the 1st level spell of choice. Shocking Grasp or Burning Hands? Major suckitude.

They read well. They look useful, but with the Vancian spellcasting system, you really, really need to justify why you took Remove Fear over Cure Light Wounds. Or Snake Charm, unless you were utterly sure you were going to go up against snakes.

Incidentally: Druids had 78 spells in the AD&D PHB. Clerics had 76. Illusionists had 66. Wizards were the winners, with 194 spells!

Clerics in 4e have 94 powers, plus access to the 30 or so rituals.

Cheers!
 

MerricB

Eternal Optimist
Supporter
Imaro said:
Really, just really...ok let's test this out.

4e description of Basilisk: Basilisks are predatory reptiles that hunt with a deadly gaze attack. They are not malicious creatures, but their gaze makes them widely feared.

3e description of a Basilisk: A basilisk is a reptilian monster that petrifies living creatures with a mere gaze. Surviving a fight with a basilisk requires either careful preparation or considerable good fortune.
Basilisks are found in nearly every climate, and often in underground areas as well. They tend to lair in shallow burrows, caves or other sheltered areas. The entrance to a basilisks lair is sometimes distinguished by lifelike stone statues or carvings, which are actually creatures that ran afoul of the creatures gaze. Basilisks are omnivorous and able to consume their petrified victims. They make effective guardians, if one has the magical or monetary resources to capture and contain them.
A basilisk usually has a dull brown body with a yellowish underbelly. Some specimens sport a short, curved horn atop the nose. An adult basilisks body grows to about 6 feet long, not including it's tail which can reach an additional length of 5 to 7 feet. The creature weighs about 300 pounds.

I don't think it's nostalgia, faulty memory or unreasonable expectations. The description in 3.5 is brimming with inspiration for adventures with a basilisk, the 4e one is just flat.

Uh... let's be accurate, shall we?

Also in the 4e basilisk description:

"Basilisks are strangely evolved drakes. As such, they can be domesticated and trained. The venom-eye basilisk's poisonous gaze is empowered by the beast's spirit. The creature itself isn't venomous; consequently, the venom can't be captured and used for other purposes. A stone-eye's basilisk's jaws are so strong that it can chew up and devour creatures it has petrified with its gaze.

"A small pack of wild basilisks is called a clutch. Like a wolf pack, a clutch coordinates to hunt and its members live together in a communal den. Tamed basilisks can be found among various humanoids."

Oh, and a colour picture.

There are areas in 4e where the description is quite light; there are other areas where it far outstrips anything in 1e.
 

WayneLigon

Adventurer
breschau said:
What I do expect is something more than just rules. Something. A bit of imaginative text about the races, classes, skills, something. No, an italicized single-line quote doesn't count.

5. Powers. You get just enough through the levels to keep up with the two pre-fab builds. I don't think that's enough.

I think that these are responses to what people said they wanted. One of the more common complaints about the 4E preview material was 'you're forcing fluff on us, especially fluff that is part and parcel of the rules', so a lot of fluff was probably cut.

One of the more common complaints about 3E was the complexity of the build system. People were saying they were overwhelmed with options. So now, there are basic paths and further options will no doubt be put in optional books.
 

Imaro

Legend
MerricB said:
Uh... let's be accurate, shall we?

Also in the 4e basilisk description:

"Basilisks are strangely evolved drakes. As such, they can be domesticated and trained. The venom-eye basilisk's poisonous gaze is empowered by the beast's spirit. The creature itself isn't venomous; consequently, the venom can't be captured and used for other purposes. A stone-eye's basilisk's jaws are so strong that it can chew up and devour creatures it has petrified with its gaze.

"A small pack of wild basilisks is called a clutch. Like a wolf pack, a clutch coordinates to hunt and its members live together in a communal den. Tamed basilisks can be found among various humanoids

Oh, and a colour picture.

There are areas in 4e where the description is quite light; there are other areas where it far outstrips anything in 1e.

Uhm... I was comparing to 3e not 1e???

How does it (sometimes) outstripping an edition over 20 years old but not adequately matching the previous edition add anything to the argument?

In all honestly I typed what was in the description text of each entry (though I see where you're pulling this from...the knowledge check results), there's more in 3.5 as well but I still feel the 4e MM is woefully uninspiring and sparse, especially when compared with 3.5
 


IanArgent

First Post
Silverblade The Ench said:
In general I find 4th ed much better, but I woudl gladly pay for an extra 50 pages in total of fluff, fluff is important to me :)

I'm reasonably sure WotC will be glad to sell you around 200 pages of fluff come the campaign settings...
 

lutecius

Explorer
stonegod said:
I believe the statement was never "gnomes will be completely playable" but "you *can* play a gnome, though it won't get all the cool PC benes."
That's not even the case:
"These traits and powers are provided to help DMs create NPCs. This info can also be used as guidelines for creating player character versions of these creatures, within reason. Note that these traits and powers are more in line with monster powers than with PCs powers."
This introduction strongly implies that the write-ups are not useable as is, and may not even be balanced.


Fifth Element said:
Yes, that's right. But that won't stop some from inferring a written-in-stone promise from WotC that they can now claim has been broken.
That didn't stop some from using it as an answer to those who complained about not being able to play a gnome out of the box. It was something dangled to placate gnome players who didn't care for tiefling or dragonborn.
 

Henry

Autoexreginated
lutecius said:
That's not even the case: This introduction strongly implies that the write-ups are not useable as is, and may not even be balanced.


That didn't stop some from using it as an answer to those who complained about not being able to play a gnome out of the box. It was something dangled to placate gnome players who didn't care for tiefling or dragonborn.

Depending on the powers, they might be perfectly fine as-is for PCs, just BECAUSE the PCs don't get the extra racial feat options. :)

(Darn you, Monday! Bring my books!)
 

MerricB

Eternal Optimist
Supporter
Imaro said:
Uhm... I was comparing to 3e not 1e???

That's what happens when there are two arguments going at once... and the 1e Basilisk entry is almost identical in flavour text to the 3e entry...

In all honestly I typed what was in the description text of each entry (though I see where you're pulling this from...the knowledge check results), there's more in 3.5 as well but I still feel the 4e MM is woefully uninspiring and sparse, especially when compared with 3.5

You have to read the entirity of the entry in the 4e MM, especially the Lore entries. Have a look at the Lore entry for the Cyclops (page 48).

Honestly, I've been really inspired by the new descriptions in the 4e MM for all the primordial vs god details and the creatures that have come out of that. I think that some monsters have had their descriptive text pared back simply because it is dull.

Cheers!
 

Remove ads

Top