Jürgen Hubert
First Post
What's wrong with 4E is that I don't have it yet. :\
What is wrong with 4E?
- Thread starter waysoftheearth
- Start date
Heh--agreed. At the end of running the first session of KotS, I felt like we'd just played Robo Rally.pawsplay said:
Of course, I love Robo Rally, so I suppose D&D 4E will find a place in my overall hobby landscape, but it seems to have shifted locations from previous editions.
Intense_Interest
First Post
Tetsubo said:
Sacred Cows make tasty Beef.
Dr. Who called you about 25 years ago.
"People who tolerate THAC0" wasn't a good demographic in the first place.
Well hopefully the new minions rules will mean that the edition war should be able to resolve itself much quicker than in the past.
I like some of the mechanics changes - rituals, combining skills, etc. Most of the changes are ones that I can't quite figure out how they'll affect my game yet. For example, there are things like salamanders being 14th level monsters that I'm not sure about. I thought 14th level was "paragon"? Are they saying that salamanders are the kind of foe that only the paragons of humanity (or tiefling-aty or whatever) can fight against? Not quite what I thought of when I think of a salamander. So while I find the division of things into tiers to be an interesting concept, the actual game elements that were assigned to the various tiers seem almost completely arbitrary.
Then again, platinum is worth 100 times as much as gold for reasons I can't quite figure either. Somehow, while the game designers were vaguely aware of the craziness of adventurers being crushed under the weight of their treasure, the obvious solution to this did not present itself and so now we have astral diamonds instead. Since when is an adventurer being really really rich a cinematic concept anyway?
Action points are awarded for not boring the DM, as far as I can tell. As a DM, I like the precedent that this is setting. As a gamer, I'm not too sure.
Apparently, Points of Light is a nice way of greatly minimizing the amount of non-killable stuff in the game world. Tolkien would be pleased.
Somewhere in the rules there's a statement that your character can only sell mundane equipment if it's ok with the DM. What happens if my character walks up to an NPC and says "I'll give you this sword for 5 gp"? Does the NPC just ignore him and slink away? Do I get an out-of-game lecture from the DM on the evils of capitalism? The rules didn't particularly elaborate and I'm wondering how they expected DMs to handle this.
I like some of the mechanics changes - rituals, combining skills, etc. Most of the changes are ones that I can't quite figure out how they'll affect my game yet. For example, there are things like salamanders being 14th level monsters that I'm not sure about. I thought 14th level was "paragon"? Are they saying that salamanders are the kind of foe that only the paragons of humanity (or tiefling-aty or whatever) can fight against? Not quite what I thought of when I think of a salamander. So while I find the division of things into tiers to be an interesting concept, the actual game elements that were assigned to the various tiers seem almost completely arbitrary.
Then again, platinum is worth 100 times as much as gold for reasons I can't quite figure either. Somehow, while the game designers were vaguely aware of the craziness of adventurers being crushed under the weight of their treasure, the obvious solution to this did not present itself and so now we have astral diamonds instead. Since when is an adventurer being really really rich a cinematic concept anyway?
Action points are awarded for not boring the DM, as far as I can tell. As a DM, I like the precedent that this is setting. As a gamer, I'm not too sure.
Apparently, Points of Light is a nice way of greatly minimizing the amount of non-killable stuff in the game world. Tolkien would be pleased.
Somewhere in the rules there's a statement that your character can only sell mundane equipment if it's ok with the DM. What happens if my character walks up to an NPC and says "I'll give you this sword for 5 gp"? Does the NPC just ignore him and slink away? Do I get an out-of-game lecture from the DM on the evils of capitalism? The rules didn't particularly elaborate and I'm wondering how they expected DMs to handle this.
Intense_Interest
First Post
gizmo33 said:
"The Peasant doesn't have the Cash On Hand" is about the same amount of "Ok with the DM" with a lot more added strength to Rule 0.
Wisdom Penalty
First Post
Tetsubo said:
Been playing since '78 as well. So we cancel each other out. 4E continues to take our game forward, just as the other editions have done (excepting, perhaps, 2E).
With each move forward, people fall off. That's sad, but it's life.
4E is an unmitigated commercial success. Young people seem to be purchasing it (anecdotal evidence, I'll allow). These things are good for D&D, for the community, for the hobby, and - believe it or not - for you.
Ahhh....here I go typing the same thing again to the same type of complaints. Dammit I wish I had a dollar for every time I was dumb enough to do that.
That's why they call me -
Wisdom Penalty
The Little Raven
First Post
malraux said:
Quoted for mother trucking truth.
If you were a part of D&D's target demographic 20 years ago, guess what? You're now 20 years older, which may put you outside of that demographic.
Intense_Interest said:
Just that one peasant? Then the players will ask another. And then the DM will make some generalized statement about peasants and wealth-level in his campaign. A statement that he has no intention of writing down or making consistent with the other aspects of his campaign world. At this point, I think pseudo-simulationist reasoning with regards to peasant wealth levels is a waste of everyone's time. The DM doesn't mean it, and players of reasonable intelligence won't believe it anyway. In any case, it would be nice if the authors of the game could explain these basics at some point.
Mourn said:
If it was the sort of truth that you describe then I would see the "may put you" part of that as being unecessary. I would think such truth could be stated with less equivocation. "DnD is designed for players age 9 to 15" or something like that on the books cover. And I think it's a little presumptuous to make people guess at what, so far as I can tell, exists only in your (and like-minded persons) imagination. If this is not your imagining, and WotC has made statements regarding it's target demographic (and they may have, I don't know) then I would be interested in seeing those statements so I can save myself some time reading between the lines.
