D&D 4E What's Wrong With 4e Simply Put

[Rechan]

You do - you can use your higher level spell slots (and the bonus slots from high casting stats) to cast your cantrip, if you wish. It's probably not a very good use of a higher level spell slot, but you can if you want to.

Sure, you can if you want to sacrifice your utility to just cast "Sweep the floor" as many times as you could cast your other spells.

But seriously, an Archmage should be able to cast "Sweep the Floor" all day long. That should be like blinking for him. Just as a warrior who can parry a goblin's attack in his sleep; he's so dang good at it that takes no effort at all. In fact, his "Sweep the floor" should probably sweep the top varnish off the wood and banish the dirt to the lower planes or something, just by the sheer magical muscle that he's got behind it.

 

[Betote]

D&D is IMO the mechanics, the spells, the stats, ie. the system. It is a system that can be ported to any number of fantasy concepts and that IMO is its strength.

I partly agree with you on that. And I'd be very happy if 4E streamlined those mechanics enough for it to be able to accomodate as many fantasy flavours as possible. I just wouldn't like that, for them to do that, my preferred style (D&D-fantasy, with all the D&Disms) were ostracised.

I'm worried abut the way they said the classes are going to work. I want each class to do its "thing" differently, not everyone having the same renamed spells. I want the Mearls of Book of Iron Might (which I use in my games), not the one of BoNS.

There're some issues on 3.x, though, that I'd love to see managed, length of combat scenes being the main one of them.

I shouldn't have said Greyhawk didn't have flavor. I should have said that 3.0-3.5 core setting Greyhawk is flavorless, souless and evil. It is the demonborn bastard child of the original Greyhawk and souless "suits" who merely wanted to jack up 3e sales by adding the Greyhawk name for the sake of brand recognition and grognard cred.

Greyhawk deserves more respect than it has gotten in the 3e era.

To me, Greyhawk is Erik Mona and James Jacobs. And I have to say that I'm incredibly comfortable when using this setting for my games

 

[Kintara]

Sure, you can if you want to sacrifice your utility to just cast "Sweep the floor" as many times as you could cast your other spells.

But seriously, an Archmage should be able to cast "Sweep the Floor" all day long. That should be like blinking for him. Just as a warrior who can parry a goblin's attack in his sleep; he's so dang good at it that takes no effort at all.

Yeah, also, I find that it makes perfect sense for wizards to master simple effects so that they can do it as much as they like. Something like "Sweep the Floor" should be pretty easy to do a lot, I would think, once you have the hang of it (not long). In other words, you shouldn't need to be even close to "high level" before you can do basic cantrips as often as desired. Most cantrips are such that I don't really understand why they aren't always "at will." Adventurers should be past worrying about whether they have enough magic power to create a shower of pretty sparks or clean your clothes off. It gives Wizards a little flash for little downside. I don't see what's so bad about that.

Edit: If it would be considered a luxury to waste time doing it, then who cares if they can do it a lot?

 

[Aeolius]

Or you know, you could wait until the books are out and then investigate when you have all the material in your FLGS?

The closest store is 30+ minutes away. My FLGS is amazon.com.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sure, you can if you want to sacrifice your utility to just cast "Sweep the floor" as many times as you could cast your other spells.

But seriously, an Archmage should be able to cast "Sweep the Floor" all day long. That should be like blinking for him. Just as a warrior who can parry a goblin's attack in his sleep; he's so dang good at it that takes no effort at all. In fact, his "Sweep the floor" should probably sweep the top varnish off the wood and banish the dirt to the lower planes or something, just by the sheer magical muscle that he's got behind it.

Enter one 1st level spell Cantrip, duration 1 hour/level, allows you to use all the cantrips in your spellbook for as long as it's running.

 

[Cbas_10]

Isn't there a company whose tagline is "An adventure/dungeon where you don't have to talk to anyone"? Wasn't 1e basically "Go into a dungeon, take the loot, and kill the thing that owns it"? Loot = XP in 1e. How is that not "Go into dungeon, kill/loot, repeat"? Most of the D&D system in the books is geared towards combat. The vast majority of the feats, spells, etc are geared towards "killing the opponent".

Also, there are social MMORPGs, just so you know.

There may be someone with the No-Talking tagline. Don't know. I wouldn't buy that product, either. And regarding 1e...you are right. I don't like 1e, either. And a very good point about the majority of feats and spells being about killing the opponent. But, not all of them. My point here (and elsewhere) has been a concern about these non-combat aspects being absent from the game since WotC has not talked about anything but combat.

And I don't doubt that there are social MMOs. I have not played them all and am not an expert in the genre. But looking at the more popular/well-known ones, they are simple (in concept...not simple to play or master) and fun kill-fests-of-powermongering. I like them. I also like D&D at a table with friends where we can have cool characters that spark our imaginations. I just don't want a game that stifles or ignores the role-playing aspect of a role-playing game.

I don't want a situation where everyone is forced to get into deep characters and have periodic diceless sessions of pure intrigue; it might not be your style. Play a dungeon, kill stuff, and go home. Cool...it is your game. However, I also don't want a situation where the option is stripped from the game, requiring mounds of house rules to reinsert an aspect that has (at least for some gamers) brought fun to the table.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Problem with that reference is that WoD 2.0 sucks. Not mechanically mind you, but purely fluff wise - when they hit the reset button so they could go to a new edition, they added only Five Clans/Tribes/Bla, and the options were lame compared to the earlier clans/tribes.

It's only a problem in that people focus on that instead of what they accomplished with nWoD: In addition to revised rules, they also cleared away the incredibly daunting metaplot that served as a barrier to later entry in the oWoD. The notion that stuff in ongoing games would be affected by books no longer even in print (and not yet in PDF) was off-putting to more than one player, I know from personal experience.

Again, it's not about the current players. There's not enough of them for the future of the industry. Doing what's worked in the past is not going to significantly expand the market. The big RPG companies have to do something different, or there won't be an RPG hobby in two decades, possibly less.

 

[Cbas_10]

Why would the XP penalty rules encourage you to level unequally? It seems to me to be the opposite, unless your race hands you a pass. Personally, I think you should be able to make an Elf Ranger/Cleric without worrying about sucking.

I think they are going to handle this by scaling class abilities by character level. I suspect that multiclassed characters like, say, a Cleric X/Ranger X, will have cross-niche versatility, but it's at the expense of some depth and well-roundedness in either class (like you'd expect, except that now the abilities you pick up will scale more nicely, so the price you pay isn't power, but in selection). I'm actually looking forward to trying a Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard as a "fifth character."

Regarding rules and unequal multiclassing...I never meant to say or imply that the rules encourage unequal levelling. I meant that the rules assume it will happen because the designers probably already knew what we figured out 3 days after the PHB came out: having a main class and adding on a level or two of other classes would be very common and powerful. Thus...the XP penalties, and no XP penalties to go the weaker route of even levelling.

And your point (whether you are serious or just having fun with the thought) is what I am really wondering. Through multiclassing in a manner that allows your fighter 10/wizard 10 to cast spells at about the same level of ability as a wizard 20.....why would single class characters exist? Maybe a fighter (or whatever the new equivalent is) loses bonus feats and the wizard side loses extras like bonus feats or the familiar or something to multiclass as a wizard and allow fighting AND spell casting to go up at Character Level rates. But that is why I am here....to keep my mind open about 4e, learn more as it comes out, keep reading, and hope that I'm part of the voices WotC hears when it comes to future development.

 

[Betote]

Enter one 1st level spell Cantrip, duration 1 hour/level, allows you to use all the cantrips in your spellbook for as long as it's running.

I'm totally proposing that spell to my players next session

Cantrip
Universal
Level: All spell casting classes 1
Components: V, S
Casting time: 1 swift action
Range: personal
Target: you
Duration: 1 hour/level
You can cast any 0-level spell you are able to cast (i.e. you have memorised/prepared/readied... for this day) as a spell-like ability for the duration of this spell. Healing spells being cast this way can't raise a character's current hp above half its maximum total.

(The last line was added to prevent clerics from fully healing everyone in the party between encounters)

 

[Rechan]

There may be someone with the No-Talking tagline. Don't know. I wouldn't buy that product, either. And regarding 1e...you are right. I don't like 1e, either. And a very good point about the majority of feats and spells being about killing the opponent. But, not all of them. My point here (and elsewhere) has been a concern about these non-combat aspects being absent from the game since WotC has not talked about anything but combat.

And my point is that D&D has by and large always been about killing monsters and taking their stuff, not that it's an effect of "The MMOs are coming".

I just don't want a game that stifles or ignores the role-playing aspect of a role-playing game.

I don't want a situation where everyone is forced to get into deep characters and have periodic diceless sessions of pure intrigue; it might not be your style. Play a dungeon, kill stuff, and go home. Cool...it is your game. However, I also don't want a situation where the option is stripped from the game, requiring mounds of house rules to reinsert an aspect that has (at least for some gamers) brought fun to the table.

...

Do you know what the extent of Social rules are in 3.x D&D? Bluff Vs Sense Motive, or Diplomacy/Intimidation vs. HD check. That's it.

I don't see how you're suddenly going to "lose" all the great options that 3e offers you. Because it doesn't. I've said it a bunch of times, but if you want to play an intrigue, social-focused game, D&D is not the system for it. Not because those types of games can't fit in a D&D world, or that D&D players just can't handle those games, but the system is not made for it. There are quite a few systems out there that have non-violent, social and intrigue built into them from the ground up, and trying to shoe-horn that into D&D is a severe headache.

As someone who is, right now, running a Mystery/Investigation game with 3.5, I can tell you first hand it's a real PITA.