Wired Reviews 4e

[Inyssius]

I think WotC did a huge disservice to themselves by omitting some of the things they chose to omit. I'm not a fan of gnomes ... but I like them in my D&D.

Augh! Why does everyone keep saying this? GNOMES ARE IN CORE! THEY'RE PLAYABLE! THEY'RE PLAYABLE IN CORE! PLAYERS CAN PLAY AS THEM AND EVERYTHING!

 

[The Little Raven]

Augh! Why does everyone keep saying this? GNOMES ARE IN CORE! THEY'RE PLAYABLE! THEY'RE PLAYABLE IN CORE! PLAYERS CAN PLAY AS THEM AND EVERYTHING!

It's because they're not in the PHB, because the gnome fans can't possibly conceive of the fact that a lot of other people didn't like gnomes and WotC might have actually listened to the majority of their audience.

 

[korjik]

It's because they're not in the PHB, because the gnome fans can't possibly conceive of the fact that a lot of other people didn't like gnomes and WotC might have actually listened to the majority of their audience.

And this misses the entire point of the complaint. Some think that the rather generic core races of prior editions is a good thing, and the rather specialized core races of 4e is not a good thing.

Not that I disagree with Mourn. Gnomes are not a big loss in the PHB.

 

[coyote6]

Ari Marmell first codified this for me, and in my playtests I'd seen it myself but didn't put a solid finger to it before then; however, there are a number of things that are very "retro" or "retro reminiscent" about 4e for me. People are missing the forest because of the trees, figuratively.

• classes play as strong of a role in 4e as they do in pre-3e editions. This was lost in 3e, and reclaimed in 4e, through the changes to multiclassing and through the paragon paths.

This is the thing about 4e that's been troubling me, and I'm pretty sure will bug me a lot over time. I didn't like that part of pre-3e editions, enough so that I didn't play D&D of any kind from roughly 1987 through late 2000. I suspect 4e will not be for me, because of this; which is too bad, because I so far like most of the other changes (e.g., monster design, character powers, etc.), and I had fun playing the one-shot D&D Game Day adventure yesterday. But long term? Eh.

I haven't had a chance to really read the books yet, so maybe it won't be as annoying as I suspect. If it is, oh well -- I'll have to play other games.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Which edition of first edition did you play?

When I look at my old several hundred page DMG and Player's handbooks with no skills or feats or paths, purely random generation, 36 levels, and 9 alignments, the only thing I see in common in random dungeon generation.

Plus, 4E has no:

.5 orc, druid, assassin, illusionist, gnome, monk, bard, psionics, magic-user (4E has sorcerer named Wizard), magic-user familiar, or ranger animal companion.

And, worst of all...


No wandering Harlot table.

Good lord...Arcady!

It's been years

 

[Teflon Billy]

2 fanboyz for the price of... whatever. Guess I hit a nerve.

Open your 1E book and look up the name of the guy with spells per day and a familiar.

Gnome? Not in my PHB. It's a monster in the MM, sure, but it's not in the PHB as a PC race.

Neither of you managed to challenge any of the point I was making... you just picked little pieces you thought you could use to make me look bad through misdirection and sidetracking away from the actual post I was making.

Get used to that if you are back.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Late to the party, but...

What amuses me is some people point out particular mechanics (like healing surges) and call them "video game-like," but can't point out a single video game that uses them.

Many arcade combat (not RPG) games have a mechanic in which, if knocked down, your fighter can gain increments on his life bar by pushing buttons/wiggling a joystick rapidly.

So yes, "video game-like"/"video-gamey"

psionics

Since when has the Player's Handbook ever had psionics? Did the 3.5 PHB have psionics? Did the 3E PHB have psionics? Did the AD&D PHB have psionics? This is a bogus complaint. Just as in every prior iteration of D&D, psionics will appear in a later supplement.

The 1Ed AD&D PHB had psionics. They were in an appendix, true, but they were in there nonetheless.

Gnome? Not in my PHB. It's a monster in the MM, sure, but it's not in the PHB as a PC race.

I'm getting really curious, now. What's so unusable, mechanically, about the Gnome entry from the 4E MM? I keep hearing people say, "It's unusable" but yet people like Mearls and Noonan say, "yes, you can." Is it the lack of feats? Is it that conditional invisibility thing? What else is unusable about it, other than, "it's not in the PHB"?

First, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are DMs- many IME (YMMV)- who flatly disallow the playing of non-PHB as PC races (I'm not one, but I play with several). This edition may change that, but that isn't the point. This design choice directly impacts a lot of players in a negative way.

Second, my perception of the Gnome entry in the back of the 4Ed MM is that it is less powerful than the PHB racial entries, in part due to the lack of racial feats. Its a gimping of a race that some people already perceive as being weak and niche-less... Piling on, anyone?

That said, I was less disappointed than I thought I'd be with the 4Ed MM PC Gnome...and far more disappointed than I thought I'd be with the 4Ed MM PC entries for some of the other creatures listed there, especially the more brutish critters like the Minotaur.

And besides...gnomes & 1/2 Orcs getting axed in favor of having Dragonborn, Tieflings and 2 1/2 flavors of Elf? YECHHH!

Don't get me wrong- I like the Dragonborn, and I always liked and played elves...but 1) Not at the expense of the Gnome, 2) Extra "elf" races are largely superfluous and could have been handled as options within a single race, and 3) if the 1/2 Orc went away, so should the 1/2 Elf, IMHO.

And Tieflings? They could- I'm sorry, should- have been some stripe of customizable and flexible race that encompassed a variety of what 3.X termed "Planetouched." Like I mentioned with the "elves," they could have used the same mechanics as they did to introduce flexibility in the Classes by making players choose a set of options. Giving us the one planetouched race without at least some of the others irks me fiercely as a missed opportunity and lazy game design. (I didn't care for all of the planetouched, but some were just as much fun as the Tiefling.)

 

[Henry]

First, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are DMs- many IME (YMMV)- who flatly disallow the playing of non-PHB as PC races (I'm not one, but I play with several). This edition may change that, but that isn't the point. This design choice directly impacts a lot of players in a negative way.

Those are more than likely to be the SAME DMs who will disallow Dragonborn and Tieflings, and replace them with Gnomes and Orcs/half-orcs, anyway.

As for your "planetouched" argument, I agree totally. I'd rather have them in as one more variant human, celestial/tiefling, than have tieflings without the aasimar/celestials.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Those are more than likely to be the SAME DMs who will disallow Dragonborn and Tieflings, and replace them with Gnomes and Orcs/half-orcs, anyway.

Quite possibly true...or they'll just stick to the PHB and let the Gnomes and half-orcs R.I.P. Only time will tell, though.

After all, even though I have some very negative opinions of 4Ed- I'm pretty sure I'll never run a campaign in this edition- I think the Dragonborn are definitely something they did 100% right*.

I'm sure others will think much the same and keep them.

* OK, 98%- the females shouldn't have boobies.

 

[Rel]

* OK, 98%- the females shouldn't have boobies.

Get your realism out of my Fantasy! *shakes fist*