You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[Nellisir]

Hmm, your response was so brief Nellisir you left me nothing to work with, speaking only to the effect of 'no, you're wrong.' I look forward to a more in depth response to my points.

Dude, I'm closing on my house in two weeks. I'm working full-time finishing it (and by finishing I mean railings, cabinets, trim, siding, windows), plus packing 8 years of stuff for two adults, a toddler, two dogs, and two cats, and putting it all in storage because we haven't had time to buy a new house. Going back and slowly explaining my original post to you is not extremely high on my list of priorities.

Defender, striker, controller, leader are all descriptions of mechanical roles that a character takes in combat. They are not thematic roles. The "original" "core" classes - fighter, wizard, cleric, thief - are thematic. They relate to a theme, not a mechanism. 4e has elevated the mechanical roles above the thematic roles.

 

[Buzzardo]

For the record. I am old school. Been playing since age 12 in 1980.

I have been reading the 4.0 PHB (better called the CHB in my opinion (Combat Hand Book) for the last 2 days.

I am totally dismayed.

My 1 word review of 4e: SOULLESS

This is a huge strategic blunder on the part of Hasbro/Wotc in a business sense, and a catastophe for the game I love.

There is more to the game than fighting, combat and killing stuff!!!!!

Aarrgghh!!!

WOTC is already in damage control mode in industry publications, trying to put down the backlash from FLGS owners getting flack from their regulars. Urging FLGS owners to just "shut up and take the money" because they believe they can shove it down our throats, and that we have no choice.

Anybody want to buy a slightly used 4e PHB? $25. Message me and I'll give you my paypal details...

 

[Felix]

WOTC is already in damage control mode in industry publications

Eh? Fill me in on this, if you have the chance.

Also, are stores not accepting returns on the 4e PHB?

 

[Buzzardo]

I haven't tried to return it, but that is a good idea. I didn't keep the receipt. Never had the slightest thought of trying to return a single gaming product in 28 years. This is a first for me.

I have a buddy in a neighboring town that owns a FLGS. I called him today to get his impressions. He is not happy with 4e, but it is selling well for him.

He told me had read several industry mags (he didn't specify which ones... I presume Game Trader was one...). He said that the tone is that many store owners have complained to their WOTC reps directly, and many more have passed on complaints from customers.

WOTC offical line is: quit complaining and just take the money. The stuff is selling well and just wait and see. It will all work out in the end and everyone will be happy, when they warm up to it.

That is all I know. I'll call him again tommorow and get more details.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Dude, I'm closing on my house in two weeks. I'm working full-time finishing it...

...Defender, striker, controller, leader are all descriptions of mechanical roles that a character takes in combat. They are not thematic roles. The "original" "core" classes - fighter, wizard, cleric, thief - are thematic. They relate to a theme, not a mechanism. 4e has elevated the mechanical roles above the thematic roles.

Whoa, a bit hostile there, was I supposed to know about your current condition? And is there any reason you expect that I think you should consider me high on your list of priorities? Uh, well, good luck with your moving anyway. Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism. You have the cunning, the wise, the healer, I suppose, and the tough. The roles relate to a theme. So, if anything, both editions are the same. Even if one edition emphasizes one or the other, what's wrong with that? Sorry, I'm a bit lost on this.

Hi Fuzzle =D

Hi, how are you? Well, I of course can't really change your mindset, but in relation to clerics I never felt there was an insane amount of choice. I mean, you picked your 2 domains and the 1 domain spell a day was what made you different from the other clerics. As far as good and evil clerics, Inflict Wounds sucks. A lot. I wouldn't say a huge list of feats, there wasn't that much to choose from in core 3.5, in terms of optimum feats. As far as the huge list of spells, for sure, 3.5 absolutely wins here. But when you consider the balance that had to be made since every class now has a list of spells, I'm not too bothered. I suppose we'll always differ on this point. If you want a cleric/rogue, this is possible in 4E too, even if 'multi-classing is a joke.' A level 10 Cleric/Level 10 rogue I think would be a real joke, being absolute junk to a level 20 cleric, due to loss of spell level. In 4E, at least you're not losing spell level and you're gaining rogue abilities if you so desire.

The new alignment system gets rid of Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil. I can't argue with your experience I'm sure, seeing as how your saying the old alignments go back 30 years, but I'm not sure how junking these alignments is the 'worst possible approach you could imagine.' I mean, why not? To paraphrase one of the articles talking about the new alignment, what was the difference between Chaotic Good and Neutral Good? Did they really see any differently? Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil the same way. You can either follow the laws or break the laws. Assuming evil, if you don't care about breaking laws, Chaotic Evil is a good approach, if you do slightly, then Evil is the best approach. I respect your opinion, but on this point I don't see why you think it's terrible.

As far as rolling for stats, that sucked for my group. If you used rerolls in your game, you might as well have been using point buy. If not, then people could roll terribly and be in the same group with average and above average people. Maybe having a character with 4 negative stats was a fun roleplaying opportunity or something, but to me that's just unworkable characters. Rolling a 1 on hitpoints was crippling, and martial classes of 3.5 had not much choice in core, no more than 4E for sure. Powers, powers, powers. You have to pick one out of four encounter powers at first level, one out of four dailies, and this repeats every time you get a new encounter or daily. So, plenty of option, for all classes.

 

[Aqua Vitae]

I am totally dismayed.

My 1 word review of 4e: SOULLESS

I second that.

WOTC is already in damage control mode in industry publications, trying to put down the backlash from FLGS owners getting flack from their regulars. Urging FLGS owners to just "shut up and take the money" because they believe they can shove it down our throats, and that we have no choice.

And they can rely on this assumption, too, as people will buy the product simply because WotC have annexed "D&D" to it.

Anybody want to buy a slightly used 4e PHB? $25. Message me and I'll give you my paypal details...

I returned mine to my bookstore.

They asked, "And why do you wish to return this product?"

I replied, "I thought it was D&D."

 

[Aqua Vitae]

Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism. You have the cunning, the wise, the healer, I suppose, and the tough. The roles relate to a theme.

Because they are roles that relate to combat. That is how they are defined. A "striker," "defender," "controller," and "leader" where combat is concerned. If it is thematic at all, it is only such in relation to combat.

What I liked about previous editions was that the class, and its name, conveyed thematic elements thereof. There wasn't a need for some meta-classification in terms of combat roles, along the silly lines of "striker," et al.

 

[hong]

Because they are roles that relate to combat. That is how they are defined. A "striker," "defender," "controller," and "leader" where combat is concerned. If it is thematic at all, it is only such in relation to combat.

What I liked about previous editions was that the class, and its name, conveyed thematic elements thereof. There wasn't a need for some meta-classification in terms of combat roles, along the silly lines of "striker," et al.

I wasn't aware that "paladin" in 3E conveyed thematic elements, but "paladin" in 4E doesn't.

 

[billd91]

Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism. You have the cunning, the wise, the healer, I suppose, and the tough. The roles relate to a theme. So, if anything, both editions are the same. Even if one edition emphasizes one or the other, what's wrong with that? Sorry, I'm a bit lost on this.

There's an element of cart going before the horse in 4e. In previous editions, particularly early D&D and AD&D, the 4 roles as distilled by 4e weren't very well defined. Yes, the fighter and cleric tended to stand in front because they had the best ACs and the best hit points, but that was about the only element of a mechanical role they had. Thieves had a significant backstab, but it was hard to put it into play and only worked on a single blow, whereupon surprise would be lost, thus mooting any further attempts to backstab.

Mechanics were built more around thematic ideas (cleric as templar, fighter as close-in combat monster, etc) than some overarching structure of "roles" in combat. Mechanics in 4e are derived from the role assigned to the character and not the other way around.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

People look at the combat role of a class, and complain it has no thematic elements. Why?

Ever looked at the power source? This introduces your _first_ real thematic element (though I'd argue that it's also a theme whether I "lead" people in combat or "control" the battle-field. But it's only the combat theme)

And then, have you looked at the actual classes?
There is the Ranger, there is the Rogue. Both are Martial Strikers.
If it's true that the classes of 4E do not offer any thematic elements, or are not designed around them, why do these different classes exist?
Did you look at all their powers? Especially the utility powers? Don't you see the thematic differences?