PDA

View Full Version : 4E: My View (Not that I expect anyone to care)



Pages : [1] 2

Prophaniti
2008-01-21, 10:58 AM
In my perusing of the various reviews and previews of 4E, I have continually arrived at a specific conclusion.

The actual rules changes I have read I very much liked, they seemed to do exactly what was wanted; simplify and streamline the system.

Far too many of the changes*, however, have been flavor-focused, having little to no impact on actual gameplay. The changes themselves don't really bother me, just the way they go about it, saying This is the Way the Universe Works Now. There are no Half-elves/orcs, instead you get Dragon-People. This is how this culture works now, this is how all sorcerers get their power, this is why there are Tieflings. End of Story. Nearly all of these articles are, in essence, saying 'This is a much better way to work things, the old way was stupid.'

Any and all flavor changes should be entirely up to the DM and the Party. All the changes to background and flavor that they've made should be preceded by a large banner that states this, or esle the language changed to more clearly indicate that these are guidelines and ideas for how to structure your new campaign world. Instead I find them written and worded even more restricively than 3E. I have a hard enough time getting my players to think 'outside the books' when doing character background and personality. I would love to see a step away from rigid, pre-set fluff for classes, races and such, to see backgrounds and flavor released in a fashion more resembling Unearthed Arcana and the Races of ____ books, though without the broken, untested rules.

I've found that far too many players and DMs are reluctant to step outside what is explicitely stated in published supplements, and the release of 4E will likely further compound the problem.

*Please note that this entire rant is regarding flavor only, not actual rules.

Anyway, that's about it. I do like most of the actual rule changes. They just seem far too concerned with flavor, something that should be dealt with by the individual groups playing, not hard-lined by the publisher.

Snadgeros
2008-01-21, 11:30 AM
It's not all about flavor, though. I've heard lots about mechanics changes, in an attempt to balance the game, and many of them are much needed. For example, the current skill system sucks, so they're swiping the one from Star Wars d20. Save-or-die effects aren't instantaneous anymore, they take time to kill you. Also, Vancian magic is getting a makeover, as casters will now apparently have at-will and per encounter spells, so they're not COMPLETELY screwed if they run out.

The flavor rules....eh. So they're replacing some of the races. What's the big deal? They're not getting rid of them, they'll just be in the Monster Manual. I'd be shocked if gnomes don't have a +0 LA to make up for the fact that they're not a core race.

Moral Wiz
2008-01-21, 11:36 AM
LA's been abolished.

I havn't seen many people arguing against the rules yet. Everyone#s main concern is the fluff.

And they have made a boatload of changes. Which basically confirm to all the worst ideas of Rollplaying IMO. Seriously, it seems to be headed to D&D WOW.

I agree with Mr. P. The rules are done O.K., but the fluff... Ugh . It goes beyond just moving the gnome. They haven't left a lot unchanged

Skyserpent
2008-01-21, 11:36 AM
It's true, when flavor steps on mechanics I start getting a bit miffed. I mean, it's okay in some cases... I can't think of any right now, but I'm SURE that there are some.

But the decision to change wizard schools to essentially: Evocation, Evocation, Evocation and Abjuration or something like that, with overly obtuse spell names just irks me...

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 12:08 PM
WOTC wants two things

1. make D&D more like Wow
2. Make it cool, and cool in a pop culture sort of way. Tieflings anybody?
I mean, i ask you, then took away all of the elvish subraces, except for Drow? Hmmmm, i wonder
from
EE

Prophaniti
2008-01-21, 12:16 PM
Essentially, I'm going to tell my group, if and when we start playing 4E, 'Ignore all written fluff, it's not what things are like in this world.' I honestly don't know if I'll use the Dragon-people or not, I need to see more definite stats on them, but I doubt I'll use the fluff.

I would just like to see them focus more on streamlining and improving the mechanics of the game, that's what a new edition is for. Changing the flavor and fluff is what a new campaign setting is for.

warmachine
2008-01-21, 12:18 PM
Isn't the purpose of D&D is the mechanics and fluff work right 'out of the box' with no adaptation needed? D&D is written for those who don't have the time to consider their own inventions? If you wanted to use a world and flavour you prefer, you'd be using a different RPG, such as GURPS or Hero?

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 12:20 PM
Jesus christ with the WoW comparisons. The minute I see them carting out elves/trolls/naga with huge ears, dwarves with guns, gnomes who make crazy tech contraptions, and gigantic shoulderpads I'll be right there with you, but *NOTHING* has been done like this, other than streamlining the game to make it more enjoyable to play. Some people want to get into and stay with the action, rather than having to consult a crapload of rules just to figure out the check DCs to grab a rope to swing from a high ledge and tumble into an oncoming opponent, or other "dramatic" stunts such as that.

As for elves, they didn't just keep drow. There are the 3 elven races, which IMHO are a friggin stretch, but I'll take 3 over 30 billion

Morty
2008-01-21, 12:27 PM
Other than streamlining the game to make it more enjoyable to play.

While I agree that WoW comparisions make no sense "streamlining the game" is something different that "treating the players like five-year-olds who need everything to be handed on a platter" which is the attitude I've seen more than once in 4ed materials. I just hope it's just adversiting and it won't have much impact on final product. There's also the whole "everything needs to be cool, badass and just like in movies" direction.

Moral Wiz
2008-01-21, 12:38 PM
Jesus christ with the WoW comparisons. The minute I see them carting out elves/trolls/naga with huge ears, dwarves with guns, gnomes who make crazy tech contraptions, and gigantic shoulderpads I'll be right there with you, but *NOTHING* has been done like this, other than streamlining the game to make it more enjoyable to play. Some people want to get into and stay with the action, rather than having to consult a crapload of rules just to figure out the check DCs to grab a rope to swing from a high ledge and tumble into an oncoming opponent, or other "dramatic" stunts such as that.


Would you prefer it if we compared 4th Ed to ClicheQuest (http://www.thenoobcomic.com/daily/strip001.html)?:smallamused: :smalltongue:

M0rt sums it up rather well, but I'll go into a little more depth.

WoW is used because it is shorter than MMORPG, and MMOs are generic. THe point is that 4th seems to be utterly focused around killing, and blowing stuff up, whilst being Politicly Correct, ubercoolz, and leet. Fluff seems over-simplified, mangled, or otherwise "streamlined".

Does that make the point clearer?

Another comparison. Team America, played utterly straight.

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 12:46 PM
{Scrubbed}EE

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 12:47 PM
The thing is I just don't get why you feel this way when all of the information out there is highly changeable fluff (which isn't bad as long as you aren't some raving fanboy of every facet of a setting). The reason they might be "oh man this stuff is so cool" is because they are enormous geeks. We all are huge geeks, but *they* are geeks able to get paid for their sheer geekieness.

So yeah, when they come out and say "look at all this cool stuff you can do with the game! its so awesome!" They're just saying it. Not all of them are writers, or know how to express it in a more profound sense, but there it is.

And whomever thinks DnD is more than a crunch factory for combat... have you ever looked at the skills and how they're used? How Diplomancers have come about? If your not worried about having dramatic, crunch-heavy combat, why are you using a system specifically geared for it?

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 12:49 PM
D&D's expressed belief is to be a role playing game. Not a game where PCs go through a kill, loot, take quest, kill, loot, turn in quest, sort of ideal
from
EE

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 12:52 PM
D&D's expressed belief is to be a role playing game. Not a game where PCs go through a kill, loot, take quest, kill, loot, turn in quest, sort of ideal
from
EE

Yes, its a roleplaying game, but if you only want social interaction then why are you playing a game where the majority of conflict resolution rules are through combat?

Edit: Or though the ability to Diplomance, thus taking away all need for any RP

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 12:58 PM
Yes, its a roleplaying game, but if you only want social interaction then why are you playing a game where the majority of conflict resolution rules are through combat?

Only if you have a piss poor DM is that the case. Crunch is fine, but D&D expressed goal, at least in 1-3.5 is it to be a roleplaying experience. Hence why the system is so flawed, ideally for it to work you need to have the crunch take a back seat. The game was made for roleplaying enjoyment mixed with fluff.
from
EE

Moral Wiz
2008-01-21, 12:58 PM
No one argues with the system. It's supposed to be for the perpouse of resolving combat before all else. The point is that things have been significantly changed to bring the focus of the game squarely on to combat, MMO style, as opposed to long term plot, with combat. (And don't cite Diplomacy. Just, don't Ok? That was... irritating.)

Oh, and you are trivializing the changes made. Tieflings, for instance, are now Warlocks as a race (the old warlock that is. The whole fiendish pact thing) Now, instead of having the blood of devils, their many generations removed ancestors simply made a bargain with them. That is a notable diference; oh, and they are now "romantic". Anyone playing a Tiefling would find 4th edition very diferent. The elves.. I agree, it got gratuitous, but there were some generally interesting subraces, lost amoungst the pile of stupid ones. I always wanted to play a Fey'ri.

One setting experienced a world ending cataclysm, killing almost every major character, just to be able to half way fit with 4th edition. That should explain just how major the fluff has changed. Way more than it did going from 2nd to 3rd.

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 01:01 PM
The change from 2E to 3E was more kinda "Alright, the rules are different. Here you go. But the spirt is the same"
from
EE

horseboy
2008-01-21, 01:08 PM
Would you prefer it if we compared 4th Ed to ClicheQuest (http://www.thenoobcomic.com/daily/strip001.html)?:smallamused: :smalltongue:

M0rt sums it up rather well, but I'll go into a little more depth.

WoW is used because it is shorter than MMORPG, and MMOs are generic. THe point is that 4th seems to be utterly focused around killing, and blowing stuff up, whilst being Politicly Correct, ubercoolz, and leet. Fluff seems over-simplified, mangled, or otherwise "streamlined".

Does that make the point clearer?

Another comparison. Team America, played utterly straight.
I disagree. I've found ALL editions of D&D to be about killing and blowing stuff up. Anything else was an add on patch.

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 01:09 PM
No one argues with the system. It's supposed to be for the perpouse of resolving combat before all else. The point is that things have been significantly changed to bring the focus of the game squarely on to combat, MMO style, as opposed to long term plot, with combat. (And don't cite Diplomacy. Just, don't Ok? That was... irritating.)

How in the hell are you even getting this? Because the rules support decent, fast-paced and interesting combat it means it's impossible to have long term plots and character development? The system is the crunch: combat. Everything else, as I hoped my point made, is brought through the DM and Players. The rules should just be a system to resolve conflicts, through violence or otherwise, and thats what we're being given.

Honestly, I just don't understand what you all are expecting.


Oh, and you are trivializing the changes made. Tieflings, for instance, are now Warlocks as a race (the old warlock that is. The whole fiendish pact thing) Now, instead of having the blood of devils, their many generations removed ancestors simply made a bargain with them. That is a notable diference; oh, and they are now "romantic". Anyone playing a Tiefling would find 4th edition very diferent. The elves.. I agree, it got gratuitous, but there were some generally interesting subraces, lost amoungst the pile of stupid ones. I always wanted to play a Fey'ri.

Tieflings/Aasimar/whatever are just kinda meh, though honestly I think attempting to play much of anything other than "human with weird precipts" is near-impossible, but thats a tangent and very OT.

However, that "bargain" can have numerous connotations, and that the "price" that had to be "paid" by your ancestor could easily be to create a "hot, raunchy, babezu beast with two backs." If your into that thing, great, if not, also great.

Fey'ri might have been cool, I've never noticed em anywhere, but I'll glady accept their sacrifice for the greater good.


One setting experienced a world ending cataclysm, killing almost every major character, just to be able to half way fit with 4th edition. That should explain just how major the fluff has changed. Way more than it did going from 2nd to 3rd.

The Forgotten Realms? Bleh. Setting desperately needed a reboot. Seriously, with all of the crazy epic NPCs, huge orginizations, countries and politics all in the hands of powerful mages... what exactly is there for adventurers to do? Mop up the small stuff that the big boys leave behind? It's a setting thats far too convoluted, and honestly would be interesting to see in a post-cataclysmic/apocalyptic background where things have been knocked around and drasticly changed.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-21, 01:31 PM
Isn't the purpose of D&D is the mechanics and fluff work right 'out of the box' with no adaptation needed? D&D is written for those who don't have the time to consider their own inventions? If you wanted to use a world and flavour you prefer, you'd be using a different RPG, such as GURPS or Hero?

Um. No. That's just plain inaccurate. D&D is for many, including myself, a good system because it's simple enough to bring my players in without spending lots of time on rules and simple enough that I don't need to spend tons of time myself on mechanics rather than story.

Fluff = story. I want to make my own fluff but I don't have time for more complicated mechanical systems. I'm less than thrilled with the 4e fluff I've read (a PC race that is from an area PC's are not expected to see for at least 8 levels? WTF?). When the mechanics and fluff get too intertwined it makes me less interested in using the system for what I want. Even in 3x I've never used countless monsters because they don't fit the world I'm creating. In 4e, many of the monsters seem deeply tied into the core cosmology and mechanics (at least from the little we can tell).


Yes, its a roleplaying game, but if you only want social interaction then why are you playing a game where the majority of conflict resolution rules are through combat?

Edit: Or though the ability to Diplomance, thus taking away all need for any RP

That might be how your group plays, but not mine. The vast majority of time in my game is RP and most situations don't end in violence for various plot and RP reasons.


How in the hell are you even getting this? Because the rules support decent, fast-paced and interesting combat it means it's impossible to have long term plots and character development? The system is the crunch: combat.

The system, and the core cosmology, are more than just crunch combat and each reflects on the other and the gameplay at the table. If the Core book says "Elves are all rangers" and "Don't discriminate against the demon people" then even though it's 'just fluff' that can be tossed out it will color and confuse many a gaming table, especially when new players join who haven't been given the low down on the massive changes to the core cosmology that will be required.

One of the nice things about 3x was that it was pretty fluff light for the most part, at least in the core books. 4x, intentionally it seems reading Worlds and Monsters, is very fluff heavy.

Matthew
2008-01-21, 01:36 PM
Isn't the purpose of D&D is the mechanics and fluff work right 'out of the box' with no adaptation needed? D&D is written for those who don't have the time to consider their own inventions? If you wanted to use a world and flavour you prefer, you'd be using a different RPG, such as GURPS or Hero?

No, I would say, or maybe seems so with 4e, but certainly wasn't the case with 2e. D&D is written to make money, that's pretty much its purpose. I suppose it rather depends on what you define as D&D.

Prophaniti
2008-01-21, 02:01 PM
The whole point of my thread is simply this: The crew at WotC is focusing their developing energies in the wrong place. They are contunually pumping out new fluff and talking about how much better it is than the old while we get next to nothing about actual rules changes. The purpose of a new edition of a game is to revamp the rules, not the fluff. That's what we see with new editions of the Warhammer games, and it's what most other roleplaying games do also. That's what we should be seeing is new, exciting and changing rules.

Instead we see pages and pages of changed fluff. Honestly, the articles read a lot like The Giant's New World articles. 4E is rapidly turning into a new campaign setting, rather than new core rules for you to use in whatever setting you like. I hope that when I get the actual books they will focus more on the rules than these previews have, but fear they will continue this pattern of changing the background universe, something I want left more open to DM and Player discretion. As I said, I sometimes have a hard time getting my group to venture beyond what is stated in published sources, fluff-wise, and it seems that 4E will only make it worse.

EDIT: AKA_Bait knows exactly what I'm talking about.

hewhosaysfish
2008-01-21, 02:02 PM
D&D is written to make money, that's pretty much its purpose.

Ones could equally say that a car was built to make money for the manufacturer.
It's true, but it's only half the story.

Matthew
2008-01-21, 02:13 PM
Ones could equally say that a car was built to make money for the manufacturer.
It's true, but it's only half the story.

Nah, it's about 90% of the story. Cars are also built primarily to make money.

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 02:25 PM
It might just be me, but I'd think that they aren't showing/discussing any mechanics in depth because, well, thats what they are trying to sell.

If it was all explained, outside of the d20 SRD stuff, then what would they have to sell?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-21, 02:25 PM
Nah, it's about 90% of the story. Cars are also built primarily to make money.

Indeed.

They are primarily purchased as a method of transportation/sticking it to the neighbors.

D&D is written to make money. It's purchased as a means to having fun.


It might just be me, but I'd think that they aren't showing/discussing any mechanics in depth because, well, thats what they are trying to sell.

If it was all explained, outside of the d20 SRD stuff, then what would they have to sell?

The fluff? I mean, I dropped around $40 on the two preview books...

Somebloke
2008-01-21, 02:27 PM
THe fluff changes to do not bother me greatly.

Firstly, since I rarely ever use 'traditional' DnD fluff anyway, preferring to create my own ideas and then alter the game world to suit them. The changes that have been made are different and more '21st century' but that can really only be expected for an edition brought out in the 21st century.

Secondly, this issue over combat; combat is more streamlined for one, which means that a one-hour fight will probably take half an hour instead- meaning more time for roleplaying. Furthermore, we have had repeated statements to the effect that the rules will support roleplaying encounters in terms of mechanics and reward.

In short, there is very little required to play a combat-light, roleplaying heavy campaign. Or Visa versa.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-21, 02:35 PM
Secondly, this issue over combat; combat is more streamlined for one, which means that a one-hour fight will probably take half an hour instead- meaning more time for roleplaying. Furthermore, we have had repeated statements to the effect that the rules will support roleplaying encounters in terms of mechanics and reward..

I've yet to see evidence that combat will be markedly faster. I certianly hope it is, but some of the things that have been released (small static bonuses for example), don't speak well for that hope.

Counterspin
2008-01-21, 02:57 PM
Yawn. I'm not going to be using the 4e fluff, I've already sketched out what my setting is going to be like. Why you would begrudge someone who wants help, i.e. an implied setting, is beyond me.

Why buy the same fluff over and over? Same question to the FR defenders. You've already got the FR fluff you like, in books that are still going to be around. Why complain when you've already got what you want sitting on your bookshelf?

Talya
2008-01-21, 03:10 PM
gnomes who make crazy tech contraptions

What, you aren't following the new Realmslore?

They may have removed gnomes as a playable race, but they're still there, and magic move aside for the glory of tinkering!

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 03:19 PM
Do we really need a new thread for each individual's Thoughts On Yaoi 4E?

As for small static bonuses, D&D already has tons of those. "Hey, +1 from Bard Song" doesn't slow games down.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-21, 03:31 PM
As for small static bonuses, D&D already has tons of those. "Hey, +1 from Bard Song" doesn't slow games down.

It does in my game. Or would if we didn't houserule them away/always active. My point really is that we don't know what the mechanics are yet. The only information we have is from the company making the product. Obviously they are going to say it's more streamlined than 3x because they want people to buy it. It might be, it might not be, but asserting that it will be at this stage of the game is groundless.

Counterspin
2008-01-21, 03:36 PM
The continued presence of small static bonuses has been one of the few things I've seen so far that I dislike. They most assuredly slow both down both gameplay at my table and character creation at higher levels.

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 03:39 PM
How in the hell are you even getting this? Because the rules support decent, fast-paced and interesting combat it means it's impossible to have long term plots and character development? The system is the crunch: combat. Everything else, as I hoped my point made, is brought through the DM and Players. The rules should just be a system to resolve conflicts, through violence or otherwise, and thats what we're being given.

Maybe in your games, but certainly not in mine.


Honestly, I just don't understand what you all are expecting.


Fluff like in 3.5, where it isn't so much stuck down our throats given a basic outline that can be alter from realm to realm. Really, bad form



Tieflings/Aasimar/whatever are just kinda meh, though honestly I think attempting to play much of anything other than "human with weird precipts" is near-impossible, but thats a tangent and very OT.

Not really, and by not really i mean WFT are you talking about?


However, that "bargain" can have numerous connotations, and that the "price" that had to be "paid" by your ancestor could easily be to create a "hot, raunchy, babezu beast with two backs." If your into that thing, great, if not, also great.

Oh boy, so we have along with Drow, another angst ridden race. Whoopie

F
ey'ri might have been cool, I've never noticed em anywhere, but I'll glady accept their sacrifice for the greater good.

Correction, the greater good for your style of gaming, not for others. Keeping the subraces but not adding any morewould have been far better




The Forgotten Realms? Bleh. Setting desperately needed a reboot. Seriously, with all of the crazy epic NPCs, huge orginizations, countries and politics all in the hands of powerful mages... what exactly is there for adventurers to do? Mop up the small stuff that the big boys leave behind? It's a setting thats far too convoluted, and honestly would be interesting to see in a post-cataclysmic/apocalyptic background where things have been knocked around and drasticly changed.

Ug, this is such a sterotype

the deal with FR, at least before the recone is that you feel like your in a real world that a D&D game could be in, your not the center of the universe the way video games say you are
from
EE

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 03:40 PM
Really? I was at a game just this Friday. "+1 for using a dagger instead of your other weapon, +2 for flanking, that makes 15." "Miss." "Bard song, dude!" "Right, +1 from Bard Song, 16." "...that hits then." It's never taken a huge amount of time for me.

Counterspin
2008-01-21, 03:42 PM
Rachel, you claimed that the bonuses slow things down, and then you make a post where you give an example of exactly how they slow things down. I'm so confused.

Counterspin
2008-01-21, 03:47 PM
"Ug, this is such a sterotype

the deal with FR, at least before the recone is that you feel like your in a real world that a D&D game could be in, your not the center of the universe the way video games say you are
from
EE"

Calling someone out for using a stereotype, and then pulling out the video game card when they disagree with you, and calling them self centered to boot. Classy *rolleyes*

Kioran
2008-01-21, 03:50 PM
Secondly, this issue over combat; combat is more streamlined for one, which means that a one-hour fight will probably take half an hour instead- meaning more time for roleplaying. Furthermore, we have had repeated statements to the effect that the rules will support roleplaying encounters in terms of mechanics and reward.

I advise caution - the designers might have fallen prey to the same thing I have once - I´ve built 2 Homebrew systems in my time (both weren´t entirely succesful, though one was actually playable and sustained two campaign with a total length of about 20 months at one session per week). When I evaluated them and used them, I was already lightning fast at whipping up characters or resolving combat. I knew 80% of the rules by heart. I´d written 70% of them (I wrote the system in conjunction with a good friend of mine). We, as the creators and DMs, certainly knew our way around the system.

Which is why we were surprised when our other friends easily took thrice as long for the same stuff till about 4 months in.

Meaning that, due to continuous tinkering with the rules and playtesting, they might have achieved a fluidity with the new system that surpasses (possibly vastly so) their fluidity with 3rd Ed rules. I would even go as far as saying some of the current movers and shakers at Wizards were never more proficient with the rules than 70% of the folks in these here forums. Well, they should have been, something like the "Mensa" of game design, but I digress. I mean, 3rd Ed. designers were convinced that the system was mostly balanced (it is, with a little work. Not perfectly, but reasonably).
I fear their expectations towards streamlining are at odds with what we consumers will experience.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 03:56 PM
Rachel, you claimed that the bonuses slow things down, and then you make a post where you give an example of exactly how they slow things down. I'm so confused.

I just meant it slows things down a negligible amount. Adding bonuses together is quick, even compared to rolling your dice--and that says nothing of resolving spell effects like Confusion for a group, or AoO-based characters (who act more on other people's turns than on their own).

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 03:59 PM
"Ug, this is such a sterotype

the deal with FR, at least before the recone is that you feel like your in a real world that a D&D game could be in, your not the center of the universe the way video games say you are
from
EE"

Calling someone out for using a stereotype, and then pulling out the video game card when they disagree with you, and calling them self centered to boot. Classy *rolleyes*

Wow, that is certainly sad rebuttal.

1. It generally is a stereotype about FR, and he did use it. Its like calling somebody out for saying OOTS has bad art
2. Video game card? You need to grasp these points better. My point is that 4E plays like a video game, The party has a universe revolving around them and the NPCs exist in order to move the party along
3. I didn't say that because i disagree with me, i'm making a point. FR is unlike a video game in that you (the players) are not the center of the universe
4. Am i wrong? You don't counter anything This is certainly half hearted response
from
EE

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 03:59 PM
Maybe in your games, but certainly not in mine.
Fluff like in 3.5, where it isn't so much stuck down our throats given a basic outline that can be alter from realm to realm. Really, bad form

Wow... so because its presented at all means its stuffed down your throat? They're suddenly making you use fluff you don't like? I hadn't noticed the secret mind control capsules that are required with each book purchace, silly me.



Not really, and by not really i mean WFT are you talking about?

I mean that every non-human in any book, DnD or otherwise, is simply a human with some ideological standpoint and maybe a weird feature or two. I *dare* you to show me a contemporary fantasy literary humanoid character who couldn't be replaced with a human



Oh boy, so we have along with Drow, another angst ridden race. Whoopie

Seems you missed my point entirely there. You might get it when your older.



Correction, the greater good for your style of gaming, not for others. Keeping the subraces but not adding any more would have been far better

No, because you'd still have a useless plethora of races that are completely unnessicary. You don't have "jungle humans, plains humans, forest humans" etc, why the heck do elves require separate subraces for regional adaptations that no other race receives?



Ug, this is such a sterotype

the deal with FR, at least before the recone is that you feel like your in a real world that a D&D game could be in, your not the center of the universe the way video games say you are

First of all, it's not a stereotype. Thats what the realms are. And it doesn't make you feel like your in a real world. Your in a world filled with epicly powered Mary Sue's/Stu's that leave no room for anyone to do anything else in, without major revision from the players.

Second, they aren't retconning the realms. The way it seems to be, they're advancing the timeline, so you still have all of that old, stodgy crap that i personally couldn't care about, but that you can still play in completely intact. It's just that other people can play in an era where, yknow, they might actually have a chance to become someone important in the realms, if they even care about that setting.

Counterspin
2008-01-21, 03:59 PM
I don't know, I think the bonus thing is negligible until you add in types. It's very hard to convince people to learn the type of their bonuses, and that brings the omnipresent small bonus to the point of real hassle, at least in my experience.

bignate
2008-01-21, 04:30 PM
i agree with the original poster, i feel like the 4th ed. developers are out of line messing with the fluff.

i have been playing D&D for about 15 years now and i have always felt that the core books were just to provide you the rules to the game. you then apply those rules to the setting of your choice such as forgotten realms or ravenloft or your own homebrew world.

i mean, i have always been strick in using the D&D rules for my games but the world and stories and motivations are my own.

i dont believe it is their place to change the fluff for the base races of D&D(and even the way they look...) or any of the basics for that matter.

DementedFellow
2008-01-21, 04:40 PM
Considering this is about fluff, I have to ask this question. Is it really that good an idea that the characters are at the center of the universe?

I mean what's the point in playing a game where you are everyone's lord and master straight out of the gate?

Let's put it another way.

If this system is allegedly supposed to streamline things, and encourage roleplay and cut down on time per encounter battles, then why not make a more rich and involving world? Why not make it at least interesting? "Oh look we can play as Lizard Man from Soul Caliber!!"

Video games work with the character being at the center because they are usually played alone. Look at Oblivion. You can just forget about the main quest and not touch it for 70+ hours. Now bring this back to the DM. Do you really want to DM a game where one character is trying to become the head of the mage's guild and another one is becoming the champion of the arena while another is hellbent on dungeon diving?

I much prefer a setting where fantastic things happen to "you can do WHATEVER you want. You are lord and master after all."

AKA_Bait
2008-01-21, 04:43 PM
Wow... so because its presented at all means its stuffed down your throat? They're suddenly making you use fluff you don't like? I hadn't noticed the secret mind control capsules that are required with each book purchace, silly me.


Indeed. Silly you. Equating a purchase and the set up of the object being purchased with mind control capsules when the main point is that it will be annoying to have to go back and revamp large amounts of a game when if the fluff were presented differently (i.e. not as the core cosmology) it would be fine is indeed quite silly.

When I purchase a product I would like it to meet the specifications that I want. In a car, I want good gas mileage. In an RPG I want easy mechanics and fluff that is not strongly tied, even by implication, to those mechanics. I've outlined the practical gameplay reasons for this before in this thread.

Is it mind control? No. Is the the product I would like it to be? Dunno yet, but the signs aren't good.

Starsinger
2008-01-21, 04:47 PM
In response to the claim(s) that the "reboot" to the realms is unnecessary and just exists because of 4E. Isn't the Reboot because Greyhawk is becoming the new RPGA setting? "Living Greyhawk" and all that jazz.

In response to the comment(s) about mechanics not being shown.. Here's a how I've felt about that. In a FFRPG, a Mithril Sword does 5*Strength +2d10. Now, how good is that? Is that the equivalent level-wise of a masterwork dagger, a +5 Vorpal GreatAxe, or a +2 flaming Quarterstaff? Without knowing a majority of the mechanics, you really have no idea. You can speculate based on the numbers, but you still aren't really sure how they scale. Showing us pieces of mechanics would be like that. You'd have them in a vacuum and wouldn't know if something is good or over powered or weak or what.

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 04:55 PM
Indeed. Silly you. Equating a purchase and the set up of the object being purchased with mind control capsules when the main point is that it will be annoying to have to go back and revamp large amounts of a game when if the fluff were presented differently (i.e. not as the core cosmology) it would be fine is indeed quite silly.

When I purchase a product I would like it to meet the specifications that I want. In a car, I want good gas mileage. In an RPG I want easy mechanics and fluff that is not strongly tied, even by implication, to those mechanics. I've outlined the practical gameplay reasons for this before in this thread.

Is it mind control? No. Is the the product I would like it to be? Dunno yet, but the signs aren't good.

Then please, show me where the fluff is so loosely tied in 3.X, and not in 4e. I'm seeing the same, basic stuff between the two editions, and I honestly cannot see what has everyone decrying it in such an uproar.

Is it just Forgotten Realms that has everyone all pissy?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-21, 05:07 PM
Then please, show me where the fluff is so loosely tied in 3.X, and not in 4e. I'm seeing the same, basic stuff between the two editions, and I honestly cannot see what has everyone decrying it in such an uproar.


In 3.x there were no specific countries, cities, or universe central enemies mentioned in the core books. The planes are dealt with loosely and only mentioned in the DMG as sources of later adventure. In 4e there is literally a core race that comes from what would have been called 'another plane' in 3.x and in Worlds and Monsters they said specifically that they will be fleshing out most but not all of the world.

You probably wan't to reply, 'that's all fluff' and I'm not arguing that it isn't. I'm pointing out that when you put specific fluff in with the basic mechanics of the game many players assume that it has to be that way which makes getting rid of it harder from a practical, game table standpoint.

In a fluff light system, if the DMG wants to create a world with their own cosmology the steps are as follows:

1. Tell your players what the universe is like.

In a fluff heavy system it's two steps.

1. Explain to your players why the fluff in the core book they dropped $30 on is not being used.
2. Tell your players what the universe is like.

I'd rather it just be 1 step.

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 05:20 PM
In 3.x there were no specific countries, cities, or universe central enemies mentioned in the core books. The planes are dealt with loosely and only mentioned in the DMG as sources of later adventure. In 4e there is literally a core race that comes from what would have been called 'another plane' in 3.x and in Worlds and Monsters they said specifically that they will be fleshing out most but not all of the world.

You probably wan't to reply, 'that's all fluff' and I'm not arguing that it isn't. I'm pointing out that when you put specific fluff in with the basic mechanics of the game many players assume that it has to be that way which makes getting rid of it harder from a practical, game table standpoint.

In a fluff light system, if the DMG wants to create a world with their own cosmology the steps are as follows:

1. Tell your players what the universe is like.

In a fluff heavy system it's two steps.

1. Explain to your players why the fluff in the core book they dropped $30 on is not being used.
2. Tell your players what the universe is like.

I'd rather it just be 1 step.


I can see some points in that, but decrying the whole thing because they want to flesh out a thing or two here and there isn't something I do. Hell, honestly for a new DM, having something solid to play on can be a big damn help, or even for an old DM who is strained for ideas if he's trying to do something new.

I still think its far too early to say that the new system is incredibly Fluff-Heavy

Woot Spitum
2008-01-21, 05:40 PM
In my experience, DM's typically want to build their own worlds from scratch, while players typically want to play in well-defined pre-made settings that they can read up on in advance to playing.

4th edition seems to be catering more toward players than DM's, which will naturally create conflict. Personally, I think the detailed fluff creates a nice baseline to branch out from. If players want to play in a universe like the one described in the books, why not let them? There's nothing wrong with players liking published fluff over homebrewed fluff.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-21, 05:43 PM
Hell, honestly for a new DM, having something solid to play on can be a big damn help, or even for an old DM who is strained for ideas if he's trying to do something new.

Indeed, and that is what campaign settings are for. I'd rather details like that stay firmly in the FRCS or EbCS than become entwined in the PHB, DMG and MM.



I still think its far too early to say that the new system is incredibly Fluff-Heavy

Well, of course. This whole thread is speculation. Going of the slim evidence we have, it looks like it will be; not least because they pretty much came out and said that in the preview books. It could be that it's not, in which case I'll be happy.

bignate
2008-01-21, 05:52 PM
In my experience, DM's typically want to build their own worlds from scratch, while players typically want to play in well-defined pre-made settings that they can read up on in advance to playing.

4th edition seems to be catering more toward players than DM's, which will naturally create conflict. Personally, I think the detailed fluff creates a nice baseline to branch out from. If players want to play in a universe like the one described in the books, why not let them? There's nothing wrong with players liking published fluff over homebrewed fluff.

i hadnt thought about it that way but i think you put it perfectly.

ZekeArgo
2008-01-21, 05:52 PM
Indeed, and that is what campaign settings are for. I'd rather details like that stay firmly in the FRCS or EbCS than become entwined in the PHB, DMG and MM.

Really it just depends on the level of detail given. Or hell, they could just give a generic detail along with multiple details depending on the campaign setting they want the creature applied to, like they have been doing in the MMIII/MMIV/MMV, etc.

Seems to me they hit on a good thing there, and noticed it. Why wouldn't they carry over all of the good things they found out in 3.X into 4e?

Serenity
2008-01-21, 06:30 PM
They've given an overview of cosmology, yes, and from what (admittedly little) I've read, it doesn't seem all that complicated or difficult to rearrange if you want to. Certainly, I don't see any pressing reason why you couldn't reinstitute the Great Wheel if you wanted...which incidentally, was presented in the DMG, so defining the Planes in Core is precedented. The presence of tieflings supposes an Infernal/demonic plane of some sort, and some races are connected to a fey/wildlands plane, neither of which are unreasonable suppositions to include in a world's cosmology. (And if, as mentioned somewhere above, they will be including aasimars under a different name, my main objection to making tieflings a player race dissolves.)

So one book will be dedicated to developing a generic setting. Doesn't seem all that bad to me. For first-time DMs, it sounds like a boon, and if you like to run homebrew campaigns worlds, then your players already shouldn't expect to use published setting materials.

Prophaniti
2008-01-21, 06:55 PM
Oh, and another thing!

The stated idea of changing the system so monsters and NPCs don't run on the same basic mechanics as PCs! What the hell?! Who's bright idea was that? I hate it. It shouldn't be for them to tell me what qualifies as a playable race in my campaign! If I want to let my players run Minotaurs, that option should be left completely open to me. Instead they want to change monster mechanics completely, making it anywhere from annoying to downright impossible to run them as players.

I know the LA system was clunky and didn't solve all issues with running monstrous characters, but at least it was consistent and easy. I'm afraid they're going to make PCs and NPCs/Monsters so incompatible that there's no way I can integrate them.

In my campaigns the PCs may be the center of the story, but they're not the center of the universe, and should in no way be exponentially more powerful than anyone else, monster or NPC. No matter how powerful you get, there's always someone who can stomp you flat, and that should not, IMO, be limited to Demons and Gods. After all, why don't other people go on adventures and become renowned heroes and warriors? The players are supposed to be challenged, dammit, not walk over everything they meet. I fully expect some of them to die once in a while, whether from bad luck or poor planning. Adventures are a dangerous business. And yes, once in a while, I enjoy running a monstrous campaign.

Jothki
2008-01-21, 08:24 PM
For everyone who's complaining about 4E becoming more like a MMORPG, ask yourself why someone would play 3.5E instead of a MMORPG, or why someone who already played MMORPGs would start playing D&D instead.

Now ask yourself whether 4E removes those elements.

DementedFellow
2008-01-21, 08:42 PM
I thought of a reason. Prestige classes. Some of them are made of God and Win. But 4E doesn't have them and neither do MMORPGs or you can bet my happy ass will be playing a Walker in the Waste online.

I don't think I'll play or even buy anything 4E as it assuredly going to go belly-up.

Part of the reason people play tabletop RPGs is to have some fantasy. But what good is fantasy if the core rulebooks X idea is played X way? Why can't I have a half-minotaur, half-dragon?

Playing as a monster is fun and part of the roleplay element.

If you add too many rules that constrain you to do what you would like, then you have people wondering why you are playing in the first place. Look at White Wolf, they had to overhaul their entire system a few years back because they received a number of fans complaining about what good is being a vampire if you can't run amok sucking people dry?

Typically more limitations = less fun. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the fine lines of 4E there was a rule that the moment a character goes evil the hand of god comes down and smites them. It's like someone's home-brew who had a power-trip and said "Core-class and FR races ONLY! NO EXCEPTIONS!"

illathid
2008-01-21, 09:06 PM
I thought of a reason. Prestige classes. Some of them are made of God and Win. But 4E doesn't have them and neither do MMORPGs or you can bet my happy ass will be playing a Walker in the Waste online.

I don't think I'll play or even buy anything 4E as it assuredly going to go belly-up.

Part of the reason people play tabletop RPGs is to have some fantasy. But what good is fantasy if the core rulebooks X idea is played X way? Why can't I have a half-minotaur, half-dragon?

Playing as a monster is fun and part of the roleplay element.

If you add too many rules that constrain you to do what you would like, then you have people wondering why you are playing in the first place. Look at White Wolf, they had to overhaul their entire system a few years back because they received a number of fans complaining about what good is being a vampire if you can't run amok sucking people dry?

Typically more limitations = less fun. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the fine lines of 4E there was a rule that the moment a character goes evil the hand of god comes down and smites them. It's like someone's home-brew who had a power-trip and said "Core-class and FR races ONLY! NO EXCEPTIONS!"

Basically, your lack of information makes your post irrelevant.

Yeah, there's no prestige classes... But there are "Paragon Paths" (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=214511) which are going to basically be the same thing (12 in the 1st PHB, and more will be released later). Also "Epic Destinies" will give some similar benefits as well.

As for playing a monster, it seems like it should still be possible, but it won't be done the way it is now. A monster in the MM and the playable version of it will likely be quite different. However this means that no matter what, your character will be better able to fit into party, as he won't have LA.

As for the other stuff you've said, I see nothing in the information we have now that would suggest this.

In conclusion, you'd could do everyone a favor and read all of the 4e info over at En World (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e) before you make broad statements about something you know very little about.

UserClone
2008-01-21, 09:42 PM
2. Video game card? You need to grasp these points better. My point is that 4E plays like a video game, The party has a universe revolving around them and the NPCs exist in order to move the party along
from
EE

HOLY CRAP!
Alright, that's it. You've forced me on this one. Either show me your copy of the 4E PHB right now, or else I call shenanigans. Yeah, that's what I thought. Shenanigans.

DementedFellow
2008-01-21, 09:46 PM
From one of those websites:

The paragon path and epic destiny thing - PrC's are gone completely. You pick up your paragon path at 11th level, and your epic destiny at 21st level. You get those abilities as you level up in addition to your main class stuff, not instead of. Some look like old PrCs, and weapon master, prince of knaves and cavalier mentioned. There are currently 12 PPs and "fewer" EDs. The EDs give big benefits and are things like being the right hand man to a god, undying warrior or calling dragons with a wave of your hand.

I fail to see the benefit. With quite a few prestige classes you can take at 5-6. Which means that some classes in 3.x like sorcerer are encouraged to go to PrCs because they don't get much for sticking with being sorcerers alone.

But instead with this new system, you have to wait twice as long to choose a paragon. WOW. I can hardly hold my joy.

The idea with playing a half-minotaur, half-vampire was 1) sucking up the level hit and 2) creating an interesting backstory for your character. It's fantasy after all. But regardless your post didn't say word one about getting rid of the half-races.

Look at it this way too. Some people play low-leveled campaigns to either level up characters or make it somewhat more challenging. Some people play mid-leveled campaigns to make the characters think and use their abilities adequately, and then some play high-level campaigns so they can basically act like billy jo badass. This is with 3.x.

But with 4E, it has said that the encounters will be easier and not as challenging as with 3.x. And since you are DESTINED to take your paragon path at level 11 and your epic whatever at 21, you will not see as many people leveling up characters from level one onwards.

The distance from level 1 to 5 or 6 is drastically less than level 1 to level 11. And it just doesn't make sense. With a prestige class you had prerequisites which required you to have like 8 ranks in knowledge arcana or a base attack bonus +6. You EARNED the right to take that PrC. But now the Paragon Paths are pretty much given to you at level 11. Where is the sense of accomplishment? Especially since the mid-level players aren't going to start out at level 6, they will start out at (SURPRISE!) level 11.

It's just stilted in my view.

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 09:50 PM
Wow... so because its presented at all means its stuffed down your throat? They're suddenly making you use fluff you don't like? I hadn't noticed the secret mind control capsules that are required with each book purchace, silly me.

1. If it was presented in a manner as they do in normal books where is more "They have these traits and can be like this or this" sort of thing then i'd be happy. But now its "NO GNOMES. Deal with it. Paladins can be evil. Tieflings, their sexy and cool. Anismar is a stupid name"
2. Wow, that sarcasm is just sad. I like fluff that works for different people. However, every time i read a 4E book, in order to work with it, i'm going to have to go along with them




I mean that every non-human in any book, DnD or otherwise, is simply a human with some ideological standpoint and maybe a weird feature or two.


I *dare* you to show me a contemporary fantasy literary humanoid character who couldn't be replaced with a human

Drow. Which then kept for some reason



Seems you missed my point entirely there. You might get it when your older.
awwwwwwwwww, how cute, you think using my age makes you look better

Look, Tieflings and drow have sex appeal and angst appeal. With Drow it wasn't intentional, Tieflings (new ones) are simple drooling with it.
the thing is, i liked the old tieflings. If they wanted to make a new race that were all sexy (how are they sexy with tails half their size by the way? Or do i not want to know?) then that would be fine, call them Demonborn, or Fel Touched, or Hell Children. But don't ruin a cool concept




No, because you'd still have a useless plethora of races that are completely unnessicary. You don't have "jungle humans, plains humans, forest humans" etc, why the heck do elves require separate subraces for regional adaptations that no other race receives?

Except, and a very important exception, no body forces you to use the subraces. You can live a happy live by dropping them and never using them, WOTC makes a lot of them and never uses them. However, if you do use them, suddenly some key cultures are out of your game

As for the many different races, bear in mind, humans are the only race i think that doesn't have any subraces. Dwarves, halflings, gnomes, elves, orcs and Warforge have subraces. Humans i think are the most adeptable, so they are normal all around, while the others have more magical qualities suited to their environment



First of all, it's not a stereotype. Thats what the realms are. And it doesn't make you feel like your in a real world. Your in a world filled with epicly powered Mary Sue's/Stu's that leave no room for anyone to do anything else in, without major revision from the players.

1. Yes it is. You really can play FR without even using the epic NPCs. Why? Because they are off doing their own epic things, no problem.
2. Then don't use them. The ones that are Mary Sues (Eliminster) are off doing their own thing, the PCs are doing their thing. Its a big world, plenty of stuff to do without treading in the big guys shoes. Hell, Drizzt started out as a minor adventure and Eliminster still hasn't showed up in his books



Second, they aren't retconning the realms. The way it seems to be, they're advancing the timeline, so you still have all of that old, stodgy crap that i personally couldn't care about, but that you can still play in completely intact.
Try kills helm? Please


It's just that other people can play in an era where, yknow, they might actually have a chance to become someone important in the realms, if they even care about that setting.

And if your DM is remotely competent, you can do that in FR without a problem. Having a world that centers on the PCs lives isn't a good setting
from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-01-21, 09:51 PM
Oh, and another thing!

The stated idea of changing the system so monsters and NPCs don't run on the same basic mechanics as PCs! What the hell?! Who's bright idea was that? I hate it. It shouldn't be for them to tell me what qualifies as a playable race in my campaign! If I want to let my players run Minotaurs, that option should be left completely open to me. Instead they want to change monster mechanics completely, making it anywhere from annoying to downright impossible to run them as players.

I know the LA system was clunky and didn't solve all issues with running monstrous characters, but at least it was consistent and easy. I'm afraid they're going to make PCs and NPCs/Monsters so incompatible that there's no way I can integrate them.

Good Grief. You consider the LAw system consistent? 1/2 the Core races are worth LA +1 if we accept that all the monsters in the MM that have LAs have correct ones.

If that is what is considered consistent: I have to wonder what unconsistent would be like!

Logos7
2008-01-21, 09:55 PM
I tried to stay away but this got me in

Somewhere upthread said DnD isn't all about killing things and taking their stuff in a vaguely warbandy kind of way

Well I'd like to know what game you where playing becuase I've been paying attention for a while, and if it isn't all about killing stuff and taking their possessions the rule books from the get go seem to have a morbid obsession with hp ac and nasty effects for a game where that is in no way the point of the game.

L

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 09:55 PM
Oh, and another thing!

The stated idea of changing the system so monsters and NPCs don't run on the same basic mechanics as PCs! What the hell?! Who's bright idea was that? I hate it. It shouldn't be for them to tell me what qualifies as a playable race in my campaign! If I want to let my players run Minotaurs, that option should be left completely open to me. Instead they want to change monster mechanics completely, making it anywhere from annoying to downright impossible to run them as players.

I know the LA system was clunky and didn't solve all issues with running monstrous characters, but at least it was consistent and easy. I'm afraid they're going to make PCs and NPCs/Monsters so incompatible that there's no way I can integrate them.

In my campaigns the PCs may be the center of the story, but they're not the center of the universe, and should in no way be exponentially more powerful than anyone else, monster or NPC. No matter how powerful you get, there's always someone who can stomp you flat, and that should not, IMO, be limited to Demons and Gods. After all, why don't other people go on adventures and become renowned heroes and warriors? The players are supposed to be challenged, dammit, not walk over everything they meet. I fully expect some of them to die once in a while, whether from bad luck or poor planning. Adventures are a dangerous business. And yes, once in a while, I enjoy running a monstrous campaign.

As i said, like a video game. The monsters are like in WOW, just things to talk to or fight :smallwink:
Not their own race trying to exist in a hard world


Somewhere upthread said DnD isn't all about killing things and taking their stuff in a vaguely warbandy kind of way

Well I'd like to know what game you where playing becuase I've been paying attention for a while, and if it isn't all about killing stuff and taking their possessions the rule books from the get go seem to have a morbid obsession with hp ac and nasty effects for a game where that is in no way the point of the game
The game is about role playing, immersing your self into another character and world and trying to live it while fighting for some cause, weather good or evil
from
EE

Wordmiser
2008-01-21, 10:08 PM
As i said, like a video game. The monsters are like in WOW, just things to talk to or fight
Not their own race trying to exist in a hard world
Your argument is absurd: why wouldn't they be doing their own things? Because their rule-set is simpler than the one the PCs follow? Does your DM make Commoners stand around idly repeating the same inane statements because they function under a different ruleset than those of the players?


The game is about role playing, immersing your self into another character and world and trying to live it while fighting for some cause, weather good or evilWhich is, of course, absolutely impossible once monsters and NPCs start functioning under different rules than the PCs. That is why nobody has ever refered to D&D as a roleplaying game.

Little_Rudo
2008-01-21, 10:11 PM
1. If it was presented in a manner as they do in normal books where is more "They have these traits and can be like this or this" sort of thing then i'd be happy. But now its "NO GNOMES. Deal with it. Paladins can be evil. Tieflings, their sexy and cool. Anismar is a stupid name"

Anismar is a stupid name. So is Aasimar, for that matter.

More to the point, remember that all you've read is a preview book. All that Wizards Presents Races and Classes is, is essays written by the developers detailing previewing what they've been working on for 4e. If you compare it to the 3.5 PHB, then yes, it's over-informative, poorly written and full of the developer's personal opinions. It's NOT the 4e PHB, though, so this is a poor comparison.

Until we see the 4e PHB, we don't really know what level of detail the core setting will be. Personally, I like the fact that they aren't just staying with super-generic fluff: It's like we're getting a campaign setting free with our PHB, and for those who don't like it (understandably enough), when has changing fluff been a problem before?

VanBuren
2008-01-21, 10:18 PM
Anismar is a stupid name. So is Aasimar, for that matter.

More to the point, remember that all you've read is a preview book. All that Wizards Presents Races and Classes is, is essays written by the developers detailing previewing what they've been working on for 4e. If you compare it to the 3.5 PHB, then yes, it's over-informative, poorly written and full of the developer's personal opinions. It's NOT the 4e PHB, though, so this is a poor comparison.

Until we see the 4e PHB, we don't really know what level of detail the core setting will be. Personally, I like the fact that they aren't just staying with super-generic fluff: It's like we're getting a campaign setting free with our PHB, and for those who don't like it (understandably enough), when has changing fluff been a problem before?


You cannot Win against EE, it is nigh impossible.
by Setra

In this case it's because he has an OMGSUPERSECRETUBEREARLY release of the PHB.

Wordmiser
2008-01-21, 10:24 PM
In this case it's because he has an OMGSUPERSECRETUBEREARLY release of the PHB.And apparently the DMG, because he is clearly well-acquainted with its "This is 4E. Thou shalt cease to role-play" clause.

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 10:34 PM
Your argument is absurd: why wouldn't they be doing their own things? Because their rule-set is simpler than the one the PCs follow? Does your DM make Commoners stand around idly repeating the same inane statements because they function under a different ruleset than those of the players?

I am the DM. Commoner is a class, in the same sense that Fighter is a class. Just a rather cruddy one. When goblins and humans acted under the same rule system, then it wasn't so much humans vs. inferior goblins, it was Human level 10 fighter vs. level 8 goblin. the goblins followed the same rules, it was as if two different races just happened to have different racial abilities and different class powers

Now goblins will be different than the PCs and as they aren't following the class system, this makes me imagine a video game, were you simple fight "Goblin" or "Goblin mage (who cast three generic spells)". Its limiting and unnecessary

And vanburen, i've never resorted to that argument, simple count what i say rather than resort to this basic tactic

from
EE

Serenity
2008-01-21, 10:59 PM
And without knowledge of just how monsters differ from PCs and what options the DM has for advancing challenges, that is a completely unwarranted statement.

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 11:03 PM
And without knowledge of just how monsters differ from PCs and what options the DM has for advancing challenges, that is a completely unwarranted statement.

But we do know they aren't following the level/class rules and are apparently inherently different from the PCs. They specifically mentioned that the idea of monsters following the same rules as PCs in terms of having classes is no longer being used. This slightly reminds me of 1E and 2E, but i'm also reading between the lines here and making a guess that a goblin will be its own category, not "Goblin level 1 fighter" just "Goblin"
from
EE

Yahzi
2008-01-22, 01:11 AM
I haven't followed all of the details that closely, but I have to agree that it seems like 4E is more about MMO and less about RPG. I think that's a bad choice: pen-and-paper is never going to match a computer. It shouldn't even try. It should be different.

Counterspin
2008-01-22, 01:43 AM
Wow, that is certainly sad rebuttal.

1. It generally is a stereotype about FR, and he did use it. Its like calling somebody out for saying OOTS has bad art
2. Video game card? You need to grasp these points better. My point is that 4E plays like a video game, The party has a universe revolving around them and the NPCs exist in order to move the party along
3. I didn't say that because i disagree with me, i'm making a point. FR is unlike a video game in that you (the players) are not the center of the universe
4. Am i wrong? You don't counter anything This is certainly half hearted response
from
EE

I didn't bother to reply to your arguments because they're ridiculous on their face. The idea that anything important is changing about the way monsters and fluff are being presented is a fantasy. The idea that fluff is being rammed down your throat is similarly a fantasy. More fluff now comes with the book, and I'm going to continue to ignore it like I always have. All these dire changes are so easy to ignore that it's laughable, even if I cared about them, which I don't.

horseboy
2008-01-22, 01:51 AM
For everyone who's complaining about 4E becoming more like a MMORPG, ask yourself why someone would play 3.5E instead of a MMORPG, or why someone who already played MMORPGs would start playing D&D instead.The ability to apply to Leroy actual physical harm if he does something stupid.


Now ask yourself whether 4E removes those elements.
Not so long as I have my official TFFV Head Spanking Rubber Chicken!*




*Note, there is no official TFFV Head Spaking Rubber Chicken.

Wordmiser
2008-01-22, 02:12 AM
But we do know they aren't following the level/class rules and are apparently inherently different from the PCs. They specifically mentioned that the idea of monsters following the same rules as PCs in terms of having classes is no longer being used. This slightly reminds me of 1E and 2E, but i'm also reading between the lines here and making a guess that a goblin will be its own category, not "Goblin level 1 fighter" just "Goblin"Look at the Miniatures previews that have been released: Even if monsters don't get their own "Classes," they apparently have tiers which are similar to class levels.

If 4E causes all roleplay to die, it will be the fault of the players, not the game. This isn't saying that I agree with the all of the fluff changes (the idea of multiple elf species bothers me--particularly the Half-Elf--and I'm not a fan of the PHB Lizardfolk or Tieflings), but it's possible to roleplay Risk, for god's sake. D&D 4E couldn't possibly remove that aspect of the game.

VanBuren
2008-01-22, 02:37 AM
And vanburen, i've never resorted to that argument, simple count what i say rather than resort to this basic tactic

It's less about what your words are explicitly saying and more about how the words combine with the way you're acting with them. In other words, you've never claimed that you have a copy of the new PHB, but you're acting like it.

Charity
2008-01-22, 03:29 AM
But we do know they aren't following the level/class rules and are apparently inherently different from the PCs. They specifically mentioned that the idea of monsters following the same rules as PCs in terms of having classes is no longer being used. This slightly reminds me of 1E and 2E, but i'm also reading between the lines here and making a guess that a goblin will be its own category, not "Goblin level 1 fighter" just "Goblin"
from
EE

Er, it is just like AD&D or if you like 1E.
Why should monsters follow the same rules as players?
It needlessly complicates matters for the DM, if you want a tougher goblin, make him tougher, as tough as you like.


Having a world that centers on the PCs lives isn't a good setting
from
EE

Do you know what, the world does indeed revolve around the party, they are the people playing the game, they are the real life entities that are trying to enjoy the passtime, of course it should revolve around them.

Jack Zander
2008-01-22, 05:30 AM
My problem isn't with the fluff that is written separate from the mechanics (like the origins of tieflings), its when WotC hard codes fluff into mechanics (which they have done with certain feats that I refuse to speak of). There is no way you can change the name of a feat without causing problems and confusion. The small amounts of fluff that were presented in earlier editions were easy to ignore if you wanted to. It's much harder to completely rewrite a setting.

Would you want to buy the Eberron Campaign setting, have all your players memorize the towns/races/history and then tell them to ignore it because you're rewriting your own setting? It's far easier to make basic simple assumptions in the core rulebooks so DMs can start with a clean pallet instead of having to erase a lot of unwanted marks. and if you do want a setting to work with, why not simply purchase one?

Now if this fluff is presented in a separate chapter (much like how it was done in the 3.0 OA handbook) then there should be no problem. But it is already evident (with those unspeakable feat names) that the mechanics have fluff hard coded into them.

The Professor
2008-01-22, 06:05 AM
Firstly, I agree that their main effort (or what they're always appearing to put effort at) is being put in the wrong place with the fluff. I mean, it can be ignored, I just wish they weren't changing as much of it as they are.

Secondly: Settings. Now, I love my players to death, but getting some of them to sit down, and peruse a book is already difficult. I got them all into Forgotten Realms, mostly because we all like high magic, a rich history and we were in dire need of a base setting to go off of. Normally something could be home-brewed, which would've been great, but I haven't the time for such.

Now, if we were to use 4E (which we probably won't because getting my players to learn the 3.5 rule set was painful enough) we'd have to ignore all of the fluff, and carefully adapt the rules to our old books. I just hate it because they're ruining a setting we've all liked, and none of us will have the want or inclination to ever pick it up again. We won't get new splat books for our setting that we'd ever like, because none of it will be relevant any longer. We just won't go with the whole 'all spellcasters 14th and above DIE.' nonsense, but again, the changes will be so massive, we won't get new fluff.

I know some people don't like how convoluted the setting might be, think that with all the organizations, and epic PCs, what is there for the PCs to do? I figure a good enough DM will find a way for the PCs to fit in a seamless manner, without botching reality. You don't always have to be in The North or Shadowdale afterall. The changes they're planning are going to ruin the setting.

Eh, that rant went someplace I wasn't prepared for. I apologize if it was a bit OT.

Starsinger
2008-01-22, 06:06 AM
My problem isn't with the fluff that is written separate from the mechanics (like the origins of tieflings), its when WotC hard codes fluff into mechanics (which they have done with certain feats that I refuse to speak of).

How is Golden Wyvern Adept (is that the right name? Can't recall) any more fused to its flavor than Prestige Classes with flavorful names like Shining Blade of Heironeous or Magus of the Arcane Order? Let alone Prestige Classes with flavor fused even more into their abilities or requirements like Magus of the Arcane Order or War Mind (in the EXP, not the SRD). What about Items with flavor that's hard fused into them, like the Hand and Eye of Vecna?

Golden Wyvern Adept is a name, I actually prefer an evocative name to a bland one like "Combat Casting" or "Spell Shaping".

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 07:59 AM
I call Oberoni Fallacy. Just because you can change, ignore, or houserule over the fluff in the 4E core books doesn't mean that people can't consider it bad fluff.

It seems obvious by now that the 4E core books will have substantially more fluff than 3E or 2E core books, and I can certainly see why people who have been playing for a while will dislike having to explain to new players that some of the things they've just read in their brand new books don't apply in their campaign. This applies moreso because of the increasingly prevalent opinion that if you're not playing D&D by the book, you're playing it "wrong".

In essence, most running 3E settings will have to choose between (1) not converting to 4E period, (2) ignoring substantial parts of the 4E rulebooks, or (3) having substantial sweeping changes in their campaign world. It is easy to see how some people would not appreciate this. It is also easy to see how, from a marketing point of view, such running campaigns are a less-than-significant minority.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 08:09 AM
Anismar is a stupid name. So is Aasimar, for that matter.
Well, yes, but so are "tiefling" and "dragonborn". :smallbiggrin:


How is Golden Wyvern Adept (is that the right name? Can't recall) any more fused to its flavor than Prestige Classes with flavorful names like Shining Blade of Heironeous or Magus of the Arcane Order?
The difference is that the latter two are part flavor, whereas the first is all flavor. You shouldn't be surprised to learn that many players prefer descriptive feat names, for convenience.

It just struck me that it makes perfect sense for WOTC to discourage DMs to come up with their own campaign worlds, because they make more money off the people who don't.

Morty
2008-01-22, 08:33 AM
How is Golden Wyvern Adept (is that the right name? Can't recall) any more fused to its flavor than Prestige Classes with flavorful names like Shining Blade of Heironeous or Magus of the Arcane Order?

Difference is, PrCs are optional and change your entire character concept. Green Wyvern Adept feat as shown by WoTC looks like a feat majority of blasting or battlefield controling wizards would take.




It needlessly complicates matters for the DM

How so?


If you want a tougher goblin, make him tougher, as tough as you like.


No, because a goblin(or an orc, hobgoblin, lizardfolk, whatever) is a sentient creature just like PCs and therefore should be able to advance in class levels just like PCs can. Same goes for NPCs with non-monster races.
I don't know how true are those rumors about "monsters and NPCs working on different rules than PCs", but I have very bad feelings about this.

Serenity
2008-01-22, 08:35 AM
Would you want to buy the Eberron Campaign setting, have all your players memorize the towns/races/history and then tell them to ignore it because you're rewriting your own setting? It's far easier to make basic simple assumptions in the core rulebooks so DMs can start with a clean pallet instead of having to erase a lot of unwanted marks. and if you do want a setting to work with, why not simply purchase one?

Now if this fluff is presented in a separate chapter (much like how it was done in the 3.0 OA handbook) then there should be no problem. But it is already evident (with those unspeakable feat names) that the mechanics have fluff hard coded into them.

I would want to have access to the Eberron Campaign Setting because I like the setting and playing/DMing in it. I also happen to like playing/DMing in homebrew settings. If one of the players in a non-Eberron game has mechanics from the Eberron setting that he would like to use for his setting, than I, as the DM, would consider if there was a way to fit it into the setting we are playing in. Not all of your books are ever going to be 100% useful in every single campaign, that's simply a fact.

As for fluff hard-coded into mechanics...how, exactly? What, exactly is 'unspeakable' about the name Golden Wyvern Adept? No, it doesn't exactly describe what the feat does, but knowing what it does, I can't think of any descriptive feat name that doesn't sound clunky and completely inelegant. Golden WYvern Adept seems a good way to convey an uncommon magical talent to me.

Matthew
2008-01-22, 09:52 AM
How so?

Beacuse the DM is expected to work to a formula that may or may not achieve the ends he desires. It's a lot easier, in my opinion, to just give a Monster the desired stats and abilities than it is to play the meta game of assigning Levels, Class, Skill Points, Feats etc... In practice, many DMs seem to ignore this aspect anyway, simply assigning 'Bonus' modifiers. Of course, your mileage may vary.


No, because a goblin(or an orc, hobgoblin, lizardfolk, whatever) is a sentient creature just like PCs and therefore should be able to advance in class levels just like PCs can. Same goes for NPCs with non-monster races.
I don't know how true are those rumors about "monsters and NPCs working on different rules than PCs", but I have very bad feelings about this.

Why does being sentient correspond to abstract game mechanics? This sounds like a preference thing. I don't think 4e is going to prevent Monsters from becoming PCs or Classed NPCs; it is probable, however, that it is going to offer an alternative method of building Monsters. By the time the edition cycle is over, it probably won't be evident anyway, as PCs and Monsters will have started stealing one another's abilities by then.

Charity
2008-01-22, 09:59 AM
How so?

because adding half a dozen class levels to a goblin is more time consuming than just giving it arbitary higher stats/ bab/ saves etc.


No, because a goblin(or an orc, hobgoblin, lizardfolk, whatever) is a sentient creature just like PCs and therefore should be able to advance in class levels just like PCs can. Same goes for NPCs with non-monster races.
.

The critical point I am making is that the pc's are different from the rest of the world because they have players, you know real people, and thus need to have an interface with the game world, namely a character leveling system. The monsters/npc's etc do not need this interface, it just gets in the way adding layers of unnessisary complication to the DM's job.
If you want the recurring bad guy to get harder, then make him harder, why must he have decernable levels? He can be just as rounded a personality with or without levels, the only benifit I can deduce is it allows players to metagame and work out the saves/class abilities of the npcs... heck they can even work out if they've found all the treasure.

Morty
2008-01-22, 10:00 AM
Beacuse the DM is expected to work to a formula that may or may not achieve the ends he desires. It's a lot easier, in my opinion, to just give a Monster the desired stats and abilities than it is to play the meta game of assigning Levels, Class, Skill Points, Feats etc... In practice, many DMs seem to ignore this aspect anyway, simply assigning 'Bonus' modifiers. Of course, your mileage may vary.

It's true in case of "monstrous" monsters, in which case it's better to just have stats for it. But in case of humanoid monsters, it's better for them to be just hostile NPCs, possibly with provided "typical" encounters so that DM doesn't have to work everything up from scratch.


Why does being sentient correspond to abstract game mechanics? This sounds like a preference thing. I don't think 4e is going to prevent Monsters from becoming PCs or Classed NPCs; it is probable, however, that it is going to offer an alternative method of building Monsters. By the time the edition cycle is over, it probably won't be evident anyway, as PCs and Monsters will have started stealing one another's abilities by then.

If a creature is sentient humanoid, then it should follow exactly the same rules as PCs and classed NPCs, which means it should have class levels, XP and so on. But then, I'm against sentient humanoids being classified as "monsters". But I seem to recall WoTC saying something about "greenskins" not getting PC race stats and instead being just monsters.


because adding half a dozen class levels to a goblin is more time consuming than just giving it arbitary higher stats/ bab/ saves etc.

Marginally. And it'd be possible to list typical orc/goblin fighters so that DM doesn't have to do it him/herself.


The critical point I am making is that the pc's are different from the rest of the world because they have players, you know real people, and thus need to have an interface with the game world, namely a character leveling system. The monsters/npc's etc do not need this interface, it just gets in the way adding layers of unnessisary complication to the DM's job.
If you want the recurring bad guy to get harder, then make him harder, why must he have decernable levels? He can be just as rounded a personality with or without levels, the only benifit I can deduce is it allows players to metagame and work out the saves/class abilities of the npcs... heck they can even work out if they've found all the treasure.

I wouldn't be so sure. I personally find it easier and more organized(for lack of better word) if PCs and NPCs follow the same rules. This way, I can easily compare PCs to their enemies and adjust the latters' strenght.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-22, 10:11 AM
Which is, of course, absolutely impossible once monsters and NPCs start functioning under different rules than the PCs. That is why nobody has ever refered to D&D as a roleplaying game.

Odd, I could have sworn a few people on this thread and others have referred to D&D as a roleplaying game. Golly, I think I might even have been one of them.


The idea that anything important is changing about the way monsters and fluff are being presented is a fantasy.

Have you read the preview books and design articles? The developers sure seem to think that there are important changes in the fluff and monster presentation...


It's less about what your words are explicitly saying and more about how the words combine with the way you're acting with them. In other words, you've never claimed that you have a copy of the new PHB, but you're acting like it.

Of course, if he did have a galley copy under the new 5k OGL preview I'd be willing to be that he wouldn't be allowed to say so without getting sued. Not that I think he does have one mind you.


Would you want to buy the Eberron Campaign setting, have all your players memorize the towns/races/history and then tell them to ignore it because you're rewriting your own setting? It's far easier to make basic simple assumptions in the core rulebooks so DMs can start with a clean pallet instead of having to erase a lot of unwanted marks. and if you do want a setting to work with, why not simply purchase one?

Now if this fluff is presented in a separate chapter (much like how it was done in the 3.0 OA handbook) then there should be no problem. But it is already evident (with those unspeakable feat names) that the mechanics have fluff hard coded into them.

Well put. This is my point and concern exactly.


Not all of your books are ever going to be 100% useful in every single campaign, that's simply a fact.

I think you missed the point there. It's not that I for one care if there are 'useless' things in my books. I will undoubtedly houserule the snot out of 4e as I have with 3x. It's more that I don't want my players to have to unlearn things. Perhaps it's just my group, but fluff they remember much more easily and impacts their play much more than mechanics.


I can't think of any descriptive feat name that doesn't sound clunky and completely inelegant. Golden WYvern Adept seems a good way to convey an uncommon magical talent to me.

What exactly does it do again? I bet I could come up with something pretty quickly. I'm not saying that just to prove I'm creative, but to demonstrate that it is a conscious choice on the part of the game designers to have the fluff so included not an act of intelectual desparation.

Matthew
2008-01-22, 10:15 AM
If a creature is sentient humanoid, then it should follow exactly the same rules as PCs and classed NPCs, which means it should have class levels, XP and so on.

Why, though? To what purpose? Mechanical consistancy? I wouldn't want to keep track of Experience for Dire Rats any more than for a Goblin.


But then, I'm against sentient humanoids being classified as "monsters". But I seem to recall WoTC saying something about "greenskins" not getting PC race stats and instead being just monsters.

Monsters should be Monsterous, I think. If Orcs aren't Monsters, then there's not likely to be much of a problem.

Morty
2008-01-22, 10:23 AM
Why, though? To what purpose? Mechanical consistancy? I wouldn't want to keep track of Experience for Dire Rats any more than for a Goblin.

I just like things to be consistent and belivable. If human warriors have class levels, goblin warriors should have them too. Unless, of course, human warriors won't be represented by class levels, but in this case all hope's lost anyway.


Monsters should be Monsterous, I think. If Orcs aren't Monsters, then there's not likely to be much of a problem.

Problem is, I belive 4ed is going to make greenskins just monsters without racial abilities, in order to "simplify" things.

hewhosaysfish
2008-01-22, 10:37 AM
If a creature is sentient humanoid, then it should follow exactly the same rules as PCs and classed NPCs, which means it should have class levels, XP and so on...
...I personally find it easier and more organized(for lack of better word) if PCs and NPCs follow the same rules. This way, I can easily compare PCs to their enemies and adjust the latters' strenght.

To a certain extent, I agree. If the DM wants to pit an orc against level 13 PCs, then he should be able to take the rules for an orc-as-pc, add 13 levels of a PC class et voila. This has the virtue of being scalable to any level of play.

And I suspect that all this will still be perfectly possible in 4e: we've been told that races suitable for use as PCs will have additional entries in the MM detailing their new racial powers - conceptually similar to the "X as PCs" entries we now have.

The "unclassed" humanoids will either be the non-human analogues to these "0th level" NPCs I've heard about or they will be the new equivalent of the old "1st level X warrior" that 3rd ed uses (i.e they could be derived from scratch from the race and class information).
Or maybe WotC will have a stupid fit and an unclassed orc will be subtly (or radically!) different from a classed orc of the same CR (or whatever they're replacing CR with).

And I don't agree that you need to give the NPCs experience. Are you really suggesting we keep track of how many commoners the recurring villain massacres while he's offscreen, awarding him appropriate XP and levelling him up accordingly before his next runin with the PCs? And those 8 ranks in Craft(basketweaving)? I know a well-rounded character needs interests but does it need to have rules in place?
Creating an NPC is like painting the backdrop for a play: you only do the bit the audience are going to see.

Charity
2008-01-22, 10:43 AM
I just like things to be consistent and belivable. If human warriors have class levels, goblin warriors should have them too.
OK this is you preference, fair enough, but there is no reason why this should be, it's just prefering red roses to yellow or vica versa.


Unless, of course, human warriors won't be represented by class levels, but in this case all hope's lost anyway.

Why? There is no reason why monsters stats should be broken down into discrete level by level portions, this aplies equally to any non player controlled entity in the game world, the only things that need levels are PC's nothing and nobody else.


Problem is, I belive 4ed is going to make greenskins just monsters without racial abilities, in order to "simplify" things.

keeping stuff simple is a good thing in my mind.

VanBuren
2008-01-22, 10:43 AM
I just like things to be consistent and belivable. If human warriors have class levels, goblin warriors should have them too. Unless, of course, human warriors won't be represented by class levels, but in this case all hope's lost anyway.

Still, I can see the fun times that'll happen early on in the switch.

DM: You finally come face to face with the Goblin Chief. He wi--

Kyle: Lemme guess, a Fighter right?

DM: No. But it's not important anyway.

Kyle: The hell's that supposed to mean? Wait... it's not a Warblade is it? Why the hell would you do that to us, Dave? I'm a Fighter, we have a sorcerer, a rogue with 14 dex for some overcomplicated backstory and a Cleric who thought his primary casting stat was INT! Why would you punish us like that? You're one sick bastard you know. I quit. I'm gonna go find a DM that *likes* his players!

Kenny: Um... Kyle. Warblades aren't even *in* 4th edition.

Kyle: ... So um... I roll for initiative.

the_tick_rules
2008-01-22, 10:49 AM
well maybe we should let it get played a bit first before we come down on it too hard.

Morty
2008-01-22, 10:52 AM
Or maybe WotC will have a stupid fit and an unclassed orc will be subtly (or radically!) different from a classed orc of the same CR (or whatever they're replacing CR with).


I'm afraid it's what'll happen, but maybe I'm overly pessimistic.


OK this is you preference, fair enough, but there is no reason why this should be, it's just prefering red roses to yellow or vica versa.

True, but I think it's possible to kill two birds by one rock here, i.e have goblins and orcs as they're in 3ed- your typical orc is 1st level orc warrior(or fighter or something) so that you dont have to bother with adjusting stats. But if someone wants to customize an orc, they're free to do this.


Why? There is no reason why monsters stats should be broken down into discrete level by level portions, this aplies equally to any non player controlled entity in the game world, the only things that need levels are PC's nothing and nobody else.

And I'm not suggesting anything like that. What I'm suggesting is that monstrous humanoids should get racial progressions just like PC races instead of being just an entry in Monster Manual.


Keeping stuff simple is a good thing in my mind.

Keeping stuff simple is fine. Making stuff too simple isn't. And oversimplifying things is what I fear will be prominent in 4ed.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-01-22, 10:57 AM
I stand by statements I have made earlier and over time have refined:

1) The internet is great as we can hate things months, even years before they actually exist.

2) Change is bad, and must be shunned and eliminated.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-22, 11:03 AM
well maybe we should let it get played a bit first before we come down on it too hard.

Nah. If we did that, we wouldn't have anything to talk about. :smallbiggrin:

Tren
2008-01-22, 11:10 AM
How many of you have listened to the 4E monster podcast? M0rt, your big concern seems to be that "greenskins" are going to end up flavorless generic baddies with swords with no racial flavor, which is pretty much the complete opposite of what Dave Noonan and Mike Mearls describe.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20071005e16

I also don't think they've precluded the option of advancing monsters with character levels anywhere. The goal is to take those rarely used monster HD advancement rules in the back of the 3.X MM and make them easier to understand and to apply. And also, to make each race have it's own innate racial abilities that get stronger with the monster. Goblins are sneaky dirty fighting little buggers, not because they have rogue levels but because they are goblins. Gnolls are tough, packfighting, tripping jackals, not because they're fighters but because they're gnolls, and so on and so forth.

Morty
2008-01-22, 11:50 AM
How many of you have listened to the 4E monster podcast? M0rt, your big concern seems to be that "greenskins" are going to end up flavorless generic baddies with swords with no racial flavor, which is pretty much the complete opposite of what Dave Noonan and Mike Mearls describe.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20071005e16

I also don't think they've precluded the option of advancing monsters with character levels anywhere. The goal is to take those rarely used monster HD advancement rules in the back of the 3.X MM and make them easier to understand and to apply. And also, to make each race have it's own innate racial abilities that get stronger with the monster. Goblins are sneaky dirty fighting little buggers, not because they have rogue levels but because they are goblins. Gnolls are tough, packfighting, tripping jackals, not because they're fighters but because they're gnolls, and so on and so forth.

Huh. After listening to this, it indeed looks like most of my fears about the execution of monstrous humanoids are baseless. Thanks for the link, and I take back all of my complaints in that case.

Prophaniti
2008-01-22, 12:13 PM
To clarify: I'm not necessarily saying that their idea of changing the basic mechanics of monsters and npcs won't work. I'm saying that I don't like where they idea comes from, representing an approach that marginalizes everyone besides the players as ultimately meaningless, just obstacles for the PCs to kill/diplomance, which is something I try very hard to steer my group away from. It also seems very likely to make it nigh-impossible to run monster characters, which I and my group enjoys doing.

Thanks Tren for the link, I'll listen to it after work. Perhaps it will allay a few of my misgivings.

On Feats: Golden Wyvern Adept sounds like a rank in a mage guild, not a feat. Feats don't need flashy, cool-sounding names because you're not supposed to have your character running around saying 'I have the Golden Wyvern Adept feat!' That's called metagaming. His ability doesn't have anything to do with Golden Wyverns or Adepts. If I'm thinking of the right feat, Spell Shaping is a much more elegant, simple and concise name, saying what it does without sounding pretentious. I vastly prefer feats names to have something to do with their effect, making it easier to find the ones you want your character to have. Cool-sounding names should be reserved for things that the character will say or be called in-game.

Also, it should be noted that this thread is to express the few grievances I do have with their work so far. the vast majority of it, (the actual rule changes at least, I hate all the fluff) is well done. I hope they also do a good job on the skill system, probably the aspect of 3E that needed rewritten the most.

Counterspin
2008-01-22, 12:40 PM
" To clarify: I'm not necessarily saying that their idea of changing the basic mechanics of monsters and npcs won't work. I'm saying that I don't like where they idea comes from, representing an approach that marginalizes everyone besides the players as ultimately meaningless, just obstacles for the PCs to kill/diplomance, which is something I try very hard to steer my group away from. It also seems very likely to make it nigh-impossible to run monster characters, which I and my group enjoys doing."

This is what's wrong with the 4e argument. People so obsessed with what the designers were thinking when they made a decision that the question of whether it works or not is inconsequential.

And how does streamlining the stat block have anything with rendering NPCs ultimately meaningless? The meat of the monster entry, from an RP standpoint, is the text block, and newsflash it's not going anywhere.

Additionally, you'll be able to run monster characters in 4e as easily as you can in 3e, it's already been gone over. Some races will get full write ups, Savage Species style, and the rest of them you just add class levels on top of the base monster.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-01-22, 01:17 PM
Kidding aside, I started out abhoring all the changes. Every bit of news that surfaced filled me with horror and trepidation. Recently, I got my hands on the Character and Class preview, long enough to browse over it. Time, first-hand information, and reason seem to have tempered my fear. Now I'm curious to see what comes out in final product, and in some cases I'm looking forward to what they produce.

Having played DnD for 25 years now, I've seen plenty of iterations and all kinds of players. Simplicity has its virtues, and I can certainly see how some of the changes I dislike will be embraced by others. (Just reading over Sorcerer versus Wizard threads is proof enough for me, as I tend to be in the slim minority who still likes the old spell-memorization style.)

Also, just to stay in the spirit of internet debates, your opinion stinks. You know who you are. (Gratuitous Disclaimer: I kid, of course.)

Prophaniti
2008-01-22, 01:46 PM
This is what's wrong with the 4e argument. People so obsessed with what the designers were thinking when they made a decision that the question of whether it works or not is inconsequential.
What the designers are thinking as they make the new edition is entirely relevant, as it will ultimately shape the final product and that shape will dictate whether it can work. It's a process, and a change at any point of the process can drastically affect the end product.


Additionally, you'll be able to run monster characters in 4e as easily as you can in 3e, it's already been gone over. Some races will get full write ups, Savage Species style, and the rest of them you just add class levels on top of the base monster.
Well, that at least alleviates some of my worries. I'll just wait and see on that, hopefully it works out well.

Again, all of my posts are merely rants on things I see becoming issues for me and my group, based on the little that I know of the new edition. I can only hope that it will end up being pointless and the changes to the system will not cause me and my group the problems I see forming. I still feel the need to rant anyway, to vent and to sound off so I can come back and read both what I wrote and what others responded in order to gain further perspective on the subject.

Counterspin
2008-01-22, 02:00 PM
"What the designers are thinking as they make the new edition is entirely relevant, as it will ultimately shape the final product and that shape will dictate whether it can work. It's a process, and a change at any point of the process can drastically affect the end product."

What the designers are thinking is totally unimportant, what matters is what they actually produce. The designers thought 3e was balanced, and they were wrong. What they thought had zero impact on my play experience. As for impacting the process, that ship has sailed.

Can't we talk about actual impactful changes, rather than ranting about how wizards is ruining monsters? The removal of alignment, the movement to unified mechanics across all classes, these are important issues, but instead we get this useless junk where we endlessly discuss things that are either A) imaginary or B) will have no effect on anyone's game (the golden wyvern stuff).

Starsinger
2008-01-22, 05:42 PM
On Feats: Golden Wyvern Adept sounds like a rank in a mage guild, not a feat. Feats don't need flashy, cool-sounding names because you're not supposed to have your character running around saying 'I have the Golden Wyvern Adept feat!' That's called metagaming. His ability doesn't have anything to do with Golden Wyverns or Adepts. If I'm thinking of the right feat, Spell Shaping is a much more elegant, simple and concise name, saying what it does without sounding pretentious. I vastly prefer feats names to have something to do with their effect, making it easier to find the ones you want your character to have. Cool-sounding names should be reserved for things that the character will say or be called in-game.

Why? Then you're stuck with tons of feats that all have similar names. "Combat Acrobat, Combat Archery, Combat Awareness, Combat Brute, Combat Casting, Combat Charm, Combat Cloak Expert, Combat Defense, Combat Engineer, Combat Expertise, Combat Familiar, Combat Focus, Combat Insight, Combat Intuition, Combat Manifestation, Combat Panache, Combat Reflexes, Combat Stability, Combat Strike, Combat Tactician, Combat Vigor." Now I'm not saying they all need names like "Golden Wyvern Adept" but.. maybe someone at Wizards could use a Thesaurus..

Edit: And half of those are about as useful in figuring out what the feat does from name alone as Golden Wyvern Adept.

Fhaolan
2008-01-22, 05:57 PM
Why? Then you're stuck with tons of feats that all have similar names. "Combat Acrobat, Combat Archery, Combat Awareness, Combat Brute, Combat Casting, Combat Charm, Combat Cloak Expert, Combat Defense, Combat Engineer, Combat Expertise, Combat Familiar, Combat Focus, Combat Insight, Combat Intuition, Combat Manifestation, Combat Panache, Combat Reflexes, Combat Stability, Combat Strike, Combat Tactician, Combat Vigor." Now I'm not saying they all need names like "Golden Wyvern Adept" but.. maybe someone at Wizards could use a Thesaurus..

Edit: And half of those are about as useful in figuring out what the feat does from name alone as Golden Wyvern Adept.

Okay, I want to have a character with Combat Cloak Expert and Combat Familiar now. Does it have to be a cloak, or will the feat work with a robe? Or maybe a cape? (Not the stupid superhero cape, a proper Opera-style Victorian cape.) :smallsmile:

Prophaniti
2008-01-22, 06:17 PM
Can't we talk about actual impactful changes, rather than ranting about how wizards is ruining monsters? The removal of alignment, the movement to unified mechanics across all classes, these are important issues, but instead we get this useless junk where we endlessly discuss things that are either A) imaginary or B) will have no effect on anyone's game (the golden wyvern stuff).
As I said, I created this thread to rant about things I don't like in the new edition. I stated in the thread title that I didn't expect anyone to care, and fully anticipated it falling quickly to the bottom of the forum, since everyone's hashed and re-hashed 4E by now. I guess there's still a lot of angst out there about it, which is hardly surprising.

If you would like to start a thread explicitely for the points you like in 4E, I will gladly add my voice about the changes that I feel work, and make sense. I personally won't even mention when I disagree with a point someone else likes, though I can't vouch for the rest of the forum.

And, yeah, the Golden Wyvern debate is really a matter of preference. I just think it sounds pretentious and would be more appropriate as a title in some organization, rather than a feat.

Counterspin
2008-01-22, 06:53 PM
My point isn't that it's wrong to dislike 4e, but that your reasons are bad. I don't feel the need to discuss what I like or dislike about 4e at any great length, but the constant contentless buzzing infuriates me.

Additionally, you post things to a popular forum with the expectation that people will ignore it? Please.

osyluth
2008-01-22, 07:03 PM
If you really think 4e is looking to crappy, just stick with gold old 3.5. That's what I'll probably end up doing.

Starsinger
2008-01-22, 07:29 PM
Okay, I want to have a character with Combat Cloak Expert and Combat Familiar now. Does it have to be a cloak, or will the feat work with a robe? Or maybe a cape? (Not the stupid superhero cape, a proper Opera-style Victorian cape.) :smallsmile:

Actually, I just re-read the feat description.. and while it mentions a cape, it's not part of the pre-requisites.. so I suppose you could substitute any cape-like object. :smallsmile:

Prophaniti
2008-01-22, 08:03 PM
My point isn't that it's wrong to dislike 4e, but that your reasons are bad. I don't feel the need to discuss what I like or dislike about 4e at any great length, but the constant contentless buzzing infuriates me.

Additionally, you post things to a popular forum with the expectation that people will ignore it? Please.

How are they bad reasons for disliking these few specific changes that I've mentioned? They may not be your reasons and they may not be changes that you dislike, but that does not invalidate my argument, which has been perfectly concise and logical, albeit mostly a matter of opinion. Reasons based on preference and opinion, especially with regard to a subjects like games, cannot be 'bad', merely different from yours. Even my argument about how their approach is a legitimate thing to dislike is valid, since what I fear to see is that this philosophy will irrevocably change the end product into something I don't want to use. If that's the case, I will simply have to move on to a different system, but I have enjoyed the D&D franchise and hope that this does not happen.

And as far as people ignoring my post... Of course I expected replies. I was genuinely surprised, however, when it went past page two. There have already been numerous 4E threads and I didn't think mine would excite so much more debate and discussion, most of which has been completely without my involvement.

If the constant 'buzzing' about 4E infuriates you, why do you even read a thread that is clearly marked not only as a 4E discussion, but as a specific person's view of 4E? I did not start this to argue about anything, just to voice my personal opinions in my own thread where I will get at least some feedback, since the verbosity of my typical writing means my posts are largely ignored on other threads.

ZekeArgo
2008-01-22, 08:26 PM
1. If it was presented in a manner as they do in normal books where is more "They have these traits and can be like this or this" sort of thing then i'd be happy. But now its "NO GNOMES. Deal with it. Paladins can be evil. Tieflings, their sexy and cool. Anismar is a stupid name"
2. Wow, that sarcasm is just sad. I like fluff that works for different people. However, every time i read a 4E book, in order to work with it, i'm going to have to go along with them

First of all, gnomes suck, flat out. I've never known anyone who ever gave half a damn about any gnome, or honestly any halfling. They suck, the "short race" is already filled up and they had to go. Nevermind that they're still there, in the MM, ready to use for anyone who actually likes them.

As for the other stuff, using a bit of logic would lead you to the conclusion that "Hey, lawful evil deities could want and use champions as well. Why wouldn't they grant power to fighters in the same way that good deities do."

And as for the other stuff, it does work for other people. You might not like it, but other people do. And if you really hate it, don't buy it. Wizards will never be able to cater to everyone, so use your spending power and show them that you hate their product.

Just stop trying to say people are stupid for enjoying new things.



Drow. Which then kept for some reason

Do you just try to not see the point of argument then say random things? Drow are just early 20th century African American analogues. The same role could be played by a dark-skinned human.



awwwwwwwwww, how cute, you think using my age makes you look better

Look, Tieflings and drow have sex appeal and angst appeal. With Drow it wasn't intentional, Tieflings (new ones) are simple drooling with it.
the thing is, i liked the old tieflings. If they wanted to make a new race that were all sexy (how are they sexy with tails half their size by the way? Or do i not want to know?) then that would be fine, call them Demonborn, or Fel Touched, or Hell Children. But don't ruin a cool concept

You still don't understand what the original post was about. Go back and read it, my response was to the claim that teiflings sucked because they weren't created by humans having sex with evil outsiders. Your replies on this point have been completely useless because you haven't been paying one bit of attention.



Except, and a very important exception, no body forces you to use the subraces. You can live a happy live by dropping them and never using them, WOTC makes a lot of them and never uses them. However, if you do use them, suddenly some key cultures are out of your game

As for the many different races, bear in mind, humans are the only race i think that doesn't have any subraces. Dwarves, halflings, gnomes, elves, orcs and Warforge have subraces. Humans i think are the most adeptable, so they are normal all around, while the others have more magical qualities suited to their environment

Put simply: All of them are easily replaced with the normal races, and "new subraces with a slight difference" are completely unneeded. Just make, *gasp* new regional cultures for these same races, like humans are in the real world.


1. Yes it is. You really can play FR without even using the epic NPCs. Why? Because they are off doing their own epic things, no problem.
2. Then don't use them. The ones that are Mary Sues (Eliminster) are off doing their own thing, the PCs are doing their thing. Its a big world, plenty of stuff to do without treading in the big guys shoes. Hell, Drizzt started out as a minor adventure and Eliminster still hasn't showed up in his books

If your going to play in a setting where there are all of these crazy epic NPC badasses, but then say "but they aren't around", then why the hell are you playing in a setting with all of these essentially non-exsistant NPC badasses?!

Rutee
2008-01-22, 08:37 PM
If your going to play in a setting where there are all of these crazy epic NPC badasses, but then say "but they aren't around", then why the hell are you playing in a setting with all of these essentially non-exsistant NPC badasses?!

I was never clear on this. I know why, for instance, Chejop Kejak exists in Exalted; To be overcome (Or converted!) by the Solar PCs (Or utilized by Dragonblooded ones). But Elminster never seems like he's there for that, nor any other FR uberNPC. So hm. I know why they're there conceptually (If you're the only epicly awesome people around, you need suitably epic challenges), but something about the FR version seems to bug me about them.

Prophaniti
2008-01-22, 09:05 PM
I was never clear on this. I know why, for instance, Chejop Kejak exists in Exalted; To be overcome (Or converted!) by the Solar PCs (Or utilized by Dragonblooded ones). But Elminster never seems like he's there for that, nor any other FR uberNPC. So hm. I know why they're there conceptually (If you're the only epicly awesome people around, you need suitably epic challenges), but something about the FR version seems to bug me about them.

I can't understand why people take issue with a setting that actually has people who did what their party is doing. They went on adventures, gained power and found artifacts. FR is in no way 'crowded' or otherwise brimming with powerful people, they are present in proportion to the number of average people there. FR merely requires a DM who can look at the party from the perspective of these various regional powers and say 'do I notice what they're doing? do I care?' Most of the time, especially if the party is low-level, the answer is no. A world without powerful NPCs has always made me wonder, 'Ok, if it's this easy to go out and kill a few monsters to become an unstoppable juggernaut, why the hell hasn't anyone else done it yet?' In FR they have, is all, and now you seek to climb the same ladder. It's not supposed to be easy to become a powerful wizard or mighty warrior, now is it?

VanBuren
2008-01-22, 09:08 PM
Thing is, if your party fails, it isn't a big deal because some NPC will just come over and clean up the mess.

Probably better than you could have in the first place.

Prophaniti
2008-01-22, 09:16 PM
Thing is, if your party fails, it isn't a big deal because some NPC will just come over and clean up the mess.

Probably better than you could have in the first place.

Not necessarily. FR is a big world, where plots and sub-plots and counter-plots abound. It shouldn't be difficult at all for the DM to come up with something that your party gets to handle. And if you do fail, and all die, then you can re-roll as the next group of mercenaries/adventurers that answers the call!

ZekeArgo
2008-01-22, 09:20 PM
Not necessarily. FR is a big world, where plots and sub-plots and counter-plots abound. It shouldn't be difficult at all for the DM to come up with something that your party gets to handle. And if you do fail, and all die, then you can re-roll as the next group of mercenaries/adventurers that answers the call!

Thats just it, its always the crumbs that your dealing with. The small-change that the "big boys" could care less about. If there are truly any world-shattering things going on it's not the party who "should" be taking care of it, but the sheer masses of epicly powered wizards running around.

You can't have a high-level adventure in FR, because once you hit that point, everything is already taken care of/being watched by the gobs of epicly cheesed casters.

You'll always be Elminster's errand boy, and some people really, really don't like that.

Rutee
2008-01-22, 09:30 PM
It's not supposed to be easy to become a powerful wizard or mighty warrior, now is it?

Who said it was easy? Having a higher number of powerful NPCs makes it appear easier, sure, but if the only people who did it were the PCs, after a long, gritty climb against long odds (Which they beat!), I think it, in fact, says that this was a really difficult to accomplish task.

As to why they didn't conquer /before/ you were a threat? The Power of Plot. It wasn't narratively interesting for the group for them to have done so. Or was it? Perhaps you're resistance fighters who are struggling to defeat an Evil Overlord who had hte genre-savviness to strike when there /wasn't/ a band of heroes, but isn't quite aware of the Evil Overlord's list... in its entirety.


FR merely requires a DM who can look at the party from the perspective of these various regional powers and say 'do I notice what they're doing? do I care?' Most of the time, especially if the party is low-level, the answer is no.
The issue is when you feel unimportant. Maybe you are, in the grand scheme fo things. It can certainly be argued that that's the case in Real Life. But is it /interesting/ to be unimportant? I say nay.

Prophaniti
2008-01-22, 09:33 PM
Well, if my party put in the time and effort to get to epic levels in a FR campaign, I would spare nothing to come up with believable, realistic plot for them to follow that allowed them to continue to be challenged without having still more powerful NPCs stomp them for no good reason.

I don't like messing with epic much anyway, since the balance is so awful past level 20, but there's still no reason they can't fight challenging encounters without using the already-existing NPCs. As I said, it really is a big world.


The issue is when you feel unimportant. Maybe you are, in the grand scheme fo things. It can certainly be argued that that's the case in Real Life. But is it /interesting/ to be unimportant? I say nay.

Fair enough, I do understand that some people like to feel more 'centerstage' in their RP games. I prefer a more 'real world' approach, which is why I like FR as a setting. Though actually I like low-magic settings better... but I like the 'real world' feel of settings like FR. I don't really know about the FR 'reboot' for 4E, since I've only read peoples rants about it and not the actual articles. I'm apprehensive, though.

Serenity
2008-01-22, 09:47 PM
I think you missed the point there. It's not that I for one care if there are 'useless' things in my books. I will undoubtedly houserule the snot out of 4e as I have with 3x. It's more that I don't want my players to have to unlearn things. Perhaps it's just my group, but fluff they remember much more easily and impacts their play much more than mechanics.

All right, I think I phrased my own point poorly. I'm trying to say, to borrow your terminology, that players have to 'unlearn' things, or learn new variations all the time as it is. A player gets together his core books and joins an Eberron campaign for their first game. Right off the bat, they have to unlearn the standard Gods and plane configurations, as well as replacing some racial fluff and learning about new races entirely. He then goes on to a Forgotten Realms campaign, and once again has to replace a number of his previous assumptions.

Rutee
2008-01-22, 09:54 PM
Well, if my party put in the time and effort to get to epic levels in a FR campaign, I would spare nothing to come up with believable, realistic plot for them to follow that allowed them to continue to be challenged without having still more powerful NPCs stomp them for no good reason.
"Because it's uninteresting" may in fact be perfectly believable. The Discworld novels apparently have narrative causality as an actual law of the universe, for instance (Not that I'm a discworld fan, but it's an interesting concept). There are other universes where dramatic necessity functions similarly.


I don't like messing with epic much anyway, since the balance is so awful past level 20, but there's still no reason they can't fight challenging encounters without using the already-existing NPCs. As I said, it really is a big world.
I suppose I can't fault thinking I mean Epic Levels, since we're talking about DnD, but I don't mean Epic Levels. I mean epic, the word.

EvilElitest
2008-01-22, 11:23 PM
I didn't bother to reply to your arguments because they're ridiculous on their face. The idea that anything important is changing about the way monsters and fluff are being presented is a fantasy. The idea that fluff is being rammed down your throat is similarly a fantasy. More fluff now comes with the book, and I'm going to continue to ignore it like I always have. All these dire changes are so easy to ignore that it's laughable, even if I cared about them, which I don't.

I love how you avoiding countering any single argument and just simple sat back going "Your wrong", nicely done that. And people call me self righteous. Mind explaining the how or the why by any chance


It's less about what your words are explicitly saying and more about how the words combine with the way you're acting with them. In other words, you've never claimed that you have a copy of the new PHB, but you're acting like it.

I have the information realized in the Races and Classes book, and from that i draw my conclusions. Care to prove me wrong?




Why should monsters follow the same rules as players?
It needlessly complicates matters for the DM, if you want a tougher goblin, make him tougher, as tough as you like.
Because they are sentient race, just like elves, humans and dwarves. It doesn't make sense for them to follow a fundamentally different set of rules. A goblin should have class levels just any other humanoid race, getting ride of that is unnecessary and limiting.



Do you know what, the world does indeed revolve around the party, they are the people playing the game, they are the real life entities that are trying to enjoy the passtime, of course it should revolve around them
In that they are the main characters? Yes. The PCs being innately special and uber from the get-go for no real reason? Hell no, it doesn't make any sense.


So is Aasimar, for that matter.
Why? Hell, and now celestial are the new race, why change it, i didn't see anyone signing a "No Aasimar" petition



It just struck me that it makes perfect sense for WOTC to discourage DMs to come up with their own campaign worlds, because they make more money off the people who don't.
that makes sense, but wouldn't WOTC do better with settings?


don't know how true are those rumors about "monsters and NPCs working on different rules than PCs", but I have very bad feelings about this.
Races and Classes, p. 14



Why does being sentient correspond to abstract game mechanics? This sounds like a preference thing.

A class is specializing in a certain field, like wizardry, divine, or combat. Why wouldn't they be able to? Are goblins not a cultural race? Do they exist just for killing? Then yes, it is just like a video game


because adding half a dozen class levels to a goblin is more time consuming than just giving it arbitary higher stats/ bab/ saves etc
1. Doesn't make sense
2. Ruins rules consistency
3. If you that damn lazy, use basic stats
4. And just like a video game, you fight "goblin" then "bigger goblin"
5. Kills the world
6. limits option
7. no reason


The critical point I am making is that the pc's are different from the rest of the world because they have players, you know real people, and thus need to have an interface with the game world, namely a character leveling system.
Why? Why out of an entire world population are their only half a dozen people who are trained in things. Whey every one of these people die a new "chosen one" shows up? Why does my world have to bend backwards because the PCs want to feel epic from the get-go? If PCs want respect, well the bloody well earn it


The monsters/npc's etc do not need this interface, it just gets in the way adding layers of unnessisary complication to the DM's job.
Like Diablo II.


If you want the recurring bad guy to get harder, then make him harder, why must he have decernable levels? He can be just as rounded a personality with or without levels, the only benifit I can deduce is it allows players to metagame and work out the saves/class abilities of the npcs... heck they can even work out if they've found all the treasure.
so insteading of immersing yourself into a realistic rolepaying world, you make the monesters simple be monesters?

for a world to be realistic it needs to be consistent. Logically, what keeps goblins from becoming spell casters?

And i'll counter the rest of you lot tomorrow after my last mid-term

Oh great job M0rt
from
EE

VanBuren
2008-01-23, 12:03 AM
"Because it's uninteresting" may in fact be perfectly believable. The Discworld novels apparently have narrative causality as an actual law of the universe, for instance (Not that I'm a discworld fan, but it's an interesting concept). There are other universes where dramatic necessity functions similarly.

I know we're on the same side and all, but you're starting to lose me.

Wordmiser
2008-01-23, 03:19 AM
@EvilElitest: Have you looked at the Miniatures previews yet? Monster races will have advancement, whether it's in classes or another form.

In that they are the main characters? Yes. The PCs being innately special and uber from the get-go for no real reason? Hell no, it doesn't make any sense. PCs are only as innately special as their DM makes them. If he isn't advancing NPCs and you have a problem with it, don't blame the gaming system.

Because they are sentient race, just like elves, humans and dwarves.Though I'm fairly certain that Goblins will have methods of advancement, goblins don't actually have to be any more intelligent than the monsters in Gremlins. Would this undermine the basic concept of Goblins? Not really. Would this make it more like a video game than 3.5? Not at all: in 3.5, all Fiendish Monkeys are identical to one another; I doubt you spent much time complaining about that. If that's the concept Wizards wants to give goblins, there really would be no difference at all.

Also, a reconception of the monster races does not automatically turn the game into a mindless "Kill Stuff" routine; it only means that the monster races have been redefined. And it doesn't even matter--if that is what's happening (which I still doubt), the same situations that you used to have with Goblins could easily be replicated with Humans (like ZekeArgo said, that's all any of the races are anyway).

And you realize that Goblins don't come pre-advanced in 3.5, yes? If you want to incorporate any goblin who is not a level 1 Warrior into your D&D 3.5 game, you have to add abilities to it.
--Following so far?
Now you see, both the basic goblin statistics and the basic abilities of the character classes will be available in 4E. Combining them shouldn't be any harder than it is in 3.5 (even if the race isn't intended to do this, the possibility of slapping on higher numbers or handfuls of new abilities couldn't possibly be excluded by any ruleset).

Am I commiting the Oberroni fallacy by suggesting you work outside of the rules? Absolutely.
Would there be any difference if I were telling you to slap on higher numbers and new abilities in 3.5 (following RAW, this time)? Not really, the process will probably be about the same.
Hell, and now celestial are the new race, why change itBecause "Celestial" actually describes the race? Unless a player is already familiar with the term "Aasimar," it's meaningless. And looking up the term could only exacerbate their confusion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=assamar).

I have to agree, though, that "Golden Wyrm Adept" is an awful name--they should have just reused the "Extraordinary Spell Aim" title for that feat.

horseboy
2008-01-23, 03:47 AM
First of all, gnomes suck, flat out. I've never known anyone who ever gave half a damn about any gnome, or honestly any halfling. Hi, I'm Horseboy. Been playing gnomes since 1st edition. Now you know someone. :smallwink:

Charity
2008-01-23, 04:54 AM
Why? Why out of an entire world population are their only half a dozen people who are trained in things. Whey every one of these people die a new "chosen one" shows up? Why does my world have to bend backwards because the PCs want to feel epic from the get-go? If PCs want respect, well the bloody well earn it

It has nothing to do with anyone feeling epic and everything to do with the fundamental difference between the people in the room with you and the people in your head.
The former need to have an interface with the world created in your imagination, the latter can be statted any darn way you like because ... they are in your head, you can make it up, there is no need for them to have identifiable classes... ooo deja-vu

The critical point I am making is that the pc's are different from the rest of the world because they have players, you know real people, and thus need to have an interface with the game world, namely a character leveling system. The monsters/npc's etc do not need this interface, it just gets in the way adding layers of unnecessary complication to the DM's job.
If you want the recurring bad guy to get harder, then make him harder, why must he have discernable levels? He can be just as rounded a personality with or without levels, the only benefit I can deduce is it allows players to metagame and work out the saves/class abilities of the npcs... heck they can even work out if they've found all the treasure.


Like Diablo II.
Or AD&D, of GURPS or Rolemaster or ... well any game you may like to mention along these lines... oh hang on deja-vu

Er, it is just like AD&D or if you like 1E.



so insteading of immersing yourself into a realistic rolepaying world, you make the monesters simple be monesters?

Why does the origin of the stat block make any difference to how the players interact with monsters and NPC's? Oh wait I get a familiar sensation


He can be just as rounded a personality with or without levels, the only benifit I can deduce is it allows players to metagame and work out the saves/class abilities of the npcs... heck they can even work out if they've found all the treasure.


Logically, what keeps goblins from becoming spell casters? .
Nothing, and in fact

giving it arbitrary higher stats/ bab/ saves etc.
Add whatever spell casting abilities you like, just like they did with spell like abilities in 3E.


And i'll counter the rest of you lot tomorrow after my last mid-term.
You will re-iterate your opinion certainly.


Oh great job M0rt
from
EE
Indeed M0rt posting responses to posts you have read and considered is indeed refreshing. It is a pleasure chatting to you.

Beleriphon
2008-01-23, 09:50 AM
I know we're on the same side and all, but you're starting to lose me.

Discworld openly admits that things happen in that setting because its a series of fantasy novels. For example one-in-a-million chances happen nine times out ten in Discworld. In effect the world does revolve around the characters in the story. It doesn't mean that there aren't other important people out there, but everything directly involved with the story (or for D&D the game) revolves around the main characters/s (PCs).

Think about D&D for a second, as a DM would if the players never interact with a specific town then you never need NPCs for that town, so does that mean they don't exist as fictional entities? Of course not but if the players never visit that town then you don't need a description, maps or stats for stuff there. By the same token if you know Kingdom X has King Y but you never intend the players to visit the King Y then you never need to develop the NPC beyond the most basic description.

The simple fact of the matter is that a D&D game revolves around the PCs and their actions. That doesn't mean they are the most important important characters in the world, but they are the most important characters in the game. It does mean that only truly important actions come on the part of the players and the DM.

kamikasei
2008-01-23, 09:59 AM
Discworld openly admits that things happen in that setting because its a series of fantasy novels. For example one-in-a-million chances happen nine times out ten in Discworld. In effect the world does revolve around the characters in the story. It doesn't mean that there aren't other important people out there, but everything directly involved with the story (or for D&D the game) revolves around the main characters/s (PCs).

Think about D&D for a second, as a DM would if the players never interact with a specific town then you never need NPCs for that town, so does that mean they don't exist as fictional entities? Of course not but if the players never visit that town then you don't need a description, maps or stats for stuff there. By the same token if you know Kingdom X has King Y but you never intend the players to visit the King Y then you never need to develop the NPC beyond the most basic description.

The simple fact of the matter is that a D&D game revolves around the PCs and their actions. That doesn't mean they are the most important important characters in the world, but they are the most important characters in the game. It does mean that only truly important actions come on the part of the players and the DM.

That's all well and good, but Rutee said something about not being a fan of Discworld, which is obviously just not possible.

Talya
2008-01-23, 09:59 AM
EE, have you been consciously working on your spelling, typing and grammar? You just made a really long post that was entirely coherent. I see fewer and fewer mistakes like in your "4e review" thread a couple weeks ago. Good show.

Morty
2008-01-23, 10:18 AM
Because they are sentient race, just like elves, humans and dwarves. It doesn't make sense for them to follow a fundamentally different set of rules. A goblin should have class levels just any other humanoid race, getting ride of that is unnecessary and limiting.

Normally I'd agree with you, but the in podcast Tren linked to two 4ed designers confirm that "greenskins" will indeed be able to have class levels and will get distinguishing racial features and that they'll in fact be NPCs.

VanBuren
2008-01-23, 10:18 AM
Discworld openly admits that things happen in that setting because its a series of fantasy novels. For example one-in-a-million chances happen nine times out ten in Discworld. In effect the world does revolve around the characters in the story. It doesn't mean that there aren't other important people out there, but everything directly involved with the story (or for D&D the game) revolves around the main characters/s (PCs).

No, I got that part. It's the part I bolded that concerns me, y'know about not being a fan.

Rutee
2008-01-23, 10:20 AM
I know, I know, I'm a heretic! But I simply can't be botherred to read them. I have higher priorities on what fiction I get through. :P


4. And just like a video game, you fight "goblin" then "bigger goblin"
Beowulf was inspired by a video game? Holy Crap, I need to find this magical time travelling device and abuse it to make untold millions!
(Hint: Grendel -> Grendel's Mother)

Edit: It's a secret to everyone, but.. video games are based on the same conventions that literature and movies are, in the end. Saying something is "Like a video game" is a meaningless statement.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 10:54 AM
All right, I think I phrased my own point poorly. I'm trying to say, to borrow your terminology, that players have to 'unlearn' things, or learn new variations all the time as it is. A player gets together his core books and joins an Eberron campaign for their first game. Right off the bat, they have to unlearn the standard Gods and plane configurations, as well as replacing some racial fluff and learning about new races entirely. He then goes on to a Forgotten Realms campaign, and once again has to replace a number of his previous assumptions.

There are two points here:

1. Shifting to a completley prewritten and prefab campagin setting is a different can of worms than to a homebrew one (at least the kinds I run). In the first case, you can simply hand them a copy of the EbCS or the FRCS and say 'Read it, that's what it is" and refer back to it if there are issues and confusions. For a homebrew one, most of the time that is not an option. The changes are simply given in a, usually verbal, list to the players. This takes up more table time, as your players can't just go home and read it.

2. A shift in who the gods are, which as far as I could tell was really the only bit of vital information for play in FRCS that had to be unlearned, is pretty easy. Gods tend to personify an idea both in game and in polytheistic RL religions. Really, that's what the whole idea of portfolios is. That makes it easy to learn. I don't really care about that. I do care about elves and eladrins now all coming from the feywild (sooner or later) as a matter of core. Players tend to remember that as 'history' which is harder to pry out of their brains. Don't ask me why that is, but in my experience that is the case.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 10:59 AM
I know, I know, I'm a heretic! But I simply can't be botherred to read them. I have higher priorities on what fiction I get through. :P


Heresy indeed! You would probably like them though. Presuming, from the fact that you are on this forum, that you like OotS, you will love Pratchett.


Beowulf was inspired by a video game? Holy Crap, I need to find this magical time travelling device and abuse it to make untold millions!
(Hint: Grendel -> Grendel's Mother)

I'd advise against it. Grendel's Mother would probably eat you.

Edit: Damn hinters preempting my joke!


Edit: It's a secret to everyone, but.. video games are based on the same conventions that literature and movies are, in the end. Saying something is "Like a video game" is a meaningless statement.

Only sort of. Saying that something is like a video game can meaningfully indicate that it lacks depth of plot. Most video games have little to no plot and character development.* I think people who make this objection are afraid that the hackandslash aspect of the game will eat the rest under the new rules. I think that's silly myself.


*Please note I said most, not all, there are exceptions.

Beleriphon
2008-01-23, 11:00 AM
2. A shift in who the gods are, which as far as I could tell was really the only bit of vital information for play in FRCS that had to be unlearned, is pretty easy. Gods tend to personify an idea both in game and in polytheistic RL religions. Really, that's what the whole idea of portfolios is. That makes it easy to learn. I don't really care about that. I do care about elves and eladrins now all coming from the feywild (sooner or later) as a matter of core. Players tend to remember that as 'history' which is harder to pry out of their brains. Don't ask me why that is, but in my experience that is the case.

Which is fine, but if you think about it the Settings-in-a-Can are going to have to do the same thing. Eberron in particular will have to rework some of the racial stuff. I don't consider it any different then doing a homebrew setting and telling the players where the races come from. I'd even consider it a non-issue unless you specifically want to make a race come from a different place, or have a different history than the PHB suggests.

There's the beauty of the PHB setup with a basic setting included in the core material. You have history to draw on if you, or if you don't want to you simply choose something else.

DementedFellow
2008-01-23, 11:02 AM
I've read but a few Discworld books. I wouldn't say that the world revolves around the main characters. It's told from their perspective. so of course they are going to internalize a lot of stuff. Let us not forget that Discworld books are typically told in comedic jest. How about when the house falls on one of the witches for conceivably no reason in Witches Abroad? It was done as a gag and even though a house falling on someone is one-in-a-million, comedic effect will always be paramount.

That said, I must agree with EE. Sure there are monsters that only increase in advancement in 3.x, but usually those don't have a high enough intelligence score. So does that mean we are going to see goblins as a mindless race with no sense of cunning.

And gremlins were smart. You show me another "mindless" critter that can dress up in a trenchcoat and flash people, or do the various other things that they did.

Quite frankly, I would rather fight a goblin mage/barbarian than a "goblin" and then later on a "stronger goblin" - its just like a palette swapped version on the creature. Oh look it has double the hit dice! WOW.

If I want to play a video game, I'll play a video game. If I want my players to experience a gaming environment, I will do my best to give my players something to relate to, so if that means giving monsters classes instead of doubling their hit points and making it so that they need to EARN the respect of the NPCs, then so be it. Why bother playing in the first place if they are already Lord and Master straight out of the gate?

Frankly, I don't know a thing about FR. I've looked at the book and while it does look extensive, I don't like metagaming. That's why I haven't played any Tolkien tabletop RPGs where you play the characters in the book. I rather like making up new characters, and my friends enjoy making up new characters with spin as well. What's the use in playing a character that is already created? And even though it isn't required to metagame in FR campaigns, why not home-brew a world? It would be a really picky player who would say, "I don't want to play your crappy home-brew world, I will only play the rich fantastic world of FR!" Also, if I had such a player, I would tell him the door is that way, and he's free to leave any time. It's good to be DM.

The story is coming from the DM, and a DM is likely to know his characters more than a book. Every supplement I've played has seemed too structured. Meanwhile, the home-brews I've played has seemed more expansive. I think that is why people have problems with all the fluff. Because once you start adding in details to the books, it becomes part of that world, however structured. And you will always have a character who has read the book more than you and is wondering why you are blatantly either neglecting or replacing a class skill, ability, feature, alignment, etc. And while a DM does have a large degree of control of the game, the player will almost assuredly ask why the DM went one way instead of the LAW that is in the book.

So a typical conversation could go like this:

DM: "Because I'm DM and I don't like that book, so I made up a similar race and played it the way that it should be played."

Player: "So remind me again why I paid 30 bucks when you're just going to do a gigantic homebrew system?"

These RPG books are not cheap. Thirty or more dollars is a lot of money to lay down if you are going to play a game and then forget a portion of it. And even if the SRD will be made available, anyone would rather flip through the pages of a book rather than look up stuff online.

And so far, no one has said word one about my complaint about the PrC/Paragaon Path argument. It just seems like everything is GIVEN to the players. They get the respect of the ENTIRE WORLD as soon as they start playing. They are given a Paragon Path no matter what skills they have specialized in. Why not just give them a belt of of +30 AC and the +50 Godslayer Sword while we are at it. Hell, why even play the game at all? Just have them sit down at the table and say, "Congrats! You won! Who wants some nachos?"

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 11:10 AM
There's the beauty of the PHB setup with a basic setting included in the core material. You have history to draw on if you, or if you don't want to you simply choose something else.

See, I don't want to, so the beauty for me would be a core setting that requires little to no alterations to it in order to create my own setting.

And yes, the new settings are going to need to make a bunch of changes too, but as has been pointed out, some are changing to fit the 4e themselves to fit the 4e cosmology rather than the other way around (FRCS) because it's simply going to be easier that way. I don't want to alter my settings to fit 4e. I want my settings to be able to use the D&D mechanics as a tool without needing to stumble over and around them or change to do so.

Rutee
2008-01-23, 11:18 AM
Only sort of. Saying that something is like a video game can meaningfully indicate that it lacks depth of plot. Most video games have little to no plot and character development.* I think people who make this objection are afraid that the hackandslash aspect of the game will eat the rest under the new rules. I think that's silly myself.


*Please note I said most, not all, there are exceptions.

Yeah, but you don't compare those to a game that's ostensibly about the roleplay. You compare those to Hackmaster; Good gamist fun. You compare a Sim- game, for instance, or SWG to an immersion-based roleplay, or Xenogears or Final Fantasy Tactics to a story-based roleplay.

Either way, it doesn't kill the feeling that, to me, playing the video game card is just another way for Roleplay Nerds to enact Omega Wolf Syndrome, with Video Game Nerds as their targets.

Prophaniti
2008-01-23, 11:20 AM
And so far, no one has said word one about my complaint about the PrC/Paragaon Path argument. It just seems like everything is GIVEN to the players. They get the respect of the ENTIRE WORLD as soon as they start playing. They are given a Paragon Path no matter what skills they have specialized in. Why not just give them a belt of of +30 AC and the +50 Godslayer Sword while we are at it. Hell, why even play the game at all? Just have them sit down at the table and say, "Congrats! You won! Who wants some nachos?"
Exactly what I'm wondering. Both the PC class mechanics and the fluff that I've seen so far, albeit only a small portion, seem bent on making the PC by default more powerful. Of course they should be central to the story, of course it's fun to play someone above average. But if there's no challenge, if they get everything handed to them without having to work for it, why are we playing the game? Just to feel big and powerful? Go burn some ants with a magnifying glass.

Personally I don't like what I'm hearing about all this Paragon Path nonesense. With PrCs there were specific qualifications, giving at least the illusion of earning access to them, rather than having it handed to you.
I don't want to alter my settings to fit 4e. I want my settings to be able to use the D&D mechanics as a tool without needing to stumble over and around them or change to do so.
Said it better than I did. Exactly what I want. I don't want the pre-built fluff to impact the mechanics, which yes 3E did, but 4E looks to be doing a lot more of. A step in exactly the opposite direction I was hoping for.

Again, perhaps I'm wrong, and all this ranting is so much wasted typing. I can only hope so. It will remain to be seen, when I get a chance to peruse the finished product.

Rutee
2008-01-23, 11:23 AM
Why do people insist on 'earning' power? Notwithstanding that we're playing a game.. When was the last time a training montage served a purpose other then to provide an In-setting reason for person X to be more skilled/powerful?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 11:23 AM
Yeah, but you don't compare those to a game that's ostensibly about the roleplay. You compare those to Hackmaster; Good gamist fun. You compare a Sim- game, for instance, or SWG to an immersion-based roleplay, or Xenogears or Final Fantasy Tactics to a story-based roleplay.

Sure you do. They are all part of the genre. I haven't played the ones you mentioned there, but I would still say that most of even the 'rpg' style games, like the FF games (which I love), tend to lack in plot and character development when compared to novels or tabletop gaming. I remember the old freeform text based mmorpgs (muds and the like) that didn't suffer from this problem as much, but they are the vast minority these days. It's an unfair description of a genre to take a smaller subset of it and say 'you can only judge it on these' when the comparison was to them as a whole. That's true even if the subset is better than the rest of the genre (which imho it usually is).

DementedFellow
2008-01-23, 11:30 AM
Why do people insist on 'earning' power? Notwithstanding that we're playing a game.. When was the last time a training montage served a purpose other then to provide an In-setting reason for person X to be more skilled/powerful?

Look at it like this: let's say you are working at a hard job for 5 years, doing the same routine everyday. But because you done something enough, you suddenly are told that you have become the chairperson of a company because of your diligence. It doesn't make any sense. PrCs were kinda balanced. You had to specialized in an area before you could take that class. It wasn't just handed to you after a certain amount of time.

And like I said, the time to go from level one to level 5-6 (which PrCs typically become available) is considerably less than the time to go from level one to level eleven. So in this game, don't expect many people to make a level one player then try to level up their characters during a campaign.

Rutee
2008-01-23, 11:32 AM
Sure you do. They are all part of the genre. I haven't played the ones you mentioned there, but I would still say that most of even the 'rpg' style games, like the FF games (which I love), tend to lack in plot and character development when compared to novels or tabletop gaming. I remember the old freeform text based mmorpgs (muds and the like) that didn't suffer from this problem as much, but they are the vast minority these days. It's an unfair description of a genre to take a smaller subset of it and say 'you can only judge it on these' when the comparison was to them as a whole. That's true even if the subset is better than the rest of the genre (which imho it usually is).

Some RPGs don't have character development or a deep plot. Some do. But I was basically saying you have to make your comparison based on intention. You can't, for instance, say that Gradius sucks because it doesn't have a plot, or that Hackmaster is bad because it doesn't care about roleplay at /all/. Well, you can, but it's silly; These games were focusing on intentions that don't /matter/ to you, sure. I'm saying you need to compare games to games with similar intentions; Hence why I would pair most video games with things like Hackmaster, or arguably Dungeons and Dragons at its face (I find it slightly difficult to believe, given its history, that DnD is in fact, designed for something besides good gamist fun. There's too many minor bonuses, too much book keeping in the RAW, too much fun to be had in making class combos that work, etc). Similarly, I would pair, let's say, Vampire with Harvest Moon (The idea is to live in this world. Different worlds, different feels, similar intentions).

Basically, you can't compare apples and steel cubes. You need to look for a similarity beyond the absolute most basic comparison (They are both games) to have a /meaningful/ comparison.


Look at it like this: let's say you are working at a hard job for 5 years, doing the same routine everyday. But because you done something enough, you suddenly are told that you have become the chairperson of a company because of your diligence. It doesn't make any sense. PrCs were kinda balanced. You had to specialized in an area before you could take that class. It wasn't just handed to you after a certain amount of time.
Do you have a copy of the 4e PHB on you? I would love to learn how Paragon Paths work specifically! Can you send me a copy of it maybe?


And like I said, the time to go from level one to level 5-6 (which PrCs typically become available) is considerably less than the time to go from level one to level eleven. So in this game, don't expect many people to make a level one player then try to level up their characters during a campaign.
Oh no, not the boring as hell levels where people die in 2 hits because of chance. Anything but the boring as hell levels where people die in 2 hits..

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 11:43 AM
Yawn. More people complaining about the new system having the audacity to include character advancement! Come on. Seriously? Your complaining that paragon paths are "just handed" to players? Without giving it a lick of thought as to why that might be? (Hint guys, level 1-10 racial path, 11-20 paragon path, 21-30 destiny, or whatever it's called) This is more foolishness based on comparing one system to the other, rather than taking the new system as a whole. Who cares if it's redder, oranger, bigger, smaller, whatever compared to 3e, as long as it's good?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 11:45 AM
But if there's no challenge, if they get everything handed to them without having to work for it, why are we playing the game? Just to feel big and powerful? Go burn some ants with a magnifying glass.

I think there is a distinction you might want to keep in mind. The fact that the PC's are going to be by default more powerful than the typical other person of their race doesn't mean that they will be that much more powerful than the obstacles they will need to overcome to survive (ie. monsters, traps, spells etc). Basically, the challenge will not be coming from their neighbor Jimmy Notimportantenoughforalastname but from Grenar Malsomethingorother, Lich Master of the Placenamehere.


Basically, you can't compare apples and steel cubes. You need to look for a similarity beyond the absolute most basic comparison (They are both games) to have a /meaningful/ comparison.

True, which is why I specifically talked about games that style themselves 'roleplaying games' or RPG's. It would be unfair to compare 4e to tetris. It is not unfair or meaningless to compare it to a whole subgenre of video games that bear the same moniker.

As for intention, I think that is the point when people make the comparison. When they say that it is becoming more like a video game they mean it is becoming more gamist, like hackmaster. They mean this is 'on purpose' since the game is designed that way. This may not be an accurate comparison, I don't think it is, but it is certianly not 'meaningless'. It has a meaning. It has a specific meaning that makes a claim. It's just that the claim is incorrect.


Do you have a copy of the 4e PHB on you? I would love to learn how Paragon Paths work specifically! Can you send me a copy of it maybe?

I'm sure he'd love to but for that pesky nondisclosure agreement. :smallwink:


And like I said, the time to go from level one to level 5-6 (which PrCs typically become available) is considerably less than the time to go from level one to level eleven.

Unless we know what the experience to level to amount per encounter ratio is we don't actually know if that is true or not.


Oh no, not the boring as hell levels where people die in 2 hits because of chance. Anything but the boring as hell levels where people die in 2 hits..

Well, a good number of players are that way. Most of my group always wants to start at level 3 or higher, where the PC's have some power. I don't blame them. D&D is an escapist game to an extent.

Starbuck_II
2008-01-23, 11:51 AM
In that they are the main characters? Yes. The PCs being innately special and uber from the get-go for no real reason? Hell no, it doesn't make any sense.


Actually, dude, the DMG/PHB does make the PCs special in 3.5. Want to know why? It says certain skills only work on non-PCs. That immunity to diplomacy, etc makes them special.
So yes, PC are innately special from te get go.

Starsinger
2008-01-23, 11:52 AM
Oh no, not the boring as hell levels where people die in 2 hits because of chance. Anything but the boring as hell levels where people die in 2 hits..

Seconded, I loathe levels 1-3 (I tend to play spontaneous casters, who get royally screwed at 3rd level), because you're so.. nothing. Who knows? Maybe in 4E level 1 won't be so bad? I hope they take a cue from the one good thing from D&D Online that I can actually remember and give everyone 20 (or was it 30?) base hit points. I can't stand 3E combat at level one, it's a very ridiculous game of "Tag you're dead!" which may be realistic, but that's not why I play, so that extra HP buffer would be nice.

Rutee
2008-01-23, 11:53 AM
True, which is why I specifically talked about games that style themselves 'roleplaying games' or RPG's. It would be unfair to compare 4e to tetris. It is not unfair or meaningless to compare it to a whole subgenre of video games that bear the same moniker.
Well, yes, it is, really; The word has taken on a new meaning in the context of video games, at this point.


As for intention, I think that is the point when people make the comparison. When they say that it is becoming more like a video game they mean it is becoming more gamist, like hackmaster. They mean this is 'on purpose' since the game is designed that way. This may not be an accurate comparison, I don't think it is, but it is certianly not 'meaningless'. It has a meaning. It has a specific meaning that makes a claim. It's just that the claim is incorrect.
Hm, but that doesn't seem to be the sense that's meant, generally; It would be silly to accuse video games of making DnD more gamist when DnD has always been this gamist. In asking about Video Game Syndrome, I was told it meant I liked "The PCs being the center of the setting's universe", much like King Arthur or Gilgamesh were the centers of their respective settings (The Known World). In other words, often the things that are pinned on video games are in fact, Older than they think (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OlderThanTheyThink).

Like I said, it genuinely feels like some sort of Omega Wolf Syndrome, with Roleplaying Nerds trying to make fun of Gamer Nerds to reaffirm their own self-esteem/find a convenient scapegoat(Not that the reverse is ever any smarter)

Charity
2008-01-23, 11:57 AM
That said, I must agree with EE. Sure there are monsters that only increase in advancement in 3.x, but usually those don't have a high enough intelligence score. So does that mean we are going to see goblins as a mindless race with no sense of cunning.

No no and heavens no again.
The point is you don't need to use the mechanism of advancing monsters through character levels in order to define them. It does not make any difference to how the creatures act, it does not reduce, or in anyway limit what you can make them capable of. It is simply a more freeform method of defining their mechanical stats.


Quite frankly, I would rather fight a goblin mage/barbarian than a "goblin" and then later on a "stronger goblin" - its just like a palette swapped version on the creature. Oh look it has double the hit dice! WOW.

Where do you get the impression that a Mage/barbarian goblin is in any way more flavourful than Mad Hengis the greataxe weilding spellslinging goblin of local reknown?
In most RPG's nobody has a class not even the damn player characters, does that make them all one dimensional cardboard cutouts? No because the level mechanism is entirely seperate from the interactve part of the game.



If I want to play a video game, I'll play a video game. If I want my players to experience a gaming environment, I will do my best to give my players something to relate to, so if that means giving monsters classes instead of doubling their hit points and making it so that they need to EARN the respect of the NPCs, then so be it. Why bother playing in the first place if they are already Lord and Master straight out of the gate?
I simply cannot follow the logic of this statement.


And so far, no one has said word one about my complaint about the PrC/Paragaon Path argument. It just seems like everything is GIVEN to the players. They get the respect of the ENTIRE WORLD as soon as they start playing. They are given a Paragon Path no matter what skills they have specialized in. Why not just give them a belt of of +30 AC and the +50 Godslayer Sword while we are at it. Hell, why even play the game at all? Just have them sit down at the table and say, "Congrats! You won! Who wants some nachos?"

This strange rant also requires explanation, not sure where it came from, not sure where the critiscism is being leveled.

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 12:01 PM
Will people stop repeating the "monsters can't have class levels foolishness"?

Matthew Sernett-

Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there by adding a class, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."

Charity
2008-01-23, 12:10 PM
I am aware that one will be able to, I was attempting to further clarify my earlier point that they are not needed.
I will quit as it isn't advancing the thread in any meaningful fashion.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-23, 12:26 PM
I will quit as it isn't advancing the thread in any meaningful fashion.

Ohh Charity, thank you for making my day. :smalltongue:

As if that has ever stopped you. :smallwink:

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 12:30 PM
Well, yes, it is, really; The word has taken on a new meaning in the context of video games, at this point.

I am unaware of any such new meaning. I am aware of the following definitions and explanations of the term, none of which conform to your minimalist redefinition:

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Roleplaying%20Game)

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roleplaying_Game)

If you want an argument about new meaning of a word to hold water you need to have some basis for saying that the alleged new meaning extends beyond a very small group. Please provide some.


Hm, but that doesn't seem to be the sense that's meant, generally; It would be silly to accuse video games of making DnD more gamist when DnD has always been this gamist.

This is true in varying degree. 2e fans argue that 3x was more gamist than 2e and prefer 2e because it gave the DM more flexability because it was 'rules light' (I'm not arguing for the truth of this position just using it as an example). How gamist it is certianly can be, and is, a concern of D&D game design. If you read the developers comments, particularly the articles in the Rules Compendium, you will notice that the designers try very hard to strike a balance bettween the two ways of approaching the game.


In asking about Video Game Syndrome, I was told it meant I liked "The PCs being the center of the setting's universe", much like King Arthur or Gilgamesh were the centers of their respective settings (The Known World). In other words, often the things that are pinned on video games are in fact, Older than they think (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OlderThanTheyThink).

That is a critique also. Of course, there is older literature that doesn't have that point of view, like the Iliad for example. Video games do tend toward that narrative style more, some would argue, like a link from the wikipedia page above, because of the nature of the system, but it's not the objection I'm usually aware of in terms of 'D&D is becoming a video game'. That's more of the 'D&D is handicapping my RP options' objection. The two are frequently correlated in practice but not dependant upon eachother.

Dizlag
2008-01-23, 12:34 PM
WOW! Lots of good stuff in this thread I must say. And I will, or I just did? =)

I'd like to toss my 2 copper pieces in on two subjects ... the Paragon Paths being given to the PCs at level 11 and the advancement of monsters.

First, the point of view that the PCs will be given a Paragon Path for free without any qualifications isn't a fair statement at all. Especially since we haven't seen the PHB yet. And if you did and you're talking about it like that on this forum you better re-read your Non-disclosure you signed. What's the difference between receiving a "free feat" every 3rd level and getting a set of abilities that will advance when you level? It sounds like to me, the Paragon Paths will give you a "palette" of abilities to choose from at a certain level. So again I ask, how is this different from choosing a feat at 12th, 15th, and 18th level?

Second, the advancement of monsters will occur as Counterspin quoted Matthew Sernett. As a longtime DM, I'm excited about this technique of creating encounters and philosophy of advancing monsters. It sounds like it will be quicker and easier to toss challenging / balanced encounters at the party. If you haven't listened to the D&D Podcast that was linked on the previous page, I highly suggest it. More importantly, listen to the part when James Wyatt has to "on the fly" create a balanced encounter for 4 different situations and levels.

Dizlag

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 12:36 PM
EE, have you been consciously working on your spelling, typing and grammar? You just made a really long post that was entirely coherent. I see fewer and fewer mistakes like in your "4e review" thread a couple weeks ago. Good show.

Thank you, my spell check is working again and i've been studying for English


@EvilElitest: Have you looked at the Miniatures previews yet? Monster races will have advancement, whether it's in classes or another form.

We shall see


PCs are only as innately special as their DM makes them. If he isn't advancing NPCs and you have a problem with it, don't blame the gaming system.
except the system actively encourages that sort of "PCs are special" idea


Though I'm fairly certain that Goblins will have methods of advancement, goblins don't actually have to be any more intelligent than the monsters in Gremlins. Would this undermine the basic concept of Goblins? Not really. Would this make it more like a video game than 3.5? Not at all: in 3.5, all Fiendish Monkeys are identical to one another; I doubt you spent much time complaining about that. If that's the concept Wizards wants to give goblins, there really would be no difference at all.

1. yes it would undermine the concept of goblins, they are a sentient race
2. Except now they are only monsters, not another race with class levels that hte PCs are fighting. Its limiting and unnessary
3. Fiendish monkeys are unable to take class levels i believe, this concept is that all monsters and NPCs seem cripplied in some way
4. Except it takes aways an important element, world constancy. Their are races, and these races can have classes. Some races are by nature evil, but they are still all creatures living in a world. A world is more realistic when things are consistent. Elves dwaves and Gnomes are three normal races. All of them can practice arcane magic, divine magic, and can advance in life. Everybody is on the same page. Goblins also are a race, just a weak evil one. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't follow the same rules as the other races


Also, a reconception of the monster races does not automatically turn the game into a mindless "Kill Stuff" routine; it only means that the monster races have been redefined.
yes it does, it dehumanizes them. It makes them different in some way. It is like when i play Diablo, the people i'm fighting exist just to be killed, their is no sense of them being another race with their own powers and skills


And it doesn't even matter--if that is what's happening (which I still doubt), the same situations that you used to have with Goblins could easily be replicated with Humans (like ZekeArgo said, that's all any of the races are anyway).
1. The same ZekeArgo who says he hasn't seen a single gnome played?
2. Wait wait wait, so i have to change every goblin encounter to a human one just because WOTC goes through an unnecessary unneeded change of the reaes
3. Why should i drop goblins? hobgoblins, orcs, gnomes (monster now), drider, Trog, lizardfolk, Trolls, Minotaur, Orge, Giant, Salamander, Derro, Bugbear and Half Dragons simple because it would be simplier for that matter
4. Which brings us back to my original point, if it isn't broke, don't' fix it



And you realize that Goblins don't come pre-advanced in 3.5, yes? If you want to incorporate any goblin who is not a level 1 Warrior into your D&D 3.5 game, you have to add abilities to it.
Read DMG, or take like ten mins out of your schedule. It really isn't hard at all
to advance any NPC. Any decent DM will have some pre made charts for NPCs who have classes to use if they aren't important. Its common sense.



--Following so far?
Lazy. Yeah, i'd rather not


Now you see, both the basic goblin statistics and the basic abilities of the character classes will be available in 4E. Combining them shouldn't be any harder than it is in 3.5 (even if the race isn't intended to do this, the possibility of slapping on higher numbers or handfuls of new abilities couldn't possibly be excluded by any ruleset).

Except that i'm having to resort to unnecessary homebrewing for something so damn simple that it shouldn't even have been changed in the first place. Yet again, if it ain't broke dont' fix it.


Am I commiting the Oberroni fallacy by suggesting you work outside of the rules? Absolutely.
Rules that are being hostile to that ideal when they shouldn't have changed that in the first place. Why did they do that? Most likely because 4E seems more focused upon a video game style of cool instead of immersing your self into a fantastical world. It can be done, but that doesn't seem to be the aim


Would there be any difference if I were telling you to slap on higher numbers and new abilities in 3.5 (following RAW, this time)?
Except i just give them class levels, i'm still following the consistency of the game.


Not really, the process will probably be about the same. Because "Celestial" actually describes the race?
Um, Celestials are an outsider group,


Unless a player is already familiar with the term "Aasimar," it's meaningless. And looking up the term could only exacerbate their confusion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=assamar).

they chose the name, its been around for a few decades why suddenly change it


Why do people insist on 'earning' power? Notwithstanding that we're playing a game.. When was the last time a training montage served a purpose other then to provide an In-setting reason for person X to be more skilled/powerful?

Players start out low level. As they improve, they get better stuff, get more glory and are generally more loved. But they don't get all of the privileges from the get go, its that sort of hubris that leads to the players in "DM of the rings". If the PCs want to be respected sure, but they have to earn it.



Beowulf was inspired by a video game? Holy Crap, I need to find this magical time travelling device and abuse it to make untold millions!
(Hint: Grendel -> Grendel's Mother)

WFT? What are you talking about.


Edit: It's a secret to everyone, but.. video games are based on the same conventions that literature and movies are, in the end. Saying something is "Like a video game" is a meaningless statement.

Look, when i play LOTR Return of the king right, i'm the PC? I"m special. Everything revolves around me. And then i promptly run off and go on a killing spree against a bunch of orcs. Thats cool, but the orcs only exist to be killed. They see me, they run at me, and I promply earn EXP by killing them. As the game goes on, i fight bigger orcs, or trolls, or easterlings, and dispite that fact the cannonly these creatures are intellegent, they are all exactly the same, they swarm me and i kill them. none of them are individual except the mini bosses, there divided into types where their all exactly the same. And i kill them. Their is "Goblin" "Goblin wearing helmet" "Goblin archer" "Goblin with spear" "Orc" "Taller Orc" "Uruk-hai" you see what i mean? Now this is a video game, so i'm cool with that, they attack me, i kill them, i become super uber great, and i'm all like "Niffty" But that is only a video game, when i play a RPG, i want those Easterlings to have a reason for fighting me. I don't want them to be the mindless enemies, if that was what i'd just fight zombies all day. I want a world that is immersive, and doesn't make me the hero just because i happened to be playing

from
EE

Rutee
2008-01-23, 12:45 PM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roleplaying_Game)

If you want an argument about new meaning of a word to hold water you need to have some basis for saying that the alleged new meaning extends beyond a very small group. Please provide some.

By (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game) all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_role-playing_game) means. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_role-playing_game)

Note that all 3 of these are referred to, within their entire industry and their Nerds, as RPGs, as a general rule. I would not call that a 'small group of people', any moreso then I would say the entire Tabletop Roleplaying Game Industry and their Nerds are a 'small group of people'.

Incidentally, Dictonary.com is not a good site for anything approaching a vernacular. Notwithstanding that using the logic that they hold the same name and title makes them all immediately useful comparisons is tantamount to saying any and all comparisons between tabletop RPGs is immediately useful. They're not. One must narrow the playing field significantly and be specific to have a meaningful comparison, quite frankly.


This is true in varying degree. 2e fans argue that 3x was more gamist than 2e and prefer 2e because it gave the DM more flexability because it was 'rules light' (I'm not arguing for the truth of this position just using it as an example). How gamist it is certianly can be, and is, a concern of D&D game design. If you read the developers comments, particularly the articles in the Rules Compendium, you will notice that the designers try very hard to strike a balance bettween the two ways of approaching the game.
I'm not really sure they do a good job of it then. Just based on how much bookkeeping there is, it's hard for me to believe a claim that it's not Gamist. I can certainly believe they /try/ not to, but I'm not sure such a claim is actually accurate. Heck, books of total crunch sell; Books of total fluff, evidently, do not.




That is a critique also. Of course, there is older literature that doesn't have that point of view, like the Iliad for example. Video games do tend toward that narrative style more, some would argue, like a link from the wikipedia page above, because of the nature of the system, but it's not the objection I'm usually aware of in terms of 'D&D is becoming a video game'. That's more of the 'D&D is handicapping my RP options' objection. The two are frequently correlated in practice but not dependant upon eachother.
Well, I never really claimed it was all fiction either way; I merely said it's much, much older then they think, and more to the point, that centralization is referred to as a bad thing so that Roleplaying Nerds have a convenient scapegoat.

Rutee
2008-01-23, 01:09 PM
Players start out low level. As they improve, they get better stuff, get more glory and are generally more loved. But they don't get all of the privileges from the get go, its that sort of hubris that leads to the players in "DM of the rings". If the PCs want to be respected sure, but they have to earn it.
Players start out low level? Why is that? I've started exactly one story in recent memory where the PCs were supposed to be newbies; And they're /children/. They /are/ supposed to be newbies. What part of any of that is a privilege, in a game? Especially in a game where the PCs /are/ supposed to be awesome, which is my default.


WFT? What are you talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf
The original epic poem of Beowulf. Beowulf's first foe is the monster Grendel. His second is Grendel's mother, who mechanically would be a bigger, badder Grendel. What you're talking about is in fact the Sorting Algorithm of Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil).


Look, when i play LOTR Return of the king right, i'm the PC? I"m special. Everything revolves around me. And then i promptly run off and go on a killing spree against a bunch of orcs. Thats cool, but the orcs only exist to be killed. They see me, they run at me, and I promply earn EXP by killing them. As the game goes on, i fight bigger orcs, or trolls, or easterlings, and dispite that fact the cannonly these creatures are intellegent, they are all exactly the same, they swarm me and i kill them. none of them are individual except the mini bosses, there divided into types where their all exactly the same. And i kill them. Their is "Goblin" "Goblin wearing helmet" "Goblin archer" "Goblin with spear" "Orc" "Taller Orc" "Uruk-hai" you see what i mean? Now this is a video game, so i'm cool with that, they attack me, i kill them, i become super uber great, and i'm all like "Niffty" But that is only a video game, when i play a RPG, i want those Easterlings to have a reason for fighting me. I don't want them to be the mindless enemies, if that was what i'd just fight zombies all day. I want a world that is immersive, and doesn't make me the hero just because i happened to be playing

The irony of quoting from about "Video Game-based problems" from a game based on a literary tale is lost on you, isn't it?

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 01:14 PM
EE you're continuing to argue based on the idea that monsters will only be differentiated by monster advancement, which I've already disproven with a quote upthread. You'll be able to advance monsters in 4e pretty much the same way you can in 3e, via type advancement or classes.

Additionally, the whole logical basis of your claims are bankrupt. The "monsters are only chunks of xp" is a result of game culture, not game system. And the idea that 15 or so extra hit points at level one is going to dramatically change the way everyone DMs NPC is patently ridiculous.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 01:15 PM
By (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game) all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_role-playing_game) means. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_role-playing_game)

Note that all 3 of these are referred to, within their entire industry and their Nerds, as RPGs, as a general rule. I would not call that a 'small group of people', any moreso then I would say the entire Tabletop Roleplaying Game Industry and their Nerds are a 'small group of people'.

I'm not seeing how those three meet what I understand to be your limited definition. For example: Console RPG's use an example I cited, Final Fantasy, as a game in that category. Among Video game RPG's the FF series has more plot and character development than most.


Incidentally, Dictonary.com is not a good site for anything approaching a vernacular.

I must simply disagree with you here. Dictionary.com draws off a number of other dictionaries. Dictionaries, are by definition, the current vernacular and historical vernacular meanings of words. Each dictionary has a diffrent threshold of 'common useage' and Dictionary.com samples many of them.


One must narrow the playing field significantly and be specific to have a meaningful comparison, quite frankly.

How narrow a playingfield would you suggest? A specific game? A handful of specific games? I suggested a class of games that share a common name. That has meaning.

You seem to be arguing that because of the diversity of the genre that a comparison bettween the two would not be useful. I agree with you there. That is not the same as meaningless.


I'm not really sure they do a good job of it then. Just based on how much bookkeeping there is, it's hard for me to believe a claim that it's not Gamist. I can certainly believe they /try/ not to, but I'm not sure such a claim is actually accurate. Heck, books of total crunch sell; Books of total fluff, evidently, do not.

There are reasons for that. I'm actually more likley to buy a book of total crunch than a book of total fluff. Why? Because the crunch provides the rules on top of which I can place all of my own fluff. That said, games I DM tend to be far more RP than hack and slash, averaging one encounter per session, sometimes none. D&D actually does a good job of it, imho. Could be better, and I worry for 4e sometimes (as noted above), but compared to many other non-freeform RPG's it is pretty RP friendly.



Well, I never really claimed it was all fiction either way; I merely said it's much, much older then they think, and more to the point, that centralization is referred to as a bad thing so that Roleplaying Nerds have a convenient scapegoat.

I haven't seen anyone dispute that it's an old narrative style. That it is an old narrative style doesn't mean that it is not one that is dominant in video game RPG's though, nor does it mean that D&D is not being influenced toward that style by those video games.

As for people picking on eachother, in some cases I guess that's true. Some people have an honest gripe though. I usually think they are wrong, but it's a matter of interpretation and guesswork as to what 4e will really be like at this point.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 01:29 PM
I stand by statements I have made earlier and over time have refined:

1) The internet is great as we can hate things months, even years before they actually exist.

2) Change is bad, and must be shunned and eliminated.
Preach it brother
Vita La Revolution.
Wait....




Kenny: Um... Kyle. Warblades aren't even *in* 4th edition.

Kyle: ... So um... I roll for initiative.
and then the goblins kill Kenny
Sorry


Huh. After listening to this, it indeed looks like most of my fears about the execution of monstrous humanoids are baseless. Thanks for the link, and I take back all of my complaints in that case.


4E's biggest problem is that most of its changes are Unnecessary. Some i don't mind, some i think were needed, and the some are cool (female dwarves, finally). But some a changes don't make any sense. Evil paladins anyone?


And, yeah, the Golden Wyvern debate is really a matter of preference. I just think it sounds pretentious and would be more appropriate as a title in some organization, rather than a feat.
seconded


First of all, gnomes suck, flat out. I've never known anyone who ever gave half a damn about any gnome, or honestly any halfling. They suck, the "short race" is already filled up and they had to go. Nevermind that they're still there, in the MM, ready to use for anyone who actually likes them.

See? that is the same sort of heavy handed method taht greatly annoys me. I've played many gnomes, with many people who have gnome characters and my world has many gnomes in it. Just because you haven't played them doesn't mean others can't enjoy them.
As for sucking, there pretty good stat wise by the by.
And the 'short race" dear god, were judging each race by physical characteristics now? We have a selection of versatile different races. Gnomes had their niche, not because of their height but because of their characteristics. Dear god, don't try to dumb down the fluff any more
My theory on why they were dropped. No body who plays WOW would play them because they are the laughing stock of WOW due to their size. But that is just my take.


As for the other stuff, using a bit of logic would lead you to the conclusion that "Hey, lawful evil deities could want and use champions as well. Why wouldn't they grant power to fighters in the same way that good deities do."
You haven't read the PHB have you? Look under paladin, under Religion. Paladins don't get their powers from gods, they get their powers from the raw powers of goodness itself. They are the greatest Champion of Good, the most exalted character. now champions for gods, that is covered by knights, Favored Soul, Crusaders and Clerics.


And as for the other stuff, it does work for other people. You might not like it, but other people do. And if you really hate it, don't buy it. Wizards will never be able to cater to everyone, so use your spending power and show them that you hate their product.
My beef is that WOTC is "fixing" stuff that wasn't broken.


Just stop trying to say people are stupid for enjoying new things
After you gnome rant, it really hurts to not try.


Do you just try to not see the point of argument then say random things? Drow are just early 20th century African American analogues. The same role could be played by a dark-skinned human.
Wow, just wow. That is rather racist accully. Just a few fun facts

1. So they kept drow, to appeal to black people? I'm sorry, what?!
2. African Americans, Native Americans, Indians, Middle Easterners ect aren't elves or have white hair
3. And they don't have a demon worshiping culture. Nor are they evil fey creatures.

I'm sorry, that is just absurd

The reason why Drow have been kept around is for the whole "Drizzt syndrome" and the "Sexy bad guys" appeal. Not out an appeal to African American, it seems shallow to even think that.


You still don't understand what the original post was about. Go back and read it, my response was to the claim that teiflings sucked because they weren't created by humans having sex with evil outsiders. Your replies on this point have been completely useless because you haven't been paying one bit of attention.
Yawn, the reason why the tieflings have been changed is simple. The sexy bad boy leather wearing draco look.



Put simply: All of them are easily replaced with the normal races, and "new subraces with a slight difference" are completely unneeded. Just make, *gasp* new regional cultures for these same races, like humans are in the real world.

Or some people like subraces. And guess what, much in the same way some people like to play gnomes, some people also like the subraces. I can see WOTC not making any more of them, but why get ride of the old ones? It is so simple to just not use them.


If your going to play in a setting where there are all of these crazy epic NPC badasses, but then say "but they aren't around", then why the hell are you playing in a setting with all of these essentially non-exsistant NPC badasses?!
Elminster is normally fighting super evil creatures, Drizzt is fighting an orc army at current, Enterai is in a frozen wasteland, Austrial is in silvermoon, Black Staff is in Waterdeep ect. They aren't omipotent and they can't be every where. Its a big world, plenty of the room for the PCs unless you have a bad DM, and that isn't the settings fault


Thats just it, its always the crumbs that your dealing with. The small-change that the "big boys" could care less about. If there are truly any world-shattering things going on it's not the party who "should" be taking care of it, but the sheer masses of epicly powered wizards running around.
Um, by the time the PCs get powerful enough to handle the epic major plot monsters (there are many of them by the way) they are about equal to the Epic NPCs, if not greater just by the by.

from
EE

Charity
2008-01-23, 01:34 PM
Ohh Charity, thank you for making my day. :smalltongue:

As if that has ever stopped you. :smallwink:

Damn my weak will save, however in my defence it is usually to amuse.

In this case it is not serving even that purpose, and despite banging my head on this brickwall for ages now, I still haven't made an impresion...
so you can stop pokeing me with that stick now.

Counterspin you would be advised to pick and choose what you view, it's very en vogue.

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 01:38 PM
Charity : Is there an ignore function on the forums? I couldn't find one.

Prophaniti
2008-01-23, 01:43 PM
The irony of quoting from about "Video Game-based problems" from a game based on a literary tale is lost on you, isn't it? Ok, while mildly ironic, I think you still miss his point. Yes, the game is based on a literary classic, indeed one that is seen as the foundation of modern fantasy literature and gaming. However, he is refering to it's execution as a game, which was done in a style in no way similar to the book itself, save that the names are the same. The game focuses entirely on the battles, skimming or skipping the events in between. This works very well for video games because, hey, battles are more fun to play on a tv or computer. When you're dealing with a tabletop pen-and-paper RPG, this changes. The in-between-the-battles parts of a story become more interesting, and should receive an increased focus. When he states that it 'plays like a video game' what he's saying is that it focuses on the fighting and largely ignores other aspects, monsters (and NPCs) becoming nothing more than walking xp chunks, without motivations or aspirations of their own.

Now, I don't think any system can be entirely responsible for this, though it can encourage it. The group playing decideds, in the end, how much play will revolve around fighting and how much around role-playing. But that's what EE means when he says it's like a video game.

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 01:51 PM
The in-between-the-battles parts of a story become more interesting, and should receive an increased focus. When he states that it 'plays like a video game' what he's saying is that it focuses on the fighting and largely ignores other aspects, monsters (and NPCs) becoming nothing more than walking xp chunks, without motivations or aspirations of their own.

We understood the point, there's just no evidence for it. The real RP meat of monsters is from their TEXT BLOCK, which isn't going anywhere, or being changed in any significant way. They're trimming the STAT BLOCK, which is the part that has to do with combat, which leaves, in fact, more room for the TEXT BLOCK where the RP stuff goes. One might even say that this is likely to result in an increase in monster story depth, but I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions. I presume that monster depth will be pretty much identical, with perhaps slight additions because of the new ability to add significantly more monster relationships because of the implied setting.

Dervag
2008-01-23, 01:52 PM
4. Except it takes aways an important element, world constancy. Their are races, and these races can have classes. Some races are by nature evil, but they are still all creatures living in a world. A world is more realistic when things are consistent. Elves dwaves and Gnomes are three normal races. All of them can practice arcane magic, divine magic, and can advance in life. Everybody is on the same page. Goblins also are a race, just a weak evil one. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't follow the same rules as the other racesThat depends. Why shouldn't dwarves and elves and goblins live differently, use different forms of magic, and have different kinds of societies? We're used to the idea that they should be similar, but a lot of that is a product of the 3rd edition mechanics.


yes it does, it dehumanizes them. It makes them different in some way. It is like when i play Diablo, the people i'm fighting exist just to be killed, their is no sense of them being another race with their own powers and skillsWhy can't they be 'humanized' in the sense of being realistic, three-dimensional characters with motives and everything, while still being different from the humans and elves and dwarves who make up the PC group?


Rules that are being hostile to that ideal when they shouldn't have changed that in the first place. Why did they do that? Most likely because 4E seems more focused upon a video game style of cool instead of immersing your self into a fantastical world. It can be done, but that doesn't seem to be the aimHow in God's name are they supposed to satisfy you with the level of immersion when they haven't even finished the game design yet? Immersion has always been the DM's responsibility. Wizards of the Coast can't provide immersion for you. All they can provide is stats. If your complaint is that the monsters have blocks of stats, then your complaint applies just as well to all the editions of D&D that have ever existed.


Now this is a video game, so i'm cool with that, they attack me, i kill them, i become super uber great, and i'm all like "Niffty" But that is only a video game, when i play a RPG, i want those Easterlings to have a reason for fighting me. I don't want them to be the mindless enemies, if that was what i'd just fight zombies all day. I want a world that is immersive, and doesn't make me the hero just because i happened to be playing But only the DM can provide uniquely 'human' (i.e. intelligent) opponents. That's why video games have swarms of mindless enemies. It's too hard to program enemies to be clever and take advantage of the terrain except by having them follow preprogrammed tactics. And preprogrammed tactics don't seem much more intelligent than mindless swarms once you've fought them once or twice.

So Wizards of the Coast can't possibly give you what you want in the published game book, because it's the DM that creates immersion by giving the opponents enough intelligence to seem like real people. And I have no idea why you think it will suddenly become impossible for DMs to provide an immersive gaming experience in 4th edition.


4E's biggest problem is that most of its changes are Unnecessary. Some i don't mind, some i think were needed, and the some are cool (female dwarves, finally). But some a changes don't make any sense. Evil paladins anyone?Be flexible. The idea of an "evil good holy warrior" doesn't make sense. But the idea of a "champion of evil" does make sense (blackguard). And if we use the "paladin" class to refer to "champions of X," we can have "champions of good" who are what we normally call paladins, while having "champions of evil" at the same time. And both get modeled as variations on the same basic class.

It's only because you're wedded to defining "paladin" and "good holy warrior" exactly the same that the change strikes you as nonsense.


You haven't read the PHB have you? Look under paladin, under Religion.You do realize how bad an argument this sounds like?

Not everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant fool who hasn't read the books.


Paladins don't get their powers from gods, they get their powers from the raw powers of goodness itself. They are the greatest Champion of Good, the most exalted character. now champions for gods, that is covered by knights, Favored Soul, Crusaders and Clerics.OK, so why shouldn't there be warriors like paladins who get their powers from evil instead of good? Why shouldn't we take the fluff from the Favored Soul and Crusader classes and apply it to paladins? I mean, go back to the roots of the idea of paladins- medieval holy warriors who drew their powers from God. Now, in a monotheistic universe where there is one and only one god who is good, obviously every holy warrior has to be good. But D&D is a polytheistic setting where there are evil sources of divine power. Why can't there be a 'holy' warrior for one of those evil gods? And why does it bother you so much to apply the name "paladin" to that warrior, just so that we have a name to hang on their class, while calling them whatever we want in the fluff?

Your objection seems to be that the 4th Edition paladin contradicts the 3rd Edition definition of a paladin. So what? It's not the same edition. Wizards of the Coast is under no obligation to preserve all the class definitions and ability sets unchanged from edition to edition. In fact, if they did, they wouldn't be able to change the classes enough to fix anything, whether or not it was broken.


Or some people like subraces. And guess what, much in the same way some people like to play gnomes, some people also like the subraces. I can see WOTC not making any more of them, but why get ride of the old ones? It is so simple to just not use them.Because Wizards doesn't want to publish those subraces? I mean, they have to keep the size of the book under control at some point. The 3rd Edition player's handbook was already big, and they ended up writing a whole second book on top of it. If they want to add things and to consolidate the features from PHB and PHB II into one book, something's going to get cut. Likewise, if they're going to consolidate ideas from other books into a small set of 'core' 4th Edition books, some of the subraces and special monsters and stuff will have to go.

The same thing has happened before going from 1st to 2nd and from 2nd to 3rd Edition.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 01:56 PM
Players start out low level? Why is that? I've started exactly one story in recent memory where the PCs were supposed to be newbies; And they're /children/. They /are/ supposed to be newbies. What part of any of that is a privilege, in a game? Especially in a game where the PCs /are/ supposed to be awesome, which is my default.

Sure, the the PC start out high level, then they automatically get the benefits. But if they start out low level (it does happen people yes) then they don't. It is a matter of preference. Nobody is forcing you to start the PCs out at low level, and no body is forcing me to make them start out high. And yet, not they are, there making the PCs special from teh get go


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf
The original epic poem of Beowulf. Beowulf's first foe is the monster Grendel. His second is Grendel's mother, who mechanically would be a bigger, badder Grendel. What you're talking about is in fact the Sorting Algorithm of Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil).
Ok , i'm still kinda of missing the point


The irony of quoting from about "Video Game-based problems" from a game based on a literary tale is lost on you, isn't it?
Um, the Beowulf game what?
I'm talking about the execution of the game, not the game itself



EE you're continuing to argue based on the idea that monsters will only be differentiated by monster advancement, which I've already disproven with a quote upthread. You'll be able to advance monsters in 4e pretty much the same way you can in 3e, via type advancement or classes.

1. The Pod cast? Is that what your refering to
2. Except NPCs are innatly lesser than PCs, and monsters are kinda vauge


Additionally, the whole logical basis of your claims are bankrupt. The "monsters are only chunks of xp" is a result of game culture, not game system. And the idea that 15 or so extra hit points at level one is going to dramatically change the way everyone DMs NPC is patently ridiculous.
And this brings us yet again to you never getting around to countering any points. The idea here is that PCs seems innately better and more epic (not the level, just the coolness epic) from the get go, from the very first they are automatically better. This leads to the "DM of the rings" problem.



It has nothing to do with anyone feeling epic and everything to do with the fundamental difference between the people in the room with you and the people in your head.
So? If my players want to play from level 1, then they are going to be weak and rather unheard of. If they want to become epic, then they will work for it. Why should they be better from the get go?

The former need to have an interface with the world created in your imagination, the latter can be statted any darn way you like because ... they are in your head, you can make it up, there is no need for them to have identifiable classes... ooo deja-vu
Yes their is. The former and the latter need to be under the same set of rules for the sake of consistency.


Or AD&D, of GURPS or Rolemaster or ... well any game you may like to mention along these lines... oh hang on deja-vu
Back to my Video game point, the world litearlly bends over backward to accommodate the PCs (Third Age anybody?)


Why does the origin of the stat block make any difference to how the players interact with monsters and NPC's? Oh wait I get a familiar sensation
Yes. If the goblins have levels, then they are just another race in a big damn world. If they are simple "Goblin" and thats it, then they are simply another thing for the PCs to kill. With "Bigger goblin" and "Goblin with spells" to boot

Oh fun fact, quoting points i've already counted makes you seem rather silly

from
EE

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 02:04 PM
EE - I've pmed you the quote, since you seem unwilling to check the thread for it. Monsters can have class levels. It's a fact.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 02:15 PM
Personally I don't like what I'm hearing about all this Paragon Path nonesense. With PrCs there were specific qualifications, giving at least the illusion of earning access to them, rather than having it handed to you.

BUTT MAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I want a Archmage powers NOWWWWWWW

Respect my AUTHORATY


Yawn. More people complaining about the new system having the audacity to include character advancement! Come on. Seriously? Your complaining that paragon paths are "just handed" to players? Without giving it a lick of thought as to why that might be? (Hint guys, level 1-10 racial path, 11-20 paragon path, 21-30 destiny, or whatever it's called) This is more foolishness based on comparing one system to the other, rather than taking the new system as a whole. Who cares if it's redder, oranger, bigger, smaller, whatever compared to 3e, as long as it's good?
So oh wise counterspin, if you could be buggered will you explain to use mere mortals who we should be going through this argument. Other than simple agreeing with your rather vague statements and leave it at that. /snark


I'm sure he'd love to but for that pesky nondisclosure agreement.

It is a pain i assure you



Actually, dude, the DMG/PHB does make the PCs special in 3.5. Want to know why? It says certain skills only work on non-PCs. That immunity to diplomacy, etc makes them special.
So yes, PC are innately special from te get go.
Ummmm, your thinking of PC classes, not PC as in "Player character". I don't mind NPC classes, it makes sense, a guard would be weaker than a Fighter, a commoner would be its own class ect.



No no and heavens no again.
The point is you don't need to use the mechanism of advancing monsters through character levels in order to define them. It does not make any difference to how the creatures act, it does not reduce, or in anyway limit what you can make them capable of. It is simply a more freeform method of defining their mechanical stats.

Yes it does, because for not real reason, they are different. Logically, goblins would just be another race that the PCs can interact with, who have their own classes and stats following the same mechanic of the PCs. It gives you a feeling that the world is following the same rules and the Goblins don't simple exist for the PCs to kill/sell stuff to


Where do you get the impression that a Mage/barbarian goblin is in any way more flavourful than Mad Hengis the greataxe weilding spellslinging goblin of local reknown?
In most RPG's nobody has a class not even the damn player characters, does that make them all one dimensional cardboard cutouts? No because the level mechanism is entirely seperate from the interactve part of the game.
When the PCs see a Goblin start casting spells, they say to each other "Hey its a mage, what should we be ready for" If they see him rage, then its "Alright guys, a barbarian is in that cave who also is an arcane caster of some kind. Let be careful"
If he is just "Spell casting goblins" the PCs will ether be like "Wait, is he a new race or what" or "Meh, this goblins casts spells. LIke the last three who cast the exact same spells.



Matthew Sernett-

Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there by adding a class, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."
Key word, MIGHT, but the real question is this. Are NPCs lesser than PCs from the get go? Monsters are still different from the PCs, they aren't following the same rules without DM help (unless we see some change)

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 02:17 PM
Personally I don't like what I'm hearing about all this Paragon Path nonesense. With PrCs there were specific qualifications, giving at least the illusion of earning access to them, rather than having it handed to you.

BUTT MAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I want a Archmage powers NOWWWWWWW

Respect my AUTHORATY


Yawn. More people complaining about the new system having the audacity to include character advancement! Come on. Seriously? Your complaining that paragon paths are "just handed" to players? Without giving it a lick of thought as to why that might be? (Hint guys, level 1-10 racial path, 11-20 paragon path, 21-30 destiny, or whatever it's called) This is more foolishness based on comparing one system to the other, rather than taking the new system as a whole. Who cares if it's redder, oranger, bigger, smaller, whatever compared to 3e, as long as it's good?
So oh wise counterspin, if you could be buggered will you explain to use mere mortals who we should be going through this argument. Other than simple agreeing with your rather vague statements and leave it at that. /snark


I'm sure he'd love to but for that pesky nondisclosure agreement.

It is a pain i assure you



Actually, dude, the DMG/PHB does make the PCs special in 3.5. Want to know why? It says certain skills only work on non-PCs. That immunity to diplomacy, etc makes them special.
So yes, PC are innately special from te get go.
Ummmm, your thinking of PC classes, not PC as in "Player character". I don't mind NPC classes, it makes sense, a guard would be weaker than a Fighter, a commoner would be its own class ect.



No no and heavens no again.
The point is you don't need to use the mechanism of advancing monsters through character levels in order to define them. It does not make any difference to how the creatures act, it does not reduce, or in anyway limit what you can make them capable of. It is simply a more freeform method of defining their mechanical stats.

Yes it does, because for not real reason, they are different. Logically, goblins would just be another race that the PCs can interact with, who have their own classes and stats following the same mechanic of the PCs. It gives you a feeling that the world is following the same rules and the Goblins don't simple exist for the PCs to kill/sell stuff to


Where do you get the impression that a Mage/barbarian goblin is in any way more flavourful than Mad Hengis the greataxe weilding spellslinging goblin of local reknown?
In most RPG's nobody has a class not even the damn player characters, does that make them all one dimensional cardboard cutouts? No because the level mechanism is entirely seperate from the interactve part of the game.
When the PCs see a Goblin start casting spells, they say to each other "Hey its a mage, what should we be ready for" If they see him rage, then its "Alright guys, a barbarian is in that cave who also is an arcane caster of some kind. Let be careful"
If he is just "Spell casting goblins" the PCs will ether be like "Wait, is he a new race or what" or "Meh, this goblins casts spells. LIke the last three who cast the exact same spells.



Matthew Sernett-

Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there by adding a class, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."
Key word, MIGHT, but the real question is this. Are NPCs lesser than PCs from the get go? Monsters are still different from the PCs, they aren't following the same rules without DM help (unless we see some change)


EE - I've pmed you the quote, since you seem unwilling to check the thread for it. Monsters can have class levels. It's a fact.
no, i'm asking where the quote is from
Also, key word CAN. Whats this implying, and considering what is said on p. 14 in races and classes
from
EE

Charity
2008-01-23, 02:20 PM
Oh fun fact, quoting points i've already counted makes you seem rather silly

from
EE

I imagine you are the only person who believes this.


If you were to take the time to read the points I have quoted time and again I think you might begin to gather that you have not understood any of the points I have made, repeatedly. I have no more time to devote to this increasingly frustrating and pointless repitition.


OK Silvanos you're right, now stop pokeing me with that darn stick.


Charity : Is there an ignore function on the forums? I couldn't find one.
Yes there is thankfully. User CP - control panel - Miscellaneous - Buddy / Ignore Lists
just a click away.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 02:25 PM
Sure, the the PC start out high level, then they automatically get the benefits. But if they start out low level (it does happen people yes) then they don't. It is a matter of preference. Nobody is forcing you to start the PCs out at low level, and no body is forcing me to make them start out high. And yet, not they are, there making the PCs special from teh get go.

Ok, I'm confused. In 3e PC's were better from the get go than NPC's of equivaent level also. Every single PC class provides better stuff at levels 1 - 3 than every single NPC class. PC's get higher base stats (in that NPCs are not, other than in rare occasions, using the Elite Array or better). So, where is the newness of this?

The only concern I can see here is if they are monumnentally better than NPC's at the starting level. I doubt that will be the case.

Will PC's will be special at low levels? Yes, but no more special than very talented humans in this world (I expect and hope). Take Niels Bohr. The man was a brilliant physicist, olympic athlete and by all accounts a very charismatic and wise person. Was he a big name in history at 17, as he is now? No, but he was almost certianly stronger, faster, smarter and better looking than his classmates at University of Coppenhagen. He had a leg up (as did his brother the olympian/mathematician) to start but he wasn't unrealistically better. We know that because, well, he was real.

Woot Spitum
2008-01-23, 02:28 PM
I honestly don't understand what all the uproar is over the 4th edition Tieflings. They were already an edgy bad-boy race. The change in their origins seems like a lateral shift to me. They are still tainted by their past. What's the big deal?

kamikasei
2008-01-23, 02:41 PM
I honestly don't understand what all the uproar is over the 4th edition Tieflings. They were already an edgy bad-boy race. The change in their origins seems like a lateral shift to me. They are still tainted by their past. What's the big deal?

They have moved from being a "race" like half-elves (ie, not a true race but individual cases of crossbreeding) to being an actual, true-breeding, own-culture-and-empire-and-history race. That's a considerable change in what a tiefling is in the first place; now they're just another civilization/race like elves or humans rather than being an element of a given character's backstory like half-elves or half-orcs. So why call them tieflings at all, really?

Then there's the other source of dislike, the perception that they're, as you say yourself, the edgy bad-boy race. That they're facile, and shallow, and designed to appeal to market segments who will want to treat D&D like some other game which the people expressing their distaste don't want it to be. To an extent I do wonder myself why you need a "bad-boy" race in the core books. Is it so damn hard to make a badass human or elf?

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 02:42 PM
Since EE is willing to ignore a direct quote from a designer about monster levels, I'm just gonna go ahead and put him on ignore.

The idea that the differential in power levels between players and NPCs of all sorts will lead to the dehumanized thoughtless slaughter of said NPCs, it's preposterous. Ebberon has the idea that the players are the first people to break into the higher levels, and it's a setting with a variety of excellent NPCs. As for monsters vs. players, this is something that the DM will be in control of as ever, and which will vary from game to game based on taste. I fail to see why it's a concern.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 02:52 PM
True Stuff.

I must agree. The shift from a weird abberation of breeding to a fullfledeged race with a large history is a pretty large one.

Also, frankly, I dislike the change in concept art. The big honking horns and huge tail are, frankly, unappealing to me. Not just aestetically as a villian but also as a function of game play. In my games, at least, a tiefling was not a 'bad boy' in the rebel without a cause sense but more in the sneaky underhanded son of a demon sense. They would hide their horns/tail/eyecolor (not all of which they needed to have) and part of the reveal later in the story would be that they had those demonic/devilish traits.

It also reflects upon the basic world that 4e is going to be set in. All the races are mixed together and, so the designers suggest, tolerant of eachother. I'm sorry, but the picture of your typical inn having a drunken dragon man, two chicks with horns working the bar, a dirty leaf covered elf sitting mysteriously at a table in the corner, a clean glowing elf looking down his nose at everyone and a dwarf looking up it seems like a scene more out of the TV series Angel then something from the kind of game I run, and have always ran.

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 02:55 PM
That's interesting AKA_Bait, because I'd view race relations as one of the few areas where designers have cleaved closely to your low fluff wishes. After all, if you take additional fluff for race interaction off the table, aren't you left with a sort of blase everyone gets along world?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 03:03 PM
That's interesting AKA_Bait, because I'd view race relations as one of the few areas where designers have cleaved closely to your low fluff wishes. After all, if you take additional fluff for race interaction off the table, aren't you left with a sort of blase everyone gets along world?

Actually, my problem is that the fluff for interaction, at least in the material plane (or what was the material plane) is pretty much everyone get's along. They specifically say in races and classes that it would be inappropriate for a player to have to deal people having a dislike of tieflings for example. In worlds and monsters it pretty much says again that everyone gets along. That's existant fluff and frankly, fluff I don't like. Part of building a believable world, imho, is the inclusion of there being racial/geographic/cultural steryotypes and prejudices. Other than in rare places, I just don't see Dragonborn and Tieflings drinking in the same bar.

Of course, I realize that's not PC and Mattel would want to stay far far away from it as a business matter. But just because I understand why they made it that way doesn't mean I have to like it.

Dizlag
2008-01-23, 03:06 PM
From: Counterspin
As for monsters vs. players, this is something that the DM will be in control of as ever, and which will vary from game to game based on taste. I fail to see why it's a concern.

QFT! Everything I've read and listened to is leading me to believe the DM will have even more tools in 4th Edition. It will be easier to homebrew your own world, you own encounters, and campaigns. Yeah, 80% of what we're reading and listening to is fluff. I personally like the fluff. The crunch will come later and in bigger doses soon.

Again, as Counterspin just pointed out ... every game is different. Some of us prefer hack' n' slash, some prefer pure roleplaying, and some are somewhere in between. Ultimately, it's our game as players and DMs to make it OURS. What you have to ask yourself is if you can use what WoTC is providing for D&D 4th Edition or not? Personally, what I've been seeing will definitely be something I could use.

Dizlag

Jothki
2008-01-23, 03:24 PM
Yeah, most of what's going to be in the game will obviously be trivial to rework. Don't like the idea of everyone getting along? In your world, they don't.

It seems like a third of the people here are complaining about how WoTC thinks too little of their customers' ability to be creative and roleplay well, while another third are complaining that WoTC is overestimating those same abilities.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 03:29 PM
It seems like a third of the people here are complaining about how WoTC thinks too little of their customers' ability to be creative and roleplay well, while another third are complaining that WoTC is overestimating those same abilities.

Wait... who is worried that they are overestimating?

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 03:32 PM
It just seems like they're screwed once they bring something up then. You don't want fluff, but if there's any fluff at all, it should be as invasive as possible? Would you prefer an SRD style document for 4e? (there's no serious smiley, I am in fact obviously curious) And if so don't you think it would be damaging to the hobby to produce core books with no fluff?

SpikeFightwicky
2008-01-23, 03:36 PM
Ummmm, your thinking of PC classes, not PC as in "Player character". I don't mind NPC classes, it makes sense, a guard would be weaker than a Fighter, a commoner would be its own class ect.

This is where you lost me... So it's OK for a PC 'CLASS' to be better than a NPC class. Alright, gotcha. However, it's not alright for the players themselves to treated any differently than a NPC would? Can you clarify how this makes sense? By virtue of the way D&D has worked since it began, the players themselves are always the center of attention in the world. Otherwise, why bother playing?

If you end a session early because 'I have to determine if the princess of Evermist Keep has been saved on the other side of the continent, and then determine how much XP the characters that saved her got, if they did indeed save her... and if the princess herself gained 1 or 2 levels of aristocrat because she had her own clever plans which saved the party's life', then you probably won't have players for very long... or you're the only DM for miles.


Yes it does, because for not real reason, they are different. Logically, goblins would just be another race that the PCs can interact with, who have their own classes and stats following the same mechanic of the PCs. It gives you a feeling that the world is following the same rules and the Goblins don't simple exist for the PCs to kill/sell stuff to

If the DM doesn't have the ability to roleplay a monster as more than walking XP, then that's his/her fault, not the system's fault. If your players attack all goblins on site and refuse any attempts at communication because 'they exist solely to be killed', then your players need to stop playing D&D and start playing Diablo... unless that's the kind of game the DM and the PCs want to have.


When the PCs see a Goblin start casting spells, they say to each other "Hey its a mage, what should we be ready for" If they see him rage, then its "Alright guys, a barbarian is in that cave who also is an arcane caster of some kind. Let be careful"
If he is just "Spell casting goblins" the PCs will ether be like "Wait, is he a new race or what" or "Meh, this goblins casts spells. LIke the last three who cast the exact same spells.

Despite the fact that it's been revealed that goblins WILL in fact be able to level, you're just splitting hairs. Both descriptions you gave can be applied to 3.X... Suppose I create a new subrace of magically infused goblins that can shoot magic missiles 3/day. It's well within the 3.X monster improvement rules and RAW for me to do so. If I want to make a special subrace of genetically angry goblins that have the ability to Rage 1/encounter, same deal. If your players are treating them as 'just statistics', simply adding classes won't make them any more dynamic than simply adding some abilities.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 03:41 PM
Assuming this is directed at me:


It just seems like they're screwed once they bring something up then. You don't want fluff, but if there's any fluff at all, it should be as invasive as possible?

I'd just like a happy medium (which, of course, I still might get although the preview books imply otherwise). I thought the amout of fluff in the 3.0 Core books was right around what I want. (I'd point out that the 3.0 DMG had less fluff than the 3.5 DMG). A relativley sparse amout of fluff that doesn't tie the hands of the DM in any really meaningful way. Enough that everyone knows what an elf looks like and what it's basic racial features are but no so much that it was implied that it had to come from any particular place (Like the deep forests or the feywild) or have any particular personality and cultural history. Enough that some rough ideas of gods and planes are mentioned but not so much that you feel like you need to use them in a higher level campagin.


If so don't you think it would be damaging to the hobby to produce core books with no fluff?

With 0 fluff, sure. With around as much fluff as 3.0 had, not at all. If I recall correctly D&D expanded it's player base quite a bit (including my own return to the game) after 3.0 came out.

Blackadder
2008-01-23, 03:41 PM
It also reflects upon the basic world that 4e is going to be set in. All the races are mixed together and, so the designers suggest, tolerant of eachother. I'm sorry, but the picture of your typical inn having a drunken dragon man, two chicks with horns working the bar, a dirty leaf covered elf sitting mysteriously at a table in the corner, a clean glowing elf looking down his nose at everyone and a dwarf looking up it seems like a scene more out of the TV series Angel then something from the kind of game I run, and have always ran.
There is a place where that would make perfect sense and be normal, and that places name is Sigil.

But it looks like in 4e, that the love has broken out all over the place, rather than in a specific place in the multi-verse and that's the thing. The world they are building in 4e seems less believable than any of the worlds they've built before.

Artanis
2008-01-23, 03:42 PM
I get the feeling that the only reason at all that people are complaining about Tieflings is because they're calling them Tieflings. If they were the exact same in every way except for being named "Horn Dudes", I don't think I'd be seeing even a tenth as many complaints about them.

/vent

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 03:45 PM
The part of your argument I just can't understand is why you see the fluff as an issue. As a fellow homebrewer I have zero problems overwriting existing fluff. I must admit I just don't see the problem. I was admittedly fine with the amount of fluff in 3e, but I ignored it, and I'm going to ignore the 4e fluff. At the same time, I see why a new group would want to have a book more setting intensive than the 3e core books. So yeah, an aide to the needy, and not an impediment to the experienced, in a nutshell.

Woot Spitum
2008-01-23, 03:45 PM
They have moved from being a "race" like half-elves (ie, not a true race but individual cases of crossbreeding) to being an actual, true-breeding, own-culture-and-empire-and-history race. That's a considerable change in what a tiefling is in the first place; now they're just another civilization/race like elves or humans rather than being an element of a given character's backstory like half-elves or half-orcs. So why call them tieflings at all, really?

Then there's the other source of dislike, the perception that they're, as you say yourself, the edgy bad-boy race. That they're facile, and shallow, and designed to appeal to market segments who will want to treat D&D like some other game which the people expressing their distaste don't want it to be. To an extent I do wonder myself why you need a "bad-boy" race in the core books. Is it so damn hard to make a badass human or elf?Just another civilization/race, as opposed to just another race resulting from an awful lot of libidinous humans? I beliveve you could easily work fiendish heritage into any character's background subtley. As long as it doesn't confer any mechanical benefit and makes sense in the context of the gameworld, I don't see why any DM would have a problem with it.

While 4th edition certainly has its share of bad-boy races, said races were also in 3.5. WotC wouldn't have stuck Drow, Eladrin(Grey/High Elves), Tieflings, and Dragonborn in the PHB if they weren't more popular than gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs. The old races will still be available in the MM, and if not that, in supplements. And any race will likely be as facile and shallow as the player running the character.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 04:07 PM
I get the feeling that the only reason at all that people are complaining about Tieflings is because they're calling them Tieflings.


Not really. I don't care what they are called really. I just don't really like the idea of a setting where a major player race is a bunch of demon looking guys and gals.


The part of your argument I just can't understand is why you see the fluff as an issue. As a fellow homebrewer I have zero problems overwriting existing fluff.

The thing is that it's really not about having any problem overwriting fluff in core from my standpoint. It's that getting my gaming table to accept it without confusion can cause problems if the setting is too tied to the mechanics. It's a practial rather than theoretical problem that I have seen come up in other peoples games when they switch to a radically different setting from core.


So yeah, an aide to the needy, and not an impediment to the experienced, in a nutshell.

I don't see it that way, at least, not the 'not an impediment to the experienced' part. Granted, it's not a huge impediment, but it does mean that I need to go through the extra step of tearing down the world at it's foundations rather than only needing to snip off parts here and there and as I said above, the less I need to deviate from core, the easier time of it my gaming group will have adjusting to my home setting. That may be something specific to my own gaming group, I don't know but I suspect not.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-23, 04:14 PM
No matter what your campaign, PCs are unique from NPCs for several very important reasons:

* They're the only characters in the world not controlled by the DM.
* Each one is generally crafted by a different person.
* PCs are the characters most likely to persistent throughout the campaign.
* They're the characters within the setting to which the players will have the greatest emotional attachment.
* The DM will spend most of his time explaining what happens around the PCs.
* The players will spend most of their time dictating the actions of the PCs.
* The enjoyment level of the players is quite frequently a direct correlation to the extent to which their PC is meaningfully contributing to the adventure.

This, in turn, leads to a few "must-have" rules for PC creation:
* The PCs need consistent and fair rules for creation.
* The DM needs the ability to select a consistent level of ability for all PCs.
* Players will generally need to make choices and trade-offs.
* Abilities for PCs generally have requirements; you can't, for example, teleport until you meet the requirements for the ability (spellcasting level, etc.)

NPCs don't have to follow these rules. If the NPC will fight the PCs, all you need as a DM is to determine their approximate level of difficulty and award XP as appropriate. Their actual abilities can be whatever you, as DM, want them to be. Want a goblin that, due to an magic accident, is constantly on fire but never burns? Make him. You can throw that unintentional pyromaniac at your characters, with an interesting backstory, personality, etc. and, short of your PCs casting Polar Ray at him on sight, nothing's stopping you. The only thing "PCs and NPCs don't follow the same rules" means is that you can make Snifter Flamebake the Flaming Goblin without making a "Dear God It Burns" feat or "Eternal Pyre" prestige class for Snifter (just so PCs have the right to take it).

PCs have had different rules than NPCs for quite some time. Notable 3e examples I can think of:

* PCs get to roll their stats or choose the Elite Array; most NPCs are created with base 10/11 stats.
* PCs choosing a monster race have their power level adjusted by LA; the same character as an NPC has its power level set to its CR (which is generally lower).

I'm sure there's more.

All this means (to me at least) is that 4e NPCs/monsters/creatures-that-just-don't-look-like-me will be presented with the statistics they need to be run in any scenario in which they're likely to be used. More importantly, they'll be exactly as their designer intended without getting locked into unnecessary rules regarding their creation. Example: I want Sansome the Brute to be a one-of-a-kind man-mountain, with a ton of hit points; but I don't want to add HD (and boost his attack) or inflate Con to the sky (and boost his Fort save), I just want him to take a morningstar to the face and keep coming. I want Jack Skellenkey to be a remarkably skilled thief who has zero knowledge of how to insert a blade in someone's kidneys, can't dodge a fireball unscathed, and who can't take more than a single punch to the face. In 4e I can do that; in 3e I'm "breaking the rules."

As stated repeatedly, nothing about this method of 4e design prevents you from adding class levels to a monster, and other advancement methods (similar to how you added HD in 3rd) will be available. So what's the issue?

Do you really really want that immersiveness of "NPCs and PCs follow the same rules as closely as possible"? Then only advance NPCs via classes. Do you really want every NPC race to be a playable PC race? (First, good luck; 3.5 doesn't doesn't do this... can I play a 1st-level dragon using just the Monster Manual?) If so, follow the lead given: use the "[race] as Characters" section or extrapolate and make your own (like you have to for most 3e monsters). Do you want your goblins to be a society rich in culture? Read what you can from their 4e monster entry, which takes up an entire page (4e MM entries take up whole numbers of pages) and contains more flavor text and less stats than ever before. More importantly, just run your monsters in interesting ways.

The only thing standing in the way of a "monster" being an interesting non-combat experience is the DM's ability to run the NPC as more than a combat block, and the PC's ability to treat it as more than the same.

Most of all: don't want your PCs to be treated as if they're the center of attention? Then don't have your NPCs treat them that way. The PCs will invariably be involved in the action you, as DM, are describing to the players. (Otherwise, you're just reading me a book you wrote.) However, nothing is preventing the DM from creating a world where the PCs are only part of the bigger picture.

Seriously, given that 1) the rules aren't equal for PCs and NPCs now, 2) the stats actually reducing to "what you need in combat," and the flavor text is increasing, and 3) less restrictions on NPC creation leads to more ability to create unique NPCs, not less... I'm not seeing the problem. :smallbiggrin:

Serenity
2008-01-23, 04:15 PM
It seems to me that the line about general racial tolerance is more meant to say that you shouldn't punish a player for the race he chooses to play by having NPCs constantly harassing him. Besides, do you think one line in a rulebook stating that by default player races get along fairly well is going to be that hard for players to unlearn?

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 04:16 PM
I imagine you are the only person who believes this.


So your going to simply lean back and say "I don't need to counter anything"



If you were to take the time to read the points I have quoted time and again I think you might begin to gather that you have not understood any of the points I have made, repeatedly. I have no more time to devote to this increasingly frustrating and pointless repitition.

And you can go back and find where i've already countered these points

Ok, I'm confused. In 3e PC's were better from the get go than NPC's of equivaent level also. Every single PC class provides better stuff at levels 1 - 3 than every single NPC class. PC's get higher base stats (in that NPCs are not, other than in rare occasions, using the Elite Array or better). So, where is the newness of this?
A PC class (AKA fighter, wizard, Cleric) is one thing, NPCs often have PC classes. An NPC class (warrior, adept, Noble ect.) are just dudes who have less training or aren't as good, but that is a matter of the class not of them being NPCs



Then there's the other source of dislike, the perception that they're, as you say yourself, the edgy bad-boy race. That they're facile, and shallow, and designed to appeal to market segments who will want to treat D&D like some other game which the people expressing their distaste don't want it to be. To an extent I do wonder myself why you need a "bad-boy" race in the core books. Is it so damn hard to make a badass human or elf?
Teenagers, trust me the angst appeal works wonders
"No body understands me and my tortured past. Look at my badass horns, i'm like Illidan"




It also reflects upon the basic world that 4e is going to be set in. All the races are mixed together and, so the designers suggest, tolerant of eachother. I'm sorry, but the picture of your typical inn having a drunken dragon man, two chicks with horns working the bar, a dirty leaf covered elf sitting mysteriously at a table in the corner, a clean glowing elf looking down his nose at everyone and a dwarf looking up it seems like a scene more out of the TV series Angel then something from the kind of game I run, and have always ran.
ouch, never thought of that

My question, the artist said they wanted to make tieflings sexy. Personally, girls with massive tails and horns ain't that sexy.

On that subject, my beef with WOTC isn't so much the PC's being super, its that everybody who doesn't have to resort to homebrew is going to have to go with that. Same with most of the changes, if your aren't willing or able to resort to homebrewing to a massive extent, well then your loss


from
EE

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 04:23 PM
Besides, do you think one line in a rulebook stating that by default player races get along fairly well is going to be that hard for players to unlearn?

Oh absolutley. If I create a world, or a section of the world, where Tieflings are are subtly discriminated against (served last at the bar, given funny looks, subtly intimidated for talking to the human barwench etc.) I'll bet you any sum of money that a player at my table would find that one line and claim I was "breaking the rules" even though I would have informed them before they even finalized the character that in some parts of the world they would be discriminated against.

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 04:29 PM
It seems to me that you have a player problem and not a system problem there AKA_Bait. If players react negatively to every piece of fluff you change, I can understand why you'd want minimal fluff, but I think the better solution is to straighten out the player.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-23, 04:31 PM
My question, the artist said they wanted to make tieflings sexy. Personally, girls with massive tails and horns ain't that sexy.

I've seen Wiz folk mention something as "sexy" several times while referring to races and monsters that have gained a great deal of popularity. In this case, I think it means "intriguing appeal," not inherently "physical attractiveness."


On that subject, my beef with WOTC isn't so much the PC's being super, its that everybody who doesn't have to resort to homebrew is going to have to go with that.

Honestly, I'm still not following this logic. The PCs are important to the story (not inherently to the world), and interesting things will generally happen near them (else it's a fairly boring time as a player), and their involvement will generally make a difference (otherwise the player can just take a nap while the DM describes what happens). None of this directly implies that they're treated like superheroes.

My level 10 PCs are treated as strange people from out of town. If they help the town repel invaders, they're "the strange people from out of town who helped." If they show off their uber-PC-ness by fireballing the town square, they're the DANGEROUS strange people from out of town. Depending on the story I'm telling, the town may then send a message to find someone capable of handling dangerous strange people. But at no point am I forced to treat the PCs as costumed superheroes.

Nothing about 4e is changing that. A line in R&C saying "The PCs are important" doesn't change it, and short of swapping my DMG for a copy of Ultimate Marvel, I'll be running PC/NPC reactions the same way in either edition. And I won't be homebrewing a thing. I'll just be roleplaying, by the book (yes, even the new one).

ZekeArgo
2008-01-23, 04:36 PM
Garbage

I'm Done EE. You have failed time and time again to reply to any of the actual points I've made in my arguments, and continue to just spout your ridiculous rhetoric that honestly, I can care less about.

You've ignored damn near every word I've spoken, had everything fly over your head and frankly I'm tired of debating with someone who doesn't understand the concept.

I say good day sir.

Edit: By good day, I mean your /ignored

Dervag
2008-01-23, 04:37 PM
BUTT MAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I want a Archmage powers NOWWWWWWW

Respect my AUTHORATYFear not, I will give you exactly the respect that you deserve, and not a bit less.


Ummmm, your thinking of PC classes, not PC as in "Player character". I don't mind NPC classes, it makes sense, a guard would be weaker than a Fighter, a commoner would be its own class ect.Why?


Yes it does, because for not real reason, they are different. Logically, goblins would just be another race that the PCs can interact with, who have their own classes and stats following the same mechanic of the PCs. It gives you a feeling that the world is following the same rules and the Goblins don't simple exist for the PCs to kill/sell stuff toWhy do you even care what mechanic the goblins follow? The only point in having mechanics is to generate stats. The point of having stats is so that we have some way of resolving combat more advanced than "Bang! You're dead! No I'm not!"

There's no reason why a goblin should have to have a PC class in order to have, say, lots of hit points. Why not just decide to make goblins with lots of hit points? If you want to make a goblin as strong as a 6th level fighter, fine. Give them 6 levels in fighter, treating their level advancement as if they were human. But there's no reason why that should be the only kind of goblins. If the DM wants to create unique special characters with unusual abilities, or a category of enemies with a special ability, fine, as long as the game is balanced.


When the PCs see a Goblin start casting spells, they say to each other "Hey its a mage, what should we be ready for" If they see him rage, then its "Alright guys, a barbarian is in that cave who also is an arcane caster of some kind. Let be careful"
If he is just "Spell casting goblins" the PCs will ether be like "Wait, is he a new race or what" or "Meh, this goblins casts spells. LIke the last three who cast the exact same spells.I don't think you've proven that there's any difference between these two situations. What do you mean by "if he is just "Spell casting goblins"?" How is that different from "seeing a Goblin start casting spells?" You're contradicting yourself.


So your going to simply lean back and say "I don't need to counter anything"Can't blame them. You seem to be arguing past them, making repeated claims that they think have already been answered. And you're mocking them for quoting their own old statements that, as far as they can tell, you've never actually responded to in a coherent way.

Since you seem to feel the same way about them, maybe you should ignore them, too.


Teenagers, trust me the angst appeal works wonders
"No body understands me and my tortured past. Look at my badass horns, i'm like Illidan"Yeah, but that's a stupid way to design a game. The majority of D&D players aren't teenagers and aren't impressed by dripping angst. I suspect you agree with what I just said here, though I cannot prove it.


Nothing says "I'm a good debater" than a double standard.
Ladies and Gentlemen, lets look at that again
"EE is willing to ignore a direct quote"
I countered it, i've pointed out what i dislike about it couplied with the Races and Classes p.14 quote.I'm not sure what you pointed out made a lot of sense to anyone else, though.


My question, the artist said they wanted to make tieflings sexy. Personally, girls with massive tails and horns ain't that sexy.Seconded. On the other hand, I've heard strange things about some of the people at Wizards.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 04:54 PM
It seems to me that you have a player problem and not a system problem there AKA_Bait. If players react negatively to every piece of fluff you change, I can understand why you'd want minimal fluff, but I think the better solution is to straighten out the player.

See, that's the thing. It's not when I change any particular peice of fluff, it's just when I tear down pretty much all of it. And perhaps it's a player problem in part, I readily admit that, but I have the players I have. They are old friends and I enjoy gaming with them. As such, I'd rather spend my hard earned money on whatever system works best for my group. I'd like 4e to be that system, I don't know that it will be.

Serenity
2008-01-23, 05:13 PM
If they're going to kick up a fuss over fluff changes as minor as 'not everyone likes tieflings', then I have a hard time believing there is a 'right' system for them. The way I see it, in any RPG, under any rules system, when a player moves into a new campaign setting, whether homebrewed or pre-published, they have to unlearn a number of things from the other setting, and learn new things about the setting. And even in published settings, exact details of the world are at the final discretion of the DM. Like it says in the 3.x DMG, the DM is free to say "No, I think the City of Greyhawk is on the other side of the river" (thouh once he establishes this he should stay consistent).

Wordmiser
2008-01-23, 05:25 PM
And you can go back and find where i've already countered these pointsIncomprehensible ramblings in which you impress the problems of your own gaming group* upon the gaming community as a whole are not the most effective "counters."

* "It doesn't function under the same mechanics as I do**! Killit! Killit! Killit!"
**Even though this has been shown to be a false assumption by the podcast which you (for some reason) refuse to acknowledge.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 05:25 PM
If they're going to kick up a fuss over fluff changes as minor as 'not everyone likes tieflings', then I have a hard time believing there is a 'right' system for them.

They pretty much do just fine under my 3.x homebrewed world thank you. Because there is not much that needs changing, because there isn't that much key fluff, it's rarely a problem.

Serenity
2008-01-23, 05:31 PM
And what makes that line in the rulebook 'key fluff'? It's a minor detail of a generic setting that comes with the core ruebooks. Why can't you simply tell your players that that setting is not the one you're playing in? What, exactly, is different about saying 'In this world, there are different Gods' and 'In this world, some people are prejudiced against tieflings'?

Counterspin
2008-01-23, 05:35 PM
Well, I can certainly understand being stuck with the group you've got. Well wishes then , and I hope 4e works out, or 3e continues to work out, as it happens.:smallbiggrin:

AKA_Bait
2008-01-23, 05:38 PM
And what makes that line in the rulebook 'key fluff'? It's a minor detail of a generic setting that comes with the core ruebooks. Why can't you simply tell your players that that setting is not the one you're playing in? What, exactly, is different about saying 'In this world, there are different Gods' and 'In this world, some people are prejudiced against tieflings'?

It's that one has the chance to directly impact a characters specific interactions with the world in unplanned for ways once play has started and the other is a bit of fluff that doesn't have that possible later pitfall.


Well, I can certainly understand being stuck with the group you've got. Well wishes then , and I hope 4e works out, or 3e continues to work out, as it happens.:smallbiggrin:

You too. Thanks for a civil discussion. They are so rare on this particular topic.

kamikasei
2008-01-23, 05:44 PM
Just another civilization/race, as opposed to just another race resulting from an awful lot of libidinous humans?

Not quite. Tieflings in 3.5 are, as I said, like half-elves. In game terms they're a race because they provide racial benefits. In setting terms they're an aspect of a character who would probably think of themselves as "a human with fiendish ancestors" rather than "a member of the proud tiefling race".

I don't really see what parallel you're trying to draw here unless it's to suggest that obviously if they're in the PHB they must be very numerous and cohesive and therefore deserve to have a racial identity and a civilization. In which case I say a) half-elves didn't have either, and b) that doesn't address the fact that they're effectively no longer much like tieflings have been for the entire rest of the game until now. They may as well be called something else.


I beliveve you could easily work fiendish heritage into any character's background subtley. As long as it doesn't confer any mechanical benefit and makes sense in the context of the gameworld, I don't see why any DM would have a problem with it.

Sure you could. ...So what? My point really is that if what used to be tieflings in 3.5 are now just fluffed-up humans (or whatever), then what the hell are these so-called Tieflings? They aren't what the word has meant up until now, and to achieve something like what the word has meant you have to fake it, basically. So what are they for? Why aren't they, I don't know, "fiend-touched", or "pactborn" or something else that isn't the equivalent of putting Goliaths in the PHB under the heading "Dwarf" and saying "well, they live in the mountains, but now they're cooler"?


While 4th edition certainly has its share of bad-boy races, said races were also in 3.5. WotC wouldn't have stuck Drow, Eladrin(Grey/High Elves), Tieflings, and Dragonborn in the PHB if they weren't more popular than gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs. The old races will still be available in the MM, and if not that, in supplements. And any race will likely be as facile and shallow as the player running the character.

Hmmm, I don't think I agree. Obviously a facile and shallow player can make any character bad, but if a race is designed to appeal to such players then it a) encourages them and b) means that if they make this bad character, they are in fact roleplaying it appropriately. Which is kind of a pain.

Prophaniti
2008-01-23, 06:00 PM
Just wanted to add another thing. I have no problem what so ever with them making Paladins able to be any alignment. Evil Paladins, Neutral Paladins, I actually applaud this particular move.

The term Paladin is actually an obsure title from medieval europe, with little to do with the church and nothing to do with being good. I long since homebrewed Paladins (I actually mostly use FaxCelestis' 'How Paladins should be') to allow players to use any non-neutral alignment with them and had plans to further this modification, actually using it as a PrC that represented a title gained from a church. Paladins being Lawful Good only is actually a perfect example of fluff hard-coded into mechanics, one of the things I'd hoped to see change in 4E. Based on the previews and articles, some has changed, but unfortunately looks to be replaced by even more.

It remains to be seen whether it will be enough to cause me to seek another system to use.

EDIT: Kamikasei, you are a breath of fresh air to the thread.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 06:05 PM
There is a place where that would make perfect sense and be normal, and that places name is Sigil.

A point, a point i do confess


But it looks like in 4e, that the love has broken out all over the place, rather than in a specific place in the multi-verse and that's the thing. The world they are building in 4e seems less believable than any of the worlds they've built before.

Wow blackadder, thats a pretty hard comment. I mean, unrealistically by D&D standards
Love the name by the way, great show
"The world isn't fair Baldrick. Otherwise, things like this wouldn't happen"


I get the feeling that the only reason at all that people are complaining about Tieflings is because they're calling them Tieflings. If they were the exact same in every way except for being named "Horn Dudes", I don't think I'd be seeing even a tenth as many complaints about them.

/vent
I'd still laugh at them for the silly tails and the angsty fluff, but i admit, the name would make all the difference. however, their only real appeal is the "Bad boy, sexy demon" look

Now on to the most interesting (in a good way) post here, lets have



* They're the only characters in the world not controlled by the DM.
* Each one is generally crafted by a different person.
* PCs are the characters most likely to persistent throughout the campaign.
* They're the characters within the setting to which the players will have the greatest emotional attachment.
* The DM will spend most of his time explaining what happens around the PCs.
* The players will spend most of their time dictating the actions of the PCs.
* The enjoyment level of the players is quite frequently a direct correlation to the extent to which their PC is meaningfully contributing to the adventure.
yes that is true. I've never denied the PCs are the center to the story. I just don't like them being innately different from every other being in the game. However yes they are the central characters.


This, in turn, leads to a few "must-have" rules for PC creation:
* The PCs need consistent and fair rules for creation.
* The DM needs the ability to select a consistent level of ability for all PCs.
* Players will generally need to make choices and trade-offs.
* Abilities for PCs generally have requirements; you can't, for example, teleport until you meet the requirements for the ability (spellcasting level, etc.)

Also true, i just want to build off one
"The PCs need consistent and fair rules for creation"
In the game world, the idea of the classes is consistency


NPCs don't have to follow these rules. If the NPC will fight the PCs, all you need as a DM is to determine their approximate level of difficulty and award XP as appropriate. Their actual abilities can be whatever you, as DM, want them to be. Want a goblin that, due to an magic accident, is constantly on fire but never burns? Make him. You can throw that unintentional pyromaniac at your characters, with an interesting backstory, personality, etc. and, short of your PCs casting Polar Ray at him on sight, nothing's stopping you. The only thing "PCs and NPCs don't follow the same rules" means is that you can make Snifter Flamebake the Flaming Goblin without making a "Dear God It Burns" feat or "Eternal Pyre" prestige class for Snifter (just so PCs have the right to take it).
Good point but

The NPCs need to follow the same basic system as the PCs, race and class. The NPCs might have special qualities unique to them, that is the DM making interesting elements for his characters. But the system should remain the same.



* PCs get to roll their stats or choose the Elite Array; most NPCs are created with base 10/11 stats.
* PCs choosing a monster race have their power level adjusted by LA; the same character as an NPC has its power level set to its CR (which is generally lower).

That is true for the run of the mill NPC, but they are still in the same ball park

As for the rest of your quote, that is the ideal situation in theory but not in action.

Works generally, but not perfect. Yes you can alter everything as you said, but you can do that in 3.5 without any of this strange PC super hero thing. As for your last point, the NPC will try to ignore them, but that isn't the complaint. My complaint is, instead of the PCs working to become heros, or starting out high level, they have everything handed to them from teh get go
Lousy kids



I've seen Wiz folk mention something as "sexy" several times while referring to races and monsters that have gained a great deal of popularity. In this case, I think it means "intriguing appeal," not inherently "physical attractiveness."
Ok, i can live with that. The tales seem very stupid to me though.


I'm Done EE. You have failed time and time again to reply to any of the actual points I've made in my arguments, and continue to just spout your ridiculous rhetoric that honestly, I can care less about.

You've ignored damn near every word I've spoken, had everything fly over your head and frankly I'm tired of debating with someone who doesn't understand the concept.

I say good day sir.
Well after your "nobody plays gnomes" and "Drow are African Americans" i simple find this comical, but have fin with your head in the sand, hope it helps. You want to roll over, help yourself.


Fear not, I will give you exactly the respect that you deserve, and not a bit less.

we all love Cartmen

Why?
Eh? well look at it this way, what is hte difference between a trained solider and local militia. The former is a fighter, while the later is a guard.



Why do you even care what mechanic the goblins follow? The only point in having mechanics is to generate stats. The point of having stats is so that we have some way of resolving combat more advanced than "Bang! You're dead! No I'm not!"

There's no reason why a goblin should have to have a PC class in order to have, say, lots of hit points. Why not just decide to make goblins with lots of hit points? If you want to make a goblin as strong as a 6th level fighter, fine. Give them 6 levels in fighter, treating their level advancement as if they were human. But there's no reason why that should be the only kind of goblins. If the DM wants to create unique special characters with unusual abilities, or a category of enemies with a special ability, fine, as long as the game is balanced.

That isn't my beef. My beef is that it doesn't make sense in the least. While a quote was providing, it seemed like class was optional instead of normal. Bah.


I don't think you've proven that there's any difference between these two situations. What do you mean by "if he is just "Spell casting goblins"?" How is that different from "seeing a Goblin start casting spells?" You're contradicting yourself.

Ah but with the former it was a goblin with a magic class, while the latter was a goblin with spells. The important difference is, while the former is a goblin who took up the magical arts, the latter is just a goblin who is slightly more powerful to fight the PCs.


Can't blame them. You seem to be arguing past them, making repeated claims that they think have already been answered. And you're mocking them for quoting their own old statements that, as far as they can tell, you've never actually responded to in a coherent way.
And yet i've already countered those points. In teh same way you countered me, quoting and responding. If they would counter me directly it would make big difference.


Since you seem to feel the same way about them, maybe you should ignore them, too.

No, i never ignore people, i find it close minded and cowardly. Short of me being spammed directly, nothing will make me ignore somebody's else's option on purpose. When you deliberately ignore somebody's points, no matter how offensive, incorrect, and just plain wrong (not speaking directly to anyone here), you've already lost, you've given up in the fight. I never ignore people if i can help it sort of true spam


Yeah, but that's a stupid way to design a game. The majority of D&D players aren't teenagers and aren't impressed by dripping angst. I suspect you agree with what I just said here, though I cannot prove it.
you kidding, i'm totally behind you here and i'm a teenager. Gods, the angst. Also bear in mind, Teenagers also play WOW. hell i have a whole theory for most of the changes and how they involve teens.



Seconded. On the other hand, I've heard strange things about some of the people at Wizards.
I...must...not...ask...i...don't....want...to....k now....

Now i need to sleep so i can speak in a more coherent manner
from
EE

Prophaniti
2008-01-23, 06:21 PM
Well, no wonder the thread is so long now... I look back through it and I see

*post*
*post*
*EE's post*
...
...
...
...
*post*
*post*
*EE's post*
...
...
...
...
...
*post*

You know, EE, you don't have to quote everything the other person says and respond to it line by line. Try responding to just a few key points, or *snip* their text to save space. Your posts are miles long while containing relatively little text, which I find rather annoying.

Kudos on the improving spelling and grammar, though.

Serenity
2008-01-23, 06:28 PM
That isn't my beef. My beef is that it doesn't make sense in the least. While a quote was providing, it seemed like class was optional instead of normal. Bah.

Or maybe the 'might' meant that not all monsters were fit for adding class levels to. I think we can all agree that it would be nonsensical to make a Gelatinous Cube Fighter or Purple Worm Rogue. The quote explicitly designates adding class levels to the monster as an option for advancing its challenge--and it's the first option mentioned, to boot.


Ah but with the former it was a goblin with a magic class, while the latter was a goblin with spells. The important difference is, while the former is a goblin who took up the magical arts, the latter is just a goblin who is slightly more powerful to fight the PCs.

No. Both are goblins who took up the magical arts (or were born with innate magical powers, as the case may be). They were built with different mechanics, but that has absolutely no effect on how the DM portrays them. They're only 'more powerful goblin' if that's what the DM makes them. And at any rate, the point is moot, because the quote indicates that you can, in fact, add class levels to monsters.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 06:36 PM
Well, no wonder the thread is so long now... I look back through it and I see

*post*
*post*
*EE's post*
...
...
...
...
*post*
*post*
*EE's post*
...
...
...
...
...
*post*

You know, EE, you don't have to quote everything the other person says and respond to it line by line. Try responding to just a few key points, or *snip* their text to save space. Your posts are miles long while containing relatively little text, which I find rather annoying.

Kudos on the improving spelling and grammar, though.
1. I've been waiting two years for somebody to comment on that, well i sleep happy tonight
2. Meh, most of the time people go "But EE, you didn't respond to this comment, you dirty hypocrite, we should stone you to death for that".
3. I got my spell check back. Oh so happy


Or maybe the 'might' meant that not all monsters were fit for adding class levels to. I think we can all agree that it would be nonsensical to make a Gelatinous Cube Fighter or Purple Worm Rogue. The quote explicitly designates adding class levels to the monster as an option for advancing its challenge--and it's the first option mentioned, to boot.
except it was already like that. Yes, have you ever heard of a Purple Worm Rogue? I haven't, i've seen nothing that could convince me that could happen. If what you claim is true, then we haven't changed at all. However, the book i have says otherwise.
If that quote is true, then the system is pretty much exactly the same as 3.5, and i find that fare to hopeful
from
EE

Wordmiser
2008-01-23, 06:42 PM
If what you claim is true, then we haven't changed at all. Except we do kill that god-awful Level Adjustment concept. Unplayable creatures are being labeled as "unplayable" rather than giving the illusion of that option.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 07:15 PM
Except we do kill that god-awful Level Adjustment concept. Unplayable creatures are being labeled as "unplayable" rather than giving the illusion of that option.

Can't argue on LA, i don't like their new method much, but it is better.

However, it was pretty apparent what creatures were unplayable (the ones without LA given) and what were playable. However, considering what was said in Races and classes, i'm still very nervous
from
EE

Wordmiser
2008-01-23, 07:27 PM
However, it was pretty apparent what creatures were unplayable (the ones without LA given) and what were playable.
I dunno. They present Ettins (CR 6) as if they were entirely viable ECL 15 characters. The Monster Manual presents Hound Archons (with their +6 BAB, 33 HP and SR 16) as if they were perfectly balanced for 11th level play.


However, considering what was said in Races and classes, i'm still very nervous Didn't they announce in August that the core rules would provide the material to advance a Kobold in PC class levels? I know the different types of Yuan-Ti in the Miniatures releases indicated some form of advancement around November. And it sounds like their recent podcast said the same thing.

I can't say I take kindly to their race selection, though: Out of 8 core races, 3 are elves, 1 is a lizardman and 1 is a demon-thing?

Rutee
2008-01-23, 07:33 PM
I dunno. They present Ettins (CR 6) as if they were entirely viable ECL 15 characters. The Monster Manual presents Hound Archons (with their +6 BAB, 33 HP and SR 16) as if they were perfectly balanced for 11th level play.
I was always confused by that; A single PC or NPC is technically CR <Level>, so shouldn't CR = ECL? Anyway.

I'm also vaguely confused on the Tiefling hate. They seem genuinely interesting to me, and I generally despise Hip and Edgy or what have you.


Ok, while mildly ironic, I think you still miss his point. Yes, the game is based on a literary classic, indeed one that is seen as the foundation of modern fantasy literature and gaming. However, he is refering to it's execution as a game, which was done in a style in no way similar to the book itself, save that the names are the same. The game focuses entirely on the battles, skimming or skipping the events in between. This works very well for video games because, hey, battles are more fun to play on a tv or computer. When you're dealing with a tabletop pen-and-paper RPG, this changes. The in-between-the-battles parts of a story become more interesting, and should receive an increased focus. When he states that it 'plays like a video game' what he's saying is that it focuses on the fighting and largely ignores other aspects, monsters (and NPCs) becoming nothing more than walking xp chunks, without motivations or aspirations of their own
See, that argument? Wrong on its face. That is NEVER a function of system, in any game you can cunceivably play multiplayer that isn't grind-tastic; I know people who roleplay WoW or SWG, for gods sakes, and htose are /clearly/ designed as gamist, on a level that one would imagine would murder roleplay.

He /also/, however, seems to mean (With the claim 'like a video game')that the players should not be the center of the narrative/setting, and I have pointed out repeatedly that this is just flat out wrong period, and that /not only/ is this older then video games, that it's just flat out wrong /based on ancient tales and myths/. It's a very long list I could go through of old folklore and myths where the protagonists are the center of the world. And almost every story period has the protagonists as the center of the narrative.


<Snip>
The reason I disagree with Dictionary.com for vernacular is quite simple; I don't know their process for selecting it. I'll agree with a dictionary for, you know, everything else, but vernacular? Can't trust it without knowing their process for it. As to Useful/Meaningless.. alright. The gist of my argument got through,

ZekeArgo
2008-01-23, 07:45 PM
Continued Awesomeness

Rutee, I just need to jump in and say that, following your posts through the last few threads, if I weren't already engaged to the most wonderful woman in the world I'd be offering you a ring ;)

I might have retired from the argument, but I'm still lurking to check those replies. Keep em coming!

Dervag
2008-01-23, 08:01 PM
2. Meh, most of the time people go "But EE, you didn't respond to this comment, you dirty hypocrite, we should stone you to death for that".People usually only do that if they feel you have ignored something, or responded in a way that makes it unclear whether or not you noticed it.

Imagine Bob says "I think it's just fine to have monsters with no classes assigned to them, and if you want to grant them special powers that don't come from a class that's fine too. It's just a question of mechanics."

Then you say "PC classes are special and NPCs are inferior to them in video games I play, and if you don't give monsters classes PCs won't think the monsters are part of the same universe. They'll just be "ogre with healing spells." That's different from "ogre cleric.""

Bob may reasonably wonder if you bothered to read what he said. You're clearly not responding to him, even if you quote him above your statement in that case. What you said and what he said are totally different.

Now, if you said "I think it does make a difference whether you give monsters extra abilities instead of giving them class levels," and then said all the other stuff just the same, you'd be nodding to Bob in a way that shows him you're paying attention. If you don't do that, Bob gets ticked off and decides to ignore you because he feels like you aren't paying attention to him, because you said something exactly the same way you would have if he didn't exist.

I think the problem here is that other people don't see the structure of your arguments. To them, it looks like you're just throwing ideas down with no regard for the ideas that came before them, and that annoys people who invest a lot of energy into their ideas. When you write about the same topic they were writing about, they don't want to be ignored in your writings, and they don't want it to look like their ideas are being ignored. They like to see signs that your current thoughts either follow logically from their thoughts, or were put together logically as opposition to those thoughts, rather than being totally independent.

If your thoughts really are totally independent, then one would expect that they'd be on a totally independent topic. Obviously, if we're posting about metal and you decide to post about cheese, you're not going to be responding to us. But more often, if we write a bunch of posts about metal then you write a post about metal too. If that post seems to ignore all the points previous people made in favor of making your own points, some of which agree and some of which disagree, without giving any signs that you noticed what we were writing before, people get annoyed.

Prophaniti
2008-01-23, 08:02 PM
What, no comments on my Paladins post? Eh, you probably missed it while scrolling past EE's monstrosities... Here's a link.
*snip*Not trying to shift the conversation or anything, I'm just wondering what your opinions are, as well as your opinion of my view, since that was originally the point of this thread.

On LA:
Ok, the LA system was very broken, but that had a lot more to do with what LA they assigned the different creatures than the mechanics of the LA itself. Hopefully whatever the new system is, it makes more sense.

Matthew
2008-01-23, 08:11 PM
Wow, this thread spiralled out of control today. I can only vaguely follow what's going on, but I think EvilElitist should pay attention to what Dervag just wrote.

Prophaniti
2008-01-23, 08:22 PM
I know. I was here for most of it, and it's still hard to believe we're up to 8 pages.

I guess the problem is I started with the things I don't like in the new edition, and that brought counter-arguments and further counters, and then EE came in and it's EE vs everybody else for a while...

EDIT: On a side note- Does anyone have any links to articles on the new spell system? I'm afraid I know nothing about it, except that it's supposed to be different from the old one. I kinda feel indifferent about changing that. The system may not make any in-game sense, but it worked and kept casters fairly balanced. It's the spells, not the casting system, that's to blame for wizards dominating the scene. I'm curious to see how they plan to balance them in the new system, and hope that changes to the spell system are matched by changes to the spells themselves.

Also, any links to articles about the new skill system, if they're out yet. I'm afraid I have limited access at work...

Woot Spitum
2008-01-23, 08:34 PM
Not quite. Tieflings in 3.5 are, as I said, like half-elves. In game terms they're a race because they provide racial benefits. In setting terms they're an aspect of a character who would probably think of themselves as "a human with fiendish ancestors" rather than "a member of the proud tiefling race".The way I see it WotC seems determined to cut out all or most of the half-human, half-x races in 4th edition. However, Tieflings are a very popular race, so they decided to change the fluff a bit, while preserving the appearence. Personally, I think it's an improvement, especially as far as versimilitude goes, but I think I understand now why not everyone does.


I don't really see what parallel you're trying to draw here unless it's to suggest that obviously if they're in the PHB they must be very numerous and cohesive and therefore deserve to have a racial identity and a civilization. In which case I say a) half-elves didn't have either, and b) that doesn't address the fact that they're effectively no longer much like tieflings have been for the entire rest of the game until now. They may as well be called something else.It just makes more sense to me that way. Why should extremely rare races be put right in the PHB as if you can't throw a rock in the gameworld without hitting one? I think half-elves would have been more popular if they had had a more distinct racial identity and perhaps even a civilization to call their own. As a mechanically inferior race, they relied on their fluff to sell players on the character concept. Unfortunately, that fluff basically said they act mostly like humans with subtle elven features. Not very compelling at all. As for Tieflings, I don't think they are that much differrent. It would not be a huge stretch of the imagination to play them exactly like they were described in the 3rd edition fluff.




Sure you could. ...So what? My point really is that if what used to be tieflings in 3.5 are now just fluffed-up humans (or whatever), then what the hell are these so-called Tieflings? They aren't what the word has meant up until now, and to achieve something like what the word has meant you have to fake it, basically. So what are they for? Why aren't they, I don't know, "fiend-touched", or "pactborn" or something else that isn't the equivalent of putting Goliaths in the PHB under the heading "Dwarf" and saying "well, they live in the mountains, but now they're cooler"?I would argue that 3.5 Tieflings were no more than fluffed up humans. Sure, they had different stats, but stats, shmats. Fluff-wise, they're basically humans. A feat could give just as good justification for fiendish heritage, with the added bonus that it can be added to any race, not just humans. In regards to the name change, as I said before, WotC seems determined to cut out all or most of the half-human, half-x races in 4th edition, but they are determined to preserve the Tieflings in some form due to the race's popularity.




Hmmm, I don't think I agree. Obviously a facile and shallow player can make any character bad, but if a race is designed to appeal to such players then it a) encourages them and b) means that if they make this bad character, they are in fact roleplaying it appropriately. Which is kind of a pain. I would say the 4th edition changes to the Tiefling actually lessen the chances of this kind of play, due to the removal of the fluff stating
"must fight against popular opinion or the feeling of otherworldly wrongness that seems to follow them wherever they go"and
"when its nature is revealed it quickly becomes an outcast"Angsty McAngstalot is better off sticking with Drow, especially if half-vampires don't make it to 4th edition.

Charity
2008-01-24, 03:51 AM
On a side note- Does anyone have any links to articles on the new spell system? I'm afraid I know nothing about it, except that it's supposed to be different from the old one.
I haven't seen any articles on the new magic system, just some where it is mentioned in passing. I think they are keepiing it as an enigma so they can tweek it out of the spotlight so to speak. Though I will add my voice to the request if anyone has any info on what is possibly the most contentious part of 4E.


I kinda feel indifferent about changing that. The system may not make any in-game sense, but it worked and kept casters fairly balanced.
*Cough*


It's the spells, not the casting system, that's to blame for wizards dominating the scene. I'm curious to see how they plan to balance them in the new system, and hope that changes to the spell system are matched by changes to the spells themselves.


I agree it is the spells that will tell. Thinking back there has been an article that makes some mention, I will see if I can dig it out. There was mention of how Clerics spell lists have changed, and how Druids have become secondary casters relying on their shapeshift, and a hint that sorcerers will be further divorced from wizards... Ring any bells with anybody? Anyone got that link kicking around?

Edit ok - Wizards and Wizard Implements

Magic saturates the world and all the extraordinary realms beyond the world, an intrinsic force present in literally all things. Magic transforms and alters the natural world, sometimes actively and with sudden effect, other times subtly and over long centuries.

This arcane energy source is difficult to understand and even tougher to master. Wizards do so through years of study, practice, and apprenticeship to accomplished masters.

Wizards wield arcane magic, and they recognize reality for what it is: a thin veneer of structure supported and energized by a force that is ultimately malleable, to those who know its secrets. Though research and study, wizards learn esoteric rituals that allow them to alter time and space, hurl balls of fire that incinerate massed foes, and wield spells like warriors brandish swords. They call upon lesser and greater spells to unleash raging torrents of cold, fire, or lightning, confuse and enthrall the weak-minded, or even turn invisible or walk through walls.

What sets wizards apart from others who wield arcane magic are wizards’ unique implements. Most people recognize the three most common tools associated with wizardcraft: the orb, staff, and wand.

Any wizard can use an implement to increase the effectiveness of his spells. Just as a warrior gains a benefit when attacking an enemy with a magic sword, so does a wizard benefit from using a magic orb, staff, or wand with his spellcasting. In addition, each implement focuses magic of a particular discipline or tradition more effectively than the wizard would be able to accomplish otherwise. As a result, wizards are rarely without at least one of these tools.

The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.

The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.

The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.

A wizard without an implement is like a slightly near-sighted man with glasses: The man can still see, but without his glasses, he can’t read the road sign across the way. Likewise, while wizard traditions are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use a power belonging to that tradition. For instance, a wizard belonging to the Hidden Flame order can cast the fire spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic staff. But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell.


Still can't find the article I was talking about..

Rutee
2008-01-24, 03:54 AM
I think they mentioned in the Races/Classes book that Spells will work exactly like other abilities, with all classes working on something closer to ToB, with per-Encounter, At-Will, and Per-Day abilities.



Rutee, I just need to jump in and say that, following your posts through the last few threads, if I weren't already engaged to the most wonderful woman in the world I'd be offering you a ring ;)
Flattery will get you nowhere. Sometimes ~.^

Morty
2008-01-24, 10:13 AM
The way I see it WotC seems determined to cut out all or most of the half-human, half-x races in 4th edition. However, Tieflings are a very popular race, so they decided to change the fluff a bit, while preserving the appearence. Personally, I think it's an improvement, especially as far as versimilitude goes, but I think I understand now why not everyone does.

Personally, I think that by making Tieflings core race that isn't human/fiend crossbreed they've removed most things that were enjoyable and appealing in 3ed Tiefling. Now they're just another humanoid race, just with horns and inherent badassness.


It just makes more sense to me that way. Why should extremely rare races be put right in the PHB as if you can't throw a rock in the gameworld without hitting one?

And why should it be put in PHB? Is that impossible to play a race from MM?


I think they mentioned in the Races/Classes book that Spells will work exactly like other abilities, with all classes working on something closer to ToB, with per-Encounter, At-Will, and Per-Day abilities.

Did they? Crap.:smallannoyed:

Blackadder
2008-01-24, 11:21 AM
I think I need to go back and re-explain one of my comments mentioned earlier.

There's a reason I brought up Sigil when discussioning believability. In the City of Doors, everyone is forced to tolerate each other as full scale war will be quashed by the Lady of Pain. However Bigotry, Guildism and alignment-ish is still prevelant, they simply can't act on it openly.

But out there in the Prime Material, in each individual little world you have religious differences, you have bigotry, you have racism, you have genderism.

My players, and my own view is that I don't expect that a world will feature a mass outbreak of pacifism and hippyness. People don't all get along except for that nasty evil monster which you must save them from. People are people, Dwarves are Dwarves, Halflings are Halfings. People have their own wants, needs, motivations and likes and dislikes.

This is about believability and creating a world that sounds, looks and feels like it WORKS.

Magic? Angel's? Demon's? Gods and Necromancers? If done well, if it follows it's own internal logic then I can believe it. But if it's not true to some sort of guidelines then it breaks the immersion.

Given all that you present me with a world which is full of races with widely different goals but some-how they all get along? None of them compete over lands or resources? Do they share a single religion so they don't have religious differences? Do all the races view each other as just them in another skin rather than totally different from each other(See Elf's and Dwarves)

These differences cause conflict, these conflicts cause hate, this hate breeds bigotry, bigotry breeds intolerance, and that intolerance breeds more conflict.

In short, what 4e is purposing to do is take conflict and war. Keep all the reasons why wars happen, but remove the after effects... Are we supposed to believe that after a two year war between Human's and Dwarves over mining rights that everyone just shook hands and called it even?

Look at our own real world of inspiration, people kill each other on a regular basis for one hundred to two thousand plus year old reasons. And that is why I have a problem with the happy-go-lucky can't we all just get along tone of the major races in 4e, it just does not make sense, it makes less sense than flying dragons, than magical books, than undead shadows. It's that big an issue for me.

Artanis
2008-01-24, 12:06 PM
I think I need to go back and re-explain one of my comments mentioned earlier.

There's a reason I brought up Sigil when discussioning believability. In the City of Doors, everyone is forced to tolerate each other as full scale war will be quashed by the Lady of Pain. However Bigotry, Guildism and alignment-ish is still prevelant, they simply can't act on it openly.

But out there in the Prime Material, in each individual little world you have religious differences, you have bigotry, you have racism, you have genderism.

My players, and my own view is that I don't expect that a world will feature a mass outbreak of pacifism and hippyness. People don't all get along except for that nasty evil monster which you must save them from. People are people, Dwarves are Dwarves, Halflings are Halfings. People have their own wants, needs, motivations and likes and dislikes.

This is about believability and creating a world that sounds, looks and feels like it WORKS.

Magic? Angel's? Demon's? Gods and Necromancers? If done well, if it follows it's own internal logic then I can believe it. But if it's not true to some sort of guidelines then it breaks the immersion.

Given all that you present me with a world which is full of races with widely different goals but some-how they all get along? None of them compete over lands or resources? Do they share a single religion so they don't have religious differences? Do all the races view each other as just them in another skin rather than totally different from each other(See Elf's and Dwarves)

These differences cause conflict, these conflicts cause hate, this hate breeds bigotry, bigotry breeds intolerance, and that intolerance breeds more conflict.

In short, what 4e is purposing to do is take conflict and war. Keep all the reasons why wars happen, but remove the after effects... Are we supposed to believe that after a two year war between Human's and Dwarves over mining rights that everyone just shook hands and called it even?

Look at our own real world of inspiration, people kill each other on a regular basis for one hundred to two thousand plus year old reasons. And that is why I have a problem with the happy-go-lucky can't we all just get along tone of the major races in 4e, it just does not make sense, it makes less sense than flying dragons, than magical books, than undead shadows. It's that big an issue for me.
A couple of responses:

First, I really doubt we've seen all the fluff. It could very well be that there's some deep-seated enmities between the various races. At the very least, I think it's a good bet they'll put in something about "Good" religious-types not being too fond of Tieflings based on their ancestry.

Second, even if the various races are officially at peace, that doesn't mean that all is well in the land of <insert whatever they decide to call 4e's "default" setting here>. Just look at Eberron. They just finished a what, twelve-way war? But nobody's openly invading each other at the moment, and a few of the nations have reasonably good relations with each other...well, mostly just with Gnomelandia, but you get the drift :smalltongue:


So in conclusion, while I don't specifically disagree with you, I'd say it's a little too early to jump to conclusions just yet.

Rutee
2008-01-24, 12:37 PM
Did they? Crap.
Speaking from experience, there is absolutley no easier method to truly balancing magic, ranged, and melee then putting them all on literally the exact same system.

Of course, the wayward student observes, they're making money; There's no real need for them to take the easy way out. And I have no answer to that, because it's true :P

Regardless, doesn't bother me that they all work the same, at heart.

Morty
2008-01-24, 03:14 PM
Speaking from experience, there is absolutley no easier method to truly balancing magic, ranged, and melee then putting them all on literally the exact same system.

Of course, the wayward student observes, they're making money; There's no real need for them to take the easy way out. And I have no answer to that, because it's true :P

Regardless, doesn't bother me that they all work the same, at heart.

Bleh. I know, of course, it's the easiest way, but it doesn't mean it's the best. I, myself, consider it really awful idea, as I fear it'll make classes bland and too similiar to each other.

Counterspin
2008-01-24, 03:25 PM
Someone with a reasonable complaint about 4e. Someone fetch the salts I might faint!

Rutee
2008-01-24, 03:29 PM
City of Heroes called. They want a word with you :P

Seriously, putting everything on the same system doesn't really mean the classes will suddenly be too similar. And really, it may not be the 'best', but it's actually a pretty darn good one (Lest I come off as a 4e apologist, I defend it because it was my idea long before they had the good sense to adopt it :P).

The main problem I see with the criticism "Well it wasn't the best idea" is that I haven't heard a better one. Casters have /been/ dominating the melee. How would you have fixed it within the RAW?

In essence, with everyone working under the same rules, it's very, VERY easy to rate class abilities against each other, especially with the death of things like construct resistances.

Morty
2008-01-24, 03:42 PM
Someone with a reasonable complaint about 4e. Someone fetch the salts I might faint!

:smallconfused: Is that supposed to be sarcasm, or...


Seriously, putting everything on the same system doesn't really mean the classes will suddenly be too similar.

I'd argue about that, but it's preety hard to do without details. Let's just say that I really don't like fighters, rogues, casters and all other types of characters using the exact same mechanics for their abilites. I'd like to feel really different when I'm playing, let's say, ranger instead of a wizard, while in 4ed the difference is likely to be vastly smaller than in 3ed.


The main problem I see with the criticism "Well it wasn't the best idea" is that I haven't heard a better one. Casters have /been/ dominating the melee. How would you have fixed it within the RAW?

First, I'm not complaining that "it's not the best idea", I'm complaining that it's an awful idea. Second, there are several ways to balance casters while keeping them different from non-casting classes. The most obvious one is to give casters big spell list, but limit their acces to it(so that they can't have every spell they want) and be careful with spells themselves, because, as everyone knows, the real problem with casters is about their spells. Look at psionics- it's more balanced than arcane magic, but it's very similiar to it otherwise -I don't consider power points instead of spells/day all that big difference. But the casters could be balanced that way even without dropping Vancian casting(that is one of the things I'll miss the most in 4ed).


In essence, with everyone working under the same rules, it's very, VERY easy to rate class abilities against each other, especially with the death of things like construct resistances.

It sure is. But easiness in design, while certainly important shouldn't be top priority.

Rutee
2008-01-24, 03:52 PM
I'd argue about that, but it's preety hard to do without details. Let's just say that I really don't like fighters, rogues, casters and all other types of characters using the exact same mechanics for their abilites. I'd like to feel really different when I'm playing, let's say, ranger instead of a wizard, while in 4ed the difference is likely to be vastly smaller than in 3ed.
You would bedemonstrably (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Heroes) wrong, quite frankly. Same basic System != similar roles, similar actions, and even with the same role you can go about accomplishing it in different ways (Support could either be party-buffs, or enemy debuffs, f'rex)

Heck, I could point at /3e/ and prove my point. Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are, primarily, all Vancian casters, and yet, those classes end up /playing/ completely differently.




First, I'm not complaining that "it's not the best idea", I'm complaining that it's an awful idea. Second, there are several ways to balance casters while keeping them different from non-casting classes. The most obvious one is to give casters big spell list, but limit their acces to it(so that they can't have every spell they want) and be careful with spells themselves, because, as everyone knows, the real problem with casters is about their spells. Look at psionics- it's more balanced than arcane magic, but it's very similiar to it otherwise -I don't consider power points instead of spells/day all that big difference. But the casters could be balanced that way even without dropping Vancian casting(that is one of the things I'll miss the most in 4ed).
It isn't an awful idea so much as one you don't like (Perfectly acceptable complaint, really, but they're /not/ the same thing). And at least you have a basic framework; what, specifically, would you be doing?




It sure is. But easiness in design, while certainly important shouldn't be top priority.

Out of vague curiosity, do you do homebrew systems?

Morty
2008-01-24, 04:20 PM
You would bedemonstrably (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Heroes) wrong, quite frankly. Same basic System != similar roles, similar actions, and even with the same role you can go about accomplishing it in different ways (Support could either be party-buffs, or enemy debuffs, f'rex)

Well, of course I'll be filling a different role. That much is obvious. My point is, however, that the experiences from playing wizard and ranger would be a lot less different if they both used the same system that if they used different ones. I'm not arguing that 4ed classes will be the same, but that they are likely to be less different, which is bad enough. Also, I love 3ed wizard because of the scholarly feel it gives by using books and scrolls. I 4ed, it looks suspiciously like my favorite class(in all systems) might be relegated to the role of fireball-tosser.


Heck, I could point at /3e/ and prove my point. Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are, primarily, all Vancian casters, and yet, those classes end up /playing/ completely differently.

Not really. Playing a druid and playing a cleric isn't all that much different mechanics-wise -it can be, of course, but for someone new to D&D they look preety similiar- and neither of them are comparable to wizard, since wizards have more wide array of more powerful spells in exchange for their fragility and lack of any class features except spellcasting. Which is, I think, an advantage of using wide spells lists, as it allows to create different classes by using essentialy the same method.


It isn't an awful idea so much as one you don't like (Perfectly acceptable complaint, really, but they're /not/ the same thing). And at least you have a basic framework; what, specifically, would you be doing?

Well, I'd be careful not to give spellcasters spells or abilities that allow them to do non-casters job easily or win combat in tow rounds, and they can in 3ed. All this can be achieved by properly designing spells and carefully tailoring spell lists.


Out of vague curiosity, do you do homebrew systems?

I do. I'm putting together a low-magic, low-powered system for two years now. Magic system is something I'm having most troube with. But since it's mostly free-time activity -even though I've already run two sessions using that system- I don't know if that applies.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-24, 04:32 PM
Well, I'd be careful not to give spellcasters spells or abilities that allow them to do non-casters job easily or win combat in tow rounds, and they can in 3ed. All this can be achieved by carefully tailoring spell lists.


I hate to say this but... very carefully tailoring spell lists is going to be a perpetual problem for D&D, no matter the edition. With each new splat book will come more spells. The more splat books they put out, the more money they make. There will be another Fleshshiver soon enough. I just hope they manage to keep it out of core.

Rutee
2008-01-24, 05:18 PM
I hate to say this but... very carefully tailoring spell lists is going to be a perpetual problem for D&D, no matter the edition. With each new splat book will come more spells. The more splat books they put out, the more money they make. There will be another Fleshshiver soon enough. I just hope they manage to keep it out of core.

OTOH, now other classes are (Or should) be getting new 'spells'. There'll be power creep, but it'll hopefully be balanced, with other classes getting new fun toys that dominate the game :P


Well, of course I'll be filling a different role. That much is obvious. My point is, however, that the experiences from playing wizard and ranger would be a lot less different if they both used the same system that if they used different ones. I'm not arguing that 4ed classes will be the same, but that they are likely to be less different, which is bad enough. Also, I love 3ed wizard because of the scholarly feel it gives by using books and scrolls. I 4ed, it looks suspiciously like my favorite class(in all systems) might be relegated to the role of fireball-tosser.
Now, do you want a feel, or a mechanic? Because I strongly suspect there's no stopping you from having the scholarly, traditional wizard fluff. And while they might be a bit less different.. the Ranger's day got a ton better; He's on par with the wizard, and /actually has combat options/ now.


Not really. Playing a druid and playing a cleric isn't all that much different mechanics-wise -it can be, of course, but for someone new to D&D they look preety similiar-
They sure looked similar to me, at first, I'll agree to that. They don't remain that way, IMO.


and neither of them are comparable to wizard,
I love how you're making my point.


Well, I'd be careful not to give spellcasters spells or abilities that allow them to do non-casters job easily or win combat in tow rounds, and they can in 3ed. All this can be achieved by properly designing spells and carefully tailoring spell lists.
That'd require a pretty massive overhaul of spells. Be specific, since you're the one with the claim to have a better method :P


I do. I'm putting together a low-magic, low-powered system for two years now. Magic system is something I'm having most troube with. But since it's mostly free-time activity -even though I've already run two sessions using that system- I don't know if that applies.
No, that applies.

Morty
2008-01-24, 05:32 PM
Now, do you want a feel, or a mechanic? Because I strongly suspect there's no stopping you from having the scholarly, traditional wizard fluff.

Mechanics dictate the feel and fluff of the class to certain extent. If mechanics of playing a wizard aren't much different than those of playing a fighter, I find it much harder to feel the role of a wizard. Especially if a wizard learns and uses his spells just like fighter learns and uses his combat moves and strikes.
Also, scholar-type bookworm wizard isn't "cool", so I doubt this type of wizard will be supported by 4ed in any way.:smallannoyed: But that's another story.


And while they might be a bit less different.. the Ranger's day got a ton better; He's on par with the wizard, and /actually has combat options/ now.

I'm not against Ranger being on par with wizard and having actual combat options. I'm against wizard working on exactly the same rules as ranger. And it's not only about casters- non-casters getting 1/day powers are in most cases abstract and artifical.


I love how you're making my point.

Am I now? I was under the impression I'm proving the advantage of big spell lists for casters instead of them using small amount of "powers" just like meleers. And that clerics/druids and wizards don't work on the same rules.


That'd require a pretty massive overhaul of spells. Be specific, since you're the one with the claim to have a better method :P

We're talking about new edition, aren't we? So that's not "massive overhaul", but building up balanced spell lists from scratch, not necessarily with the exact same spellcasting system as in 3ed, which wasn't perfect. But knowing the problems of 3ed caster classes, designers would be able to write better spell lists, and they'll be able to compare it to other classes' abilites.
Actually, I've even heard that someone managed to create balanced spell list using 3ed rules.

Rutee
2008-01-24, 05:53 PM
Mechanics dictate the feel and fluff of the class to certain extent. If mechanics of playing a wizard aren't much different than those of playing a fighter, I find it much harder to feel the role of a wizard. Especially if a wizard learns and uses his spells just like fighter learns and uses his combat moves and strikes.
Also, scholar-type bookworm wizard isn't "cool", so I doubt this type of wizard will be supported by 4ed in any way.:smallannoyed: But that's another story
I find it HIGHLY unlikely that your DM is so draconian as to say you can't play a scholarly mage.

More to the point, yeah, I'm pretty sure they'll all learn their stuff the same way mechanically. Meaning everyone learns their stuff different ways fluff-wise, in theory; Who's to say you're not still, fluff-wise, preparing spells through study of arcane tomes?

Honestly, you seem really quick to assume your favorite class has totally died, in fluff feel, when it strikes me as nigh impossible to kill that archetype. Why are you inventing worries for yourself?




I'm not against Ranger being on par with wizard and having actual combat options. I'm against wizard working on exactly the same rules as ranger. And it's not only about casters- non-casters getting 1/day powers are in most cases abstract and artifical.
Abstract? In a game with magic? To quote Dogbert, "Excuse me while I go take a wicked wag".




Am I now? I was under the impression proving the advantage of big spell lists for casters instead of them using small amount of "powers" just like meleers.
Where'd you get your copy of the 4e PHB again? 'cause.. I wanna know how you know it'll be a small number of powers.


And that clerics/druids and wizards don't work on the same rules.
Lemme think. Same basic system; All 3 prepare their spells in advance, and need the exact same amount of time to re-set their spells. True, 2 of them /do/ have rules for spontaneously dumping-switching to set spells, of course. But as you put it, the two can't be compared, despite sharing the same basic system. That's /all/ we know classes share in 4e.




We're talking about new edition, aren't we? So that's not "massive overhaul", but building up balanced spell lists from scratch, not necessarily with the exact same spellcasting system as in 3ed, which wasn't perfect. But knowing the problems of 3ed caster classes, designers would be able to write better spell lists, and they'll be able to compare it to other classes' abilites.
Actually, I've even heard that someone managed to create balanced spell list using 3ed rules.

True,but we need a baseline for you to tell me what you'd change from spells. Either way, this is still not a specific set of changes to spells..

Morty
2008-01-24, 06:28 PM
I find it HIGHLY unlikely that your DM is so draconian as to say you can't play a scholarly mage.

He isn't, but it won't be supported neither by the rules nor fluff, from the looks of it. It won't prevent me from playing a wizard, but it's still annoying.


More to the point, yeah, I'm pretty sure they'll all learn their stuff the same way mechanically. Meaning everyone learns their stuff different ways fluff-wise, in theory; Who's to say you're not still, fluff-wise, preparing spells through study of arcane tomes?

Noone. But fluff aside, when everyone's abilites work the same way mechanics-wise, I find it boring. As above, it won't make the classes utterly suck, but it's bad.


Honestly, you seem really quick to assume your favorite class has totally died, in fluff feel, when it strikes me as nigh impossible to kill that archetype. Why are you inventing worries for yourself?

I'm not "inventing" any worries. Everything I've heard about wizards so far supports them.


Abstract? In a game with magic? To quote Dogbert, "Excuse me while I go take a wicked wag".

Magic they aren't using. Besides, I always thought that the best way to have good, balanced caster/noncaster distinction is to make casters do more spectacular stuff, but limited times per day.


Where'd you get your copy of the 4e PHB again? 'cause.. I wanna know how you know it'll be a small number of powers.

It's more of an assumption. If "powers" are now gained with levels like class abilities, I'm assuming there'll be less of them than spells in 3ed. And I'm preety sure I won't be able to learn a spell at my leisure from a scroll. But I'll be very happy if proven wrong by 4ed PHB or SRD.


Lemme think. Same basic system; All 3 prepare their spells in advance, and need the exact same amount of time to re-set their spells. True, 2 of them /do/ have rules for spontaneously dumping-switching to set spells, of course. But as you put it, the two can't be compared, despite sharing the same basic system. That's /all/ we know classes share in 4e.

Be it as it may, those are 3 classes, not all of them. Also, I'm not saying that I'm sure classes will suck in 4ed, just that what I'm hearing so far sounds preety bad.


True,but we need a baseline for you to tell me what you'd change from spells. Either way, this is still not a specific set of changes to spells..

I've already said what should be avoided when designing spells list, namely all spells that can either do non-casters job too easily, end combat in a round or two, or make caster untouchable. Preety specific, if you ask me.

Rutee
2008-01-24, 06:52 PM
He isn't, but it won't be supported neither by the rules nor fluff, from the looks of it. It won't prevent me from playing a wizard, but it's still annoying.
Do you look at things before commenting on them? The 4e concept art wizards, with the exception of the Tiefling, all still look very, very classic wizardly. 3 of them are even carrying huge-as-hell tomes around. The rules, if I were to take a gugess, for all classes, let you figure out the exact source of your character's abilities, and provide some default examples.

Of course, that would be sensical..




Noone. But fluff aside, when everyone's abilites work the same way mechanics-wise, I find it boring. As above, it won't make the classes utterly suck, but it's bad.
Correction: Bad for you.




I'm not "inventing" any worries. Everything I've heard about wizards so far supports them.
Have you actually read their entry in the Races and Classes preview? 'cause.. what you're hearing very clearly seems to be massively different. It's true that books and tomes aren't part of the listed implements.. but most of the concept art still has very scholarly wizards, to say the least.



pquote]Magic they aren't using. Besides, I always thought that the best way to have good, balanced caster/noncaster distinction is to make casters do more spectacular stuff, but limited times per day.[/quote]
Perhaps, but the standard method of handling that in DnD is to give other classes very little that is truly spectacular at all. They still have the most powerful of the limited abilities, at the moment.



It's more of an assumption. If "powers" are now gained with levels like class abilities, I'm assuming there'll be less of them than spells in 3ed. And I'm preety sure I won't be able to learn a spell at my leisure from a scroll. But I'll be very happy if proven wrong by 4ed PHB or SRD.
And perhaps you shouldn't give into the cantankerous curmudgeonery popular on the board by speaking on your assumption as fact?




Be it as it may, those are 3 classes, not all of them. Also, I'm not saying that I'm sure classes will suck in 4ed, just that what I'm hearing so far sounds preety bad.
Your words actually make it sound more like the former, frankly.




I've already said what should be avoided when designing spells list, namely all spells that can either do non-casters job too easily, end combat in a round or two, or make caster untouchable. Preety specific, if you ask me.
No, that's still general, actually. More specifically, the "End a fight in two rounds". How would Spell/ability scaling (What you see from 1-20) go for you, hn?

RukiTanuki
2008-01-24, 08:07 PM
Now on to the most interesting (in a good way) post here, lets have
[SNIP: Ruki's posts]
yes that is true. I've never denied the PCs are the center to the story. I just don't like them being innately different from every other being in the game. However yes they are the central characters.
[...]
Also true, i just want to build off one
"The PCs need consistent and fair rules for creation"
In the game world, the idea of the classes is consistency
[...]
Good point but
[...]
The NPCs need to follow the same basic system as the PCs, race and class. The NPCs might have special qualities unique to them, that is the DM making interesting elements for his characters. But the system should remain the same.
[...]
That is true for the run of the mill NPC, but they are still in the same ball park
[...]
Works generally, but not perfect. Yes you can alter everything as you said, but you can do that in 3.5 without any of this strange PC super hero thing. As for your last point, the NPC will try to ignore them, but that isn't the complaint. My complaint is, instead of the PCs working to become heros, or starting out high level, they have everything handed to them from teh get go
Lousy kids


First off, thanks, I'm flattered. I'm also glad my points are being addressed civilly. Hopefully the way I approach the discussion is helping. :) It seems like line-by-line quoting is cluttering up the place, so I've bolded things above, and I'll try to present one coherent presentation. Besides, this is already far longer a post than I expected.

Not liking gameplay differences between PCs and NPCs: This largely comes down to personal preference -- a preference you're completely entitled to have. A PC wizard, in the context of the world itself, should not be treated significantly differently than an NPC wizard in the same context. However, when it comes to game mechanics, the PC must have certain rules specifically to address the problem that they're characters the DM didn't create and doesn't control. The intent behind these rules is to ensure that the PC's impact on the campaign can be eyeballed ahead of time, and that the PC makes a meaningful contribution to the party without eclipsing everyone else. Not following these rules leads to problems roughly the same as our childhood superhero games ("I shoot a laser that goes through you and blows up the building!" "I'm wearing my laser reflector belt!" "Are not!" "Are so!")

There's no reason the NPC has to follow those rules as well, unless the DM decides that he or she is not comfortable having it any other way. As the DM, you can be trusted to craft NPCs and monsters under much rougher guidelines: A CR 7 monster should have an attack between +X and +Y, etc. Players aren't entrusted with that; they have a personal interest in the survival of their characters, and would generally take the highest available option in everything. Their rules are much more specific and limiting, not only because their not the DM, but because of the influence they have on the campaign. One imbalanced monster leads to a weak or overpowering encounter. One bad PC hurts the fun of every encounter.

Classes are consistent because they're used by the PCs. That consistency doesn't prevent them from being used for NPCs. However, there's not really any good mechanical reason I see for me to force every frenzied monster or NPC I create to take a level of Barbarian. I will, especially if the other abilities gained by the Barbarian class (hit dice, Fort save, uncanny dodge) are things I want for this character, but I won't if I just want to get rage (i.e. for a Jekyll/Hyde character).

You seem like someone who considers a consistent world to be a high priority, and it seems like you value everyone in-world possessing the exact same character sheet, filled out with their respective values, to back up their existence in the world. If there's a singing cat in boots with a fancy hat whose tail sparks with lightning and who can fence with the best of them, then there better be a class, template, or magic item to explain those things.

Me, I consider the rules to be a simple way for myself and my players to explore and interact with the world while having things happen that are varied on a micro level but consistent on a macro level. If that cat exists, it's because I thought it'd be interesting for my players. In the world context, he exists because he's a wizard's familiar, who was the product of a freak accident (which I don't really need rules for, since it'll probably never happen again). I don't need his stats unless I expect the PCs to fight him, and then, I only need the basics (what number to add to what die). I don't really need the Awakened template, levels in Swashbuckler, and to spend all his skill points until I finally end up dumping the remainder in Craft(chainsaw ice sculptures) like I always do.

An immersive, lifelike world and a cohesive, intuitive ruleset are two very good goals to have; however, rules that create one do not automatically create the other. It seems you are more unnerved by inconsistency; I'm more unnerved by the rules getting in the way of an interesting story. I'm quite content to let it remain a difference of opinion. :)

Fourth Edition appears to be creating monster stat blocks consisting of nothing but the entries required for combat. This is a good thing, combined with the "each monster has at least one full page" comment from W&M: it means there's more room for the things they do out of combat, just in non-rules form.

Besides, making judgment calls for things not in the combat block should be easier in 4e. Say the PCs are escorting an NPC, and have to jump a crevasse. The NPC doesn't have skills listed. In 4e, this is easy to do on the fly: the bonus is 1/2 their level, +5 if Jump is a skill this NPC would consider "trained," +5 if they're some sort of jumping fool and would have taken Skill Focus(Jump).

Myself, I'd just have him make the jump if it's feasible, moves the story along, and doesn't kill the player's suspension of disbelief (i.e. a 50-foot chasm). Most NPCs I'd run would never use enough skills I'd consider Trained for it to matter whether I chose the proper number of Trained skills. If it's likely to happen, well, then I'll make that NPC with the same rules as the players. In the meantime, I appreciate a Monster Manual with more monsters, more flavor text and tactics, and less stats I won't use for most of my opponents.

PCs are "super"-powered: This seems like it should be treated as an entirely separate concern. It's possible for PCs and NPCs to use the same rules but be on dramatically different power levels (i.e. PCs choose wizard classes and good spells, NPCs choose adept levels and poor spells). More importantly, it's entirely possible for PCs and NPCs to use different rules of character creation, while still ending up, as you put it, in the same ballpark.

PC level 1 indicates a level of competency required to be a hero. It's assumed that you start a level 1 game at a point where the PCs are already exceptional people: not the Son of Krypton, but more in the way that action movie heroes are a step above those around them. That's a common expectation among players, and it looks like Wizards is making the same assumption, then designing level 1 so it's as fun to play as any other level.

If you're looking to play a wizard before he learns to reliably cast cantrips, or a fighter before he masters heavy armor, wouldn't you be doing the same amount of work in 3rd?

Morty
2008-01-25, 09:01 AM
Do you look at things before commenting on them? The 4e concept art wizards, with the exception of the Tiefling, all still look very, very classic wizardly. 3 of them are even carrying huge-as-hell tomes around. The rules, if I were to take a gugess, for all classes, let you figure out the exact source of your character's abilities, and provide some default examples.

Of course, that would be sensical.

They can lug around whole libraries as far as I'm concerned, but it won't help the fact that wizards using the same mechanics for spells as fighters do for their swordfightings removes a lot of enjoyment from playing both a wizard and a fighter -and all classes, really- for me.


Correction: Bad for you.

Yes. That's why I'm complaining about it. I realize that many people like it, but I don't. And if noone complained about anything because other people like it, no discussion would ever be possible. Wouldn't you complain on something you don't like?


Have you actually read their entry in the Races and Classes preview? 'cause.. what you're hearing very clearly seems to be massively different. It's true that books and tomes aren't part of the listed implements.. but most of the concept art still has very scholarly wizards, to say the least.

See above. They might look scholarly on artwork, but even if they do retain bookworm wizard flavor, wizards still use the same mechanics as everyone else, which I still find bad. One bright point however, is that it's said that casters will have "rituals" to perform bigger, more powerful magic. So there might still be some hope.


Perhaps, but the standard method of handling that in DnD is to give other classes very little that is truly spectacular at all. They still have the most powerful of the limited abilities, at the moment.

I'm not claiming that caster/noncasters distinction was handled well in 3ed, because it wasn't. However, while 4ed method of doing this is very likely to fix most of the problems from 3ed, namely imbalance and noncasters' lack of options, it's also likely to create new ones.


And perhaps you shouldn't give into the cantankerous curmudgeonery popular on the board by speaking on your assumption as fact?

Assumption that I think is very likely to be true. But alright, I'll grant you that assuming there'll be less "powers" in 4ed than there are spells in 3ed was hasty.


Your words actually make it sound more like the former, frankly.

Maybe. That's probably because I'm bitter, as I had high hopes for 4ed that WoTC smashes with most of what they're publishing so far and overall direction they're heading towards. Well, I guess I'm not among their target audience.


No, that's still general, actually. More specifically, the "End a fight in two rounds". How would Spell/ability scaling (What you see from 1-20) go for you, hn?

For fighter, rogue, ranger or spontaneous arcanist, it's great. For wizard, I prefer using set-in-stone spells. You know, to have some diversity among the classes. Of course, there'd have to be some casting class using more freeform casting, to maintain said diversity.

Matthew
2008-01-25, 09:28 AM
*snip*

Good post. I agree.

Charity
2008-01-25, 09:59 AM
It is more or less what I have already said... but lets not go down that road again. Obviously I agree with Ruki, and applaude his tenacity, tact and taste :smallbiggrin:

I sense a warming to 4th ed emminating from you Matthew, come over to the dark side.

Matthew
2008-01-25, 11:32 AM
It is more or less what I have already said... but lets not go down that road again. Obviously I agree with Ruki, and applaude his tenacity, tact and taste :smallbiggrin:

Bah, you said it five pages and two or three days ago. It's redundant now. :smallwink:


I sense a warming to 4th ed emminating from you Matthew, come over to the dark side.

Nah, I bought a crapload of Castles & Crusades stuff during Troll Lord Games' Twelve Days of Christmas Sale; it's going to be a long while before I have the time or inclination to try 4e (I didn't try D20 until three or four years after it was released, though I browsed the 3.0 PHB and Free Adventures early on). As I have said before, 4e looks like a mixed bag.

EvilElitest
2008-01-25, 07:04 PM
Then you say "PC classes are special and NPCs are inferior to them in video games I play, and if you don't give monsters classes PCs won't think the monsters are part of the same universe. They'll just be "ogre with healing spells." That's different from "ogre cleric.""

Are we needing to go over this again?

In 3.5
1. PC classes (not PCs themselves in nature) follow the same rules for everybody (NPCs, Monsters, PCs, ect)
2. PC classes were greater than NPC classes, which were pretty much lesser versions of PC classes
3. The PCs are the protagonists of the game, but still follow the same rules as everybody else (AKA, they aren't "special" in a major way from the get go

In 4E we know
1. PCs are better than NPC and monsters, fundamentally from the get go, given special feats, powers, and abilities just for being PCs
2. Monsters can have classes (details unknown)
3. However monster classes don't follow the same rules as PC classes
4. Gnomes are gone:smallfrown:



Now, if you said "I think it does make a difference whether you give monsters extra abilities instead of giving them class levels," and then said all the other stuff just the same, you'd be nodding to Bob in a way that shows him you're paying attention. If you don't do that, Bob gets ticked off and decides to ignore you because he feels like you aren't paying attention to him, because you said something exactly the same way you would have if he didn't exist.
Conceded


I think the problem here is that other people don't see the structure of your arguments. To them, it looks like you're just throwing ideas down with no regard for the ideas that came before them, and that annoys people who invest a lot of energy into their ideas. When you write about the same topic they were writing about, they don't want to be ignored in your writings, and they don't want it to look like their ideas are being ignored. They like to see signs that your current thoughts either follow logically from their thoughts, or were put together logically as opposition to those thoughts, rather than being totally independent.

Conceded, but it is worth pointing out some of these points make absolutely no sense (drow being African Americans? Nobody plays Gnomes) So it isn't totally one way


guess the problem is I started with the things I don't like in the new edition, and that brought counter-arguments and further counters, and then EE came in and it's EE vs everybody else for a while...
back stabber, i was on you side, and on this thread from early on.



I think he is stalking me

Wouldn't that require me to care about people other than myself?:smallconfused:


Re: 4E: My View (Not that I expect anyone to care)
I think I need to go back and re-explain one of my comments mentioned earlier.

There's a reason I brought up Sigil when discussioning believability. In the City of Doors, everyone is forced to tolerate each other as full scale war will be quashed by the Lady of Pain. However Bigotry, Guildism and alignment-ish is still prevelant, they simply can't act on it openly.

But out there in the Prime Material, in each individual little world you have religious differences, you have bigotry, you have racism, you have genderism.

My players, and my own view is that I don't expect that a world will feature a mass outbreak of pacifism and hippyness. People don't all get along except for that nasty evil monster which you must save them from. People are people, Dwarves are Dwarves, Halflings are Halfings. People have their own wants, needs, motivations and likes and dislikes.

This is about believability and creating a world that sounds, looks and feels like it WORKS.

Magic? Angel's? Demon's? Gods and Necromancers? If done well, if it follows it's own internal logic then I can believe it. But if it's not true to some sort of guidelines then it breaks the immersion.

Given all that you present me with a world which is full of races with widely different goals but some-how they all get along? None of them compete over lands or resources? Do they share a single religion so they don't have religious differences? Do all the races view each other as just them in another skin rather than totally different from each other(See Elf's and Dwarves)

These differences cause conflict, these conflicts cause hate, this hate breeds bigotry, bigotry breeds intolerance, and that intolerance breeds more conflict.

In short, what 4e is purposing to do is take conflict and war. Keep all the reasons why wars happen, but remove the after effects... Are we supposed to believe that after a two year war between Human's and Dwarves over mining rights that everyone just shook hands and called it even?

Look at our own real world of inspiration, people kill each other on a regular basis for one hundred to two thousand plus year old reasons. And that is why I have a problem with the happy-go-lucky can't we all just get along tone of the major races in 4e, it just does not make sense, it makes less sense than flying dragons, than magical books, than undead shadows. It's that big an issue for me

Listen to Black adder, not only does he have a good show, he knows what he is talking about. Unless your a Baldrick, you don't want to be a baldrick do you?


someone with a reasonable complaint about 4e. Someone fetch the salts I might faint!
Oh counterspin, you and your absurd double standard never cease to amuse me


Is that supposed to be sarcasm, or..
the attempt my good M0rt, this is the Uwe Boll of sarcasm



Heck, I could point at /3e/ and prove my point. Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are, primarily, all Vancian casters, and yet, those classes end up /playing/ completely differently
And the best part is, non of theme are overpowered


Right? Sorry

Also, scholar-type bookworm wizard isn't "cool", so I doubt this type of wizard will be supported by 4ed in any way. But that's another story.
Nether are gnomes apparently


I find it HIGHLY unlikely that your DM is so draconian as to say you can't play a scholarly mage.

But the mechanic might not support that stereotype, it is like the batman warmage, it doesn't really work out. When the class options tend to be "Blast, blast, blast" you have a bit of a problem
This might not be the case, but is something to be worried about


Noone. But fluff aside, when everyone's abilites work the same way mechanics-wise, I find it boring. As above, it won't make the classes utterly suck, but it's bad.
Wait M0rt, i recall one of the things i enjoyed about 4E's races and classes was they they wanted to have more distinct types of magic. I'll still miss Vantician for the already existing classes (Druid, Cleric, Wizard) but i think everything else is having a different casting method. not sure however. But fighters with spells, that is just annoying

from
EE
yes i am aware of the irony of this post

EvilElitest
2008-01-25, 07:39 PM
First off, thanks, I'm flattered. I'm also glad my points are being addressed civilly. Hopefully the way I approach the discussion is helping. :)

thats goods, seems like it

It seems like line-by-line quoting is cluttering up the place, so I've bolded things above, and I'll try to present one coherent presentation. Besides, this is already far longer a post than I expected.

As long as you have a bolded version in front of each of your replies, i'm good



Not liking gameplay differences between PCs and NPCs: This largely comes down to personal preference -- a preference you're completely entitled to have. A PC wizard, in the context of the world itself, should not be treated significantly differently than an NPC wizard in the same context. However, when it comes to game mechanics, the PC must have certain rules specifically to address the problem that they're characters the DM didn't create and doesn't control. The intent behind these rules is to ensure that the PC's impact on the campaign can be eyeballed ahead of time, and that the PC makes a meaningful contribution to the party without eclipsing everyone else.

the PCs don't need any rules to address the problem, they have the same abilities as the NPCs, it makes sense for the world's consistency. A PC would normally have higher stats then an NPC, so slight advantage, but the PCs already have one advantage far greater than any NPC

Free Will

The NPCs are generally controlled by the DM's motives and their personality. A PC has the ability to think and to make themselves powerful through that (remember, NPCs don't know about xp, read Rich's article on the matter). PCs have the ability to think, and how well they do in the world should depend on how smart the Players are. Players who act like DM of the ring's players do will die in a realistic world with a good DM


Not following these rules leads to problems roughly the same as our childhood superhero games ("I shoot a laser that goes through you and blows up the building!" "I'm wearing my laser reflector belt!" "Are not!" "Are so!")
Reminds me of Vs. threads strangly enough



T
here's no reason the NPC has to follow those rules as well, unless the DM decides that he or she is not comfortable having it any other way. As the DM, you can be trusted to craft NPCs and monsters under much rougher guidelines: A CR 7 monster should have an attack between +X and +Y, etc. Players aren't entrusted with that; they have a personal interest in the survival of their characters, and would generally take the highest available option in everything. Their rules are much more specific and limiting, not only because their not the DM, but because of the influence they have on the campaign. One imbalanced monster leads to a weak or overpowering encounter. One bad PC hurts the fun of every encounter.

While you make a good point, this ruins the fantasy world's fluff. If you look at the fantasy world, their are many fantasy races, and many classes they can take. It doesn't make sense for a group of six dudes and anyone they team up with to have a system of magic, while every other NPC has a different one.


Classes are consistent because they're used by the PCs. That consistency doesn't prevent them from being used for NPCs. However, there's not really any good mechanical reason I see for me to force every frenzied monster or NPC I create to take a level of Barbarian. I will, especially if the other abilities gained by the Barbarian class (hit dice, Fort save, uncanny dodge) are things I want for this character, but I won't if I just want to get rage (i.e. for a Jekyll/Hyde character).

But you can do that you without breaking the consistency. Just make that an innate abilty and explain why they can rage. Mr. Hyde has a reason why he can rage for example

However in a realistic world, you need to consider this. Wizard magic is a force that can be harnessed in a specific way with certain effects involving a spell book, scrolls wand and teh Vantician magic system. Presumable, all wizards follow this standards, though they will vary considering their feats and spells.


You seem like someone who considers a consistent world to be a high priority, and it seems like you value everyone in-world possessing the exact same character sheet, filled out with their respective values, to back up their existence in the world. If there's a singing cat in boots with a fancy hat whose tail sparks with lightning and who can fence with the best of them, then there better be a class, template, or magic item to explain those things.
Pretty much, if i saw the need to have a singing cat in boots, i'd create a custom race "Puss in Boots" and come up with a reason for why he can have these powers and boots. Variety is ok, but it needs to make sense, not just "You guys have special powers because your the PCs"


Me, I consider the rules to be a simple way for myself and my players to explore and interact with the world while having things happen that are varied on a micro level but consistent on a macro level. If that cat exists, it's because I thought it'd be interesting for my players. In the world context, he exists because he's a wizard's familiar, who was the product of a freak accident (which I don't really need rules for, since it'll probably never happen again). I don't need his stats unless I expect the PCs to fight him, and then, I only need the basics (what number to add to what die). I don't really need the Awakened template, levels in Swashbuckler, and to spend all his skill points until I finally end up dumping the remainder in Craft(chainsaw ice sculptures) like I always do.

But you see, that works, you've establish
A) why he is special
B) how he differs from the rules
C) his basic stats
once you have a reason, it is ok. But PCs being super doesn't have a reason, except "well, their the main characters" Even exalted has a reason for why the PCs are uber

An immersive, lifelike world and a cohesive, intuitive ruleset are two very good goals to have; however, rules that create one do not automatically create the other. It seems you are more unnerved by inconsistency; I'm more unnerved by the rules getting in the way of an interesting story. I'm quite content to let it remain a difference of opinion. :)

I'm unnerved with inconsistency that doesn't make sense and a meta gamey esc mentality of "Well the PCs deserve better stuff"
It ruins the world's fluff and throws the rules for how the rules work out the window
I love Roleplay, but i view a realistic world must have rules
Arcane magics works this way
Divine work this way
Bardic magic works this way
Demons are CE
Devils are LE
Paladins are LG
Good follows these rules
Evil Follows these rules
Exception to the rules are allowed, but only if they make sense


Fourth Edition appears to be creating monster stat blocks consisting of nothing but the entries required for combat. This is a good thing, combined with the "each monster has at least one full page" comment from W&M: it means there's more room for the things they do out of combat, just in non-rules form.

that isn't my problem, more fluff normally is a good thing, but i don't like the way the fluff is done

B
esides, making judgment calls for things not in the combat block should be easier in 4e. Say the PCs are escorting an NPC, and have to jump a crevasse. The NPC doesn't have skills listed. In 4e, this is easy to do on the fly: the bonus is 1/2 their level, +5 if Jump is a skill this NPC would consider "trained," +5 if they're some sort of jumping fool and would have taken Skill Focus(Jump).


Myself, I'd just have him make the jump if it's feasible, moves the story along, and doesn't kill the player's suspension of disbelief (i.e. a 50-foot chasm). Most NPCs I'd run would never use enough skills I'd consider Trained for it to matter whether I chose the proper number of Trained skills. If it's likely to happen, well, then I'll make that NPC with the same rules as the players. In the meantime, I appreciate a Monster Manual with more monsters, more flavor text and tactics, and less stats I won't use for most of my opponents.

I have no complaint here


PCs are "super"-powered: This seems like it should be treated as an entirely separate concern. It's possible for PCs and NPCs to use the same rules but be on dramatically different power levels (i.e. PCs choose wizard classes and good spells, NPCs choose adept levels and poor spells). More importantly, it's entirely possible for PCs and NPCs to use different rules of character creation, while still ending up, as you put it, in the same ballpark.

Not quite. An NPC wizard who isn't properly trained is an adept, an NPC wizard with wizardry experience would be an NPC wizard


PC level 1 indicates a level of competency required to be a hero. It's assumed that you start a level 1 game at a point where the PCs are already exceptional people: not the Son of Krypton, but more in the way that action movie heroes are a step above those around them. That's a common expectation among players, and it looks like Wizards is making the same assumption, then designing level 1 so it's as fun to play as any other level.

Competency in the "I know how my class work" not the "hero" way. A level 1 fighter only has a few feats, and an level 1 wizard only has a few spells. They are still very very very wet behind the ears, but you know how their ability works
Compare a trained solider to a local militia guard. Both are level 1. The former was professionally trained in a school. He has very little combat experience and isn't particularly good, but he knows how to fight, knows how his style work and knows how the kill stuff. The latter simple picked up a spear and taught himself. He trained for the same amount of time, but has no formal training as well as no experience. He is better than a commoner, but is simple inferior to the former

Or a wizard who studied professionally to a a guy who dabbled in magic. The former becomes a level 1 wizard, the latter a level 1 adept.

this works for both PCs and NPCs


from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-01-25, 07:54 PM
yes their is a reason for the triple posts, don't bane me. The last two were responses to other comments and are both massive in length and i don't expect many people to read them. This one is just something for people who want something else to talk about without having to wade through the giant posts. Basically, triple post for length

other things i also don't like about 4E (that seems to be what we are focusing upon)

1. Loss of vatician magic for wizards (I personally would have made the ritual caster a new class
2. Loss of the magic schools
3. Evil paladins
4. No more gnomes
5. Tieflings
6. most of the fluff's delivery
7. No more subraces*
8. The focus upon my generation, who are not to be trusted ever
9. The rule of cool approach,works in Exalted but that is because it is designed for that, not in D&D
10. Random unneeded changes (why were succubus made devils? It doesn't make sense. Or no more seeing in the dark. Or Elve's life spane
11. FR, but that is another thread
12. Blackadder's points
13. The approach, making most of the fluff absolutist instead of vauge, absolute fluff should be reserved for specific settings

*Even ignoring the whole "Do you like subraces thing" it was recon move to simply make all of the subraces suddenly become three distinct types. At least be honest and say it was genocide
from
EE

Wordmiser
2008-01-25, 08:59 PM
EE--Out of curiosity, does your DM describe NPC with metagame terms like "The level 5 Goblin Fighter"? Many of your comments (and the entire base of your argument, for that matter) seem to imply that the players know they're fighting a "level 9 goblin" (or whatever else).

Most groups don't do this. For all the players know, that Goblin shooting lightning at them could be a Wizard, Adept or just a Goblin with a 3/day Lightning Bolt ability. It doesn't "ruin a setting's fluff" because the players aren't staring at the DM's notes. They don't know the mechanics behind various NPCs. They will never know whether the DM has statted out the Kobold ambassador at all--he could be the sample Kobold 1 warrior in the MM, a high-level Aristocrat or he could just be a compilation of numbers that the DM throws together on the spot, for all the players know.

And out of curiosity, were you introduced to D&D in 3.x?


4. No more gnomesOnly if you don't have the Monster Manual or the SRD.

5. Tieflings +1. That race should have gone with the elves.

13. The approach, making most of the fluff absolutist instead of vauge, absolute fluff should be reserved for specific settingsAgreed. I'd prefer the rulebooks to just be... y'know... rules.

Beleriphon
2008-01-25, 09:51 PM
EE--Out of curiosity, does your DM describe NPC with metagame terms like "The level 5 Goblin Fighter"? Many of your comments (and the entire base of your argument, for that matter) seem to imply that the players know they're fighting a "level 9 goblin" (or whatever else).

This is a good point. In M&M (Mutants and Masterminds for the unitiated) the rules more or less state that until you need them a full stat block for a given villain is unnecessary, you generally need to know their defensive abilities, their offensive abilities and how much damage they can deal with offense. You could run an M&M villain with 12 numbers and some personality notes. I see 4E sort of taking the same route in that if you want you can throw some number together and get a workable monster without having to futz with classes, or specific monster advancement in the form of per HD abilities. I see this as being a real benefit to the GM since they don't need to take as long to apply the rule to a monster.


Most groups don't do this. For all the players know, that Goblin shooting lightning at them could be a Wizard, Adept or just a Goblin with a 3/day Lightning Bolt ability. It doesn't "ruin a setting's fluff" because the players aren't staring at the DM's notes. They don't know the mechanics behind various NPCs. They will never know whether the DM has statted out the Kobold ambassador at all--he could be the sample Kobold 1 warrior in the MM, a high-level Aristocrat or he could just be a compilation of numbers that the DM throws together on the spot, for all the players know.

Exactly the point people have been trying to make. It doesn't matter what rules you apply to a monster as long as they are consistent. It doesn't even matter if they work the same way as the rules for the PCs so long as the two interact in a fair manner.

In the long run I really do see rules being different for PCs and mosnter/NPCs as a benefit. I also don't see anything wrong with giving PC classes character/monsters different abilities. I think where EE is getting the hang up is that only the PCs get special stuff, where as if we take Star Wars Saga Edition's route only PC classed characters get all the special stuff, and everybody else is the Nonheroic class (which works better for Star Wars then it would for D&D I think). The idea with making the PCs "better" is to make them last longer, which is what we want right? We want the players to have character that will last beyond a few adventures and don't die to a random die roll in the first encounter.

Rutee
2008-01-25, 10:03 PM
Watching the same arguments get rehashed or made awfully again, past the ears of those listening for the umpteenth time.. camel, straw, etc. Least the pages look smaller now.




They can lug around whole libraries as far as I'm concerned, but it won't help the fact that wizards using the same mechanics for spells as fighters do for their swordfightings removes a lot of enjoyment from playing both a wizard and a fighter -and all classes, really- for me.

You're going to have a hard time with most systems if people working under similar rule systems at all times is this big a humbug to you. Seems like a completely weird reason to kill your own fun.


Yes. That's why I'm complaining about it. I realize that many people like it, but I don't. And if noone complained about anything because other people like it, no discussion would ever be possible. Wouldn't you complain on something you don't like?
I would not phrase a subjective complaint in anything that comes close to an objective argument, no.



I'm not claiming that caster/noncasters distinction was handled well in 3ed, because it wasn't. However, while 4ed method of doing this is very likely to fix most of the problems from 3ed, namely imbalance and noncasters' lack of options, it's also likely to create new ones.

Having seen a /lot/ of very different systems that handle casters and non-casters the same way, and more importantly, *There not being problems there*, I find it very unlikely that 4e's will actually create real problems. At worst, a bad taste, but not an actual system problem. Lord and Tailor, it's like you don't want to hear "Yeah, it's been done a lot, and wonderfully, I might add"...


Assumption that I think is very likely to be true. But alright, I'll grant you that assuming there'll be less "powers" in 4ed than there are spells in 3ed was hasty.
IT's not just hasty; It's genuinely ill-thought out. Seriously, do you think they're going to shoot themselves ni the foot economically /on purpose/? If they don't include a way to add more options to powers, one of the easiest ways to sell books just went fluttering out the window like a lonely sparrow. Do you really think WotC is going to say "Boy Howdy, we sure do have enough money. Let's stop milking mechanics for cash!"

EvilElitest
2008-01-25, 10:07 PM
EE--Out of curiosity, does your DM describe NPC with metagame terms like "The level 5 Goblin Fighter"? Many of your comments (and the entire base of your argument, for that matter) seem to imply that the players know they're fighting a "level 9 goblin" (or whatever else).

Most groups don't do this. For all the players know, that Goblin shooting lightning at them could be a Wizard, Adept or just a Goblin with a 3/day Lightning Bolt ability. It doesn't "ruin a setting's fluff" because the players aren't staring at the DM's notes. They don't know the mechanics behind various NPCs. They will never know whether the DM has statted out the Kobold ambassador at all--he could be the sample Kobold 1 warrior in the MM, a high-level Aristocrat or he could just be a compilation of numbers that the DM throws together on the spot, for all the players know.

1. i am the DM
2. When my players (in character) see a spell throwing goblin,they try to adjust their tactics for it. For example, they knew that the drow band they fought has some sort of caster with them. In character, they tried to figure out what he could do to them based on the spells he used.
3. It doesn't matter if the DM's notes are on public display, the world's consistency needs to make sense. Now that we know Goblins have classes, we can move onto another issue, PC supremacy. It doesn't make sense
4. And you can easily make the goblin an adept/wizard/cleric without any problem IF it isn't broken, don't fix it



And out of curiosity, were you introduced to D&D in 3.x?

yes, but i've played 2nd and 1rst


Only if you don't have the Monster Manual or the SRD.
Why drop them as a race? I think i know


+1. That race should have gone with the elves.
Wait, why the elves?
To be fair, the tieflings are really annoying, i liked their old flavor, this new flavor is awful


Agreed. I'd prefer the rulebooks to just be... y'know... rules.
True i'd really like some rules


My biggest complaint however is with the fluff is apart from lack of rules, it seems very much it is THIS way now. In 3.5, the fluff was more mild, very easy to adept in what ever way you wanted and the races were deliberately kept general. Now its very much "We don't like this/don't think it is cool/think this should be different and just destroy many old useful concepts to replace them with their own. Bah Humbug


Watching the same arguments get rehashed or made awfully again, past the ears of those listening for the umpteenth time.. camel, straw, etc. Least the pages look smaller now.
you are aware of the term irony no?



from
EE

Serenity
2008-01-25, 10:16 PM
What's this about PCs being superpowered from level 1 now, and being automatically 'better' than NPCs and monsters? Here's my understanding of it: 1st level 4e PCs will be 'more powerful' than 1st level 3.x PCs in terms of increased survivability, so that the players aren't faced with the problem in 3.x PCs had at low levels where a single lucky shot from a goblin could drop a character. You say that PCs will be 'better' than monsters. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I seriously doubt WotC has made every monster into a weakling who runs screaming at the mere sight of the mighty PCs. As for NPCs...you yourself admit that PC classes are and should be more powerful than NPC classes, so you would seem to be claiming that the rules state that only the PCs can have PC classes. Where's your evidence for that?