(no subject)

[alexandraerin]

I didn't get Tales of MU updated for Saturday until just a few minutes ago. My friends just got copies of D&D 4th edition and abducted me at d20-point for an all-day-and-night gaming session. My first impressions of the new version:

1) They're trying really hard to capture the MMORPG market.
2) Combat plays fast and snappy (assuming you've got your character's moves down) but with infinite variety, rules are less than robust in other areas.
3) As with any roleplaying game, how fun it is depends on the players and a flexible DM.

This is probably the biggest example of a "pure product" release. There was nothing wrong with 3rd edition that 4th edition fixes, except that it was losing ground against World of Warcraft and not selling as many new copies as when it first came out.* The core rulebooks, apart from resembling MMORPG play in its mechanics, notably don't involve very many non-combat abilities or abilities that would require roleplaying/human judgment to "mechanic" (no animal companions/mounts/cohorts/thingies, no paladins falling, etc.), which makes me wonder what they've got in the pipeline after D&D Insider (which looks awesome) is up and running... both in terms of electronic adaptations, and supplement books that will no doubt add back in some of the more popular deleted features... and make more money for WotC.

*(Note that I'm not criticizing them for doing this. We've all got to eat.)

Comments

[renegadehero13.livejournal.com]

As suggested, might as well continue it here. Miracle I managed to remember my LJ password though, haven't used this thing in a long time.

Re-reading my comments, it seemed like a lot of my gripes were DM-related so it's subjectively bad when it probably shouldn't be. But as objectively as I can make it, it's pretty much what we've already agreed upon: pure product release, turning it more like a MMO so they can compete with an MMO, crossed with a miniatures game so they can sell a new line of miniatures (or sell a stock of older ones.)

The alignment system is one of the things I didn't really like them changing, it seems oversimplified and restrictive. Yes, you can expand on some of the descriptions they give you, but I saw it as if they intended to get rid of Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good and a bunch of neutrals.

I remember a first review of the game a while back saying that races would get more distinction, especially with stat points. (something having to do with distinguishing a dwarf's constitution as opposed to a human, and making it very clear by emphasizing on it as they level up.) I assumed it would mean stat bonuses upon leveling up would be influenced by race, but no, it doesn't seem like anything changed.

The loss of Bard, Druid and Monk is making a few people sad. Yes, they're probably going to include them in a second PHB. I don't know why they didn't include them in this one... wait, yes I do. It's so they can sell a second book next year. Though with the mechanics changing like they did, it's a bit harder to convert Bard and Druid to 4th edition, I think. Monk not so much, but I remember reading that monks weren't played too often in 3rd ed anyway. Maybe a simple phase out. We'll have to see.

Paragon paths aren't too bad... but epic paths? I don't like at all. Too restrictive. I don't remember each of them, but it seems to tell you "All kids grow up wishing they could be an epic archmage or fighter or wanderer." When I was making my character, I looked at the Epic paths and thought "I don't see this guy wanting to become any of these." Just seems like an idea that was good in theory, but bad in practice and left in anyway.

Powers are nifty, but my first impression was "These are Talents. From WoW." And after playing a bit, that impression is the same. There are too many though, like we said, a cheat-sheet is needed at higher levels.

Skills... good and bad. You can still pretty much do the same things as before; Thievery encompasses almost every rogue skill of importance, Perception is Listen/Search/Spot in one. The system gives a bit too much of a Jack of All Trades perspective to everyone. Use of almost every aspect of every skill untrained, with a +5 bonus if trained. But I liked my character who was unathletic or unacrobatic but for some reason could jump really high. Or my rogue who had no idea how to use traps, but had an uncanny knack for messing them up. It just seems to remove a lot of specialization, which in turn dulls the RP a bit.

My personal biggest gripe are the feats. Might be personal dislike because after hitting level 2 on my dual-wielding ranger I had no idea which feat I'd want for this level, much less every other level until paragon. But they just seem mostly uninspired.. for lack of a better word.

Mechanics aside.. I really didn't like the book itself. It just seems really bloated and possibly rushed (IIRC they got the release to coincide with DnD-Day.) 25 pages per class seems like a LOT especially considering how much (or how little) content there is in those pages. They probably could have fit more than 8 powers per page.

For all the criticism of the game I'm thinking of... it's not bad. Different is really the only word that comes to mind. I just find 3.5 less restrictive in the non-combat aspects, and I'll probably stick with it for now, or at least give more preference to 3.5 over 4e if I got the choice.

In the long run, the game has always been what you make of it. I just get the feeling that 4e is trying to impose a few guidelines on how you make it what you want.

Phew. That was longer than I thought it'd come out as.

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

I actually think I understand the alignment change.

It's really hard to find the fine points between Chaotic Good and Neutral Good. I mean, you can cite the official description all you want, but unless the Chaotic one is going "RAH RAH RAH CHAOS!" all the time or is a devoted anarchist, you could have a CG traveling with a NG forever and never have them reach a crossroads where their alignments become a problem.

[mindwright.livejournal.com]

Well, they definitely stole some ideas from the MMO's and from their own miniatures game. But they seem to be cherry picking, not just following fads. Yes, D&D is supposed to help sales of the D&D Miniatures game... in fact more minis are sold for D&D than for the miniatures game so that really makes a lot of sense.

The racial specialization is really through racial feats which enhance or add racially themed powers. We'll have the rest of the classes we're used to next year, but the power system kind of causes classes to use a lot of pages in the book.

I find it a little weird that you object to epic destinies because they are too rigid when one of the four epic destinies, Eternal Seeker, has versatility as its primary benefit. It is true that Archmage and Deadly Trickster are fairly specialized, but Demigod should work well for any character, and Eternal Seeker actually allows you to choose powers from any class list.

Power cards work really well in lieu of a cheat sheet, since you can turn them over to indicate when they've been used.

I personally like the skill changes, but I miss profession and craft skills. My current game allows you to pick a talent, profession or craft, and gives you a +5 if you are making an ability check related to the chosen specialty. When you write a module or adventure in 3.5, if you include a skill check it is very easy, especially at high levels, to set a DC that is impossible to make unless someone in the party specialized in that skill. The change to skills fixes that problem, a party with no one trained simply has a harder time with that obstacle.

Heroic tier feats are much weaker in 4th edition. Power choices are what really distinguish characters and feats are a little added bonus. Then again, you get more of them and when you look at the higher tiers and remember the retraining option they start to look more attractive.

There are a number of heroic tier feats that everyone can use. For example most characters should either take Quick Draw or Improved Initiative; you don't want both since the initiative bonus doesn't stack, but both are excellent feats. Skill Training and Skill Focus are solid choices. Durable, Toughness, Alertness, and Defensive Mobility will work for anyone. And of course you can upgrade your armor options or choose to dabble in multiclassing.

For your dual wielding Ranger you should definitely take Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Defense, and Weapon Focus. Oh, and Lethal Hunter, Agile Hunter and Precise Hunter are all good if you qualify. So I think you should have enough options to keep you in feats for a few more levels.

D&D 4e

[abbottj83.livejournal.com]

Hey, first thing wanted to say that the link you posted in the ToMU comments has an extra letter in it "liverjournal"; so its not actually sending people here. :-) Though I gotta say, liverjournal is a hilarious typo.

I too just got my D&D 4e books and while I haven't been able to play yet (not enough of the old RP group still around these days) I have been reading through all the books quite a bit. I like your comment on not looking at it as an improvement or fix for 3.5; but as a whole new game. I think that attitude will help me get through my big disappointment and distaste at what I've seen so far.

My big beef, that makes me cry at night is the extreme gimping of my beloved skills. Skills were the best part of a character in my opinion. They were how you interacted with the game world on so many levels. Plus they were a huge tool for customization and characterization. If I'm playing someone without the Listen skill as a class skill; I didn't bemoan my inability to keep up with those who had high Listens; I saw an opportunity to play a character who maybe daydreams too much and just doesn't notice whats going on around him. That leads to fun things. :-P But now it just seems that everyone will have a skill set thats like 80% the same. Thats just boring to me. And the lack of the skill points system doesn't let you just bump skills to crazy high levels just for the fun of it. I want to be able to get myself up to a +40 Balance just cause. Hehe.

Another thing that I don't really like, the caster classes seem to have taken a bit of a gimping. At least the wizard. Of course I haven't played it like I said; so I could be wrong. But one Fireball a day? Sadness.

There are things I like. I do like the skill condensing on some levels. I do like that half-elves are finally a decent choice as a race. I think the powers system has a lot of cool points. But I don't know.

But hey, not like I have to play it. Hope I'm not coming across too whiny. :-) And hey, if those who have experienced it have some knowledge or insight that might alleviate my fears or just help me understand the changes better; feel free to pipe up. I'm an optimist and I'd love to see the system work better than I think it will; cause it has lots of shiny good things that I do want to play with.

4e

[mindwright.livejournal.com]

I ran 4e at the Worldwide D&D Gameday on June 7th, and at Origins, and a friend started a campaign last week, and yesterday was the monthly game day for the local role playing club. So at this point I have about 80 hours of gaming time logged using the 4e rules.

I'm supposed to judge the D&D Championship at Gen Con, so I'm seriously trying to learn the new rules as best I can.

Yes, they are trying to draw back some of the players they've lost to the MMORPG market, but more than that, they are trying to make the game accessible to a younger generation. I've taken to asking people what they think of 4e, and so far the funniest response has been "Dragonball Z called, they want their maneuvers back." They've really tried to pack a lot of action into the new rules.

Combat is fast and fun when everyone knows what they are doing. The rules are different, though the basic mechanic of the game hasn't changed, and getting used to some of the changes takes a little time.

The most important thing to remember is that the game rules focus on things that you need rules to resolve: combat is primary with some additional rules to deal with traps and skills. Combats take about as long in 4e as they did in 3e, you just do about three or four times as many rounds in the same amount of time. But for things that don't require rules, all you need are players and a DM willing to imagine and portray a world filled with fantastic characters having amazing adventures.

Combats are much less likely to bog down in 4e, and characters get about the same amount of face time. You won't see the druid with animal companion and summoned creatures who takes more time on his turn than the entire rest of the party, or the targeted dispel magic on the bad guy that forces the DM to stop and recompute the villain's entire stat block. You no longer have Wizards who are weak at 1st level but dominate in high level play.

I don't agree that it is a "pure product" release. There are some very specific goals they set for the new mechanics, equal face time, class parity, a really playable game from the first level to the last. And I feel they hit the target on most of these, though I can't speak to that last item just yet since I'm focused on Heroic level play for now.

Of course they have come up with a publication plan that is pure marketing. Releasing a new PHB, DMG and Monster Manual every year, well, that's all about the ca$h. The change to the GSL rather than the OGL is also about making more money by focusing 3rd parties on creating products that support D&D rather than making the rules a foundation for independent products.

I am beginning to see that the game has the potential to be a lot more flexible than most people realize. There is nothing that says you have to follow the rules all the time. Once you get a feel for the balance of the game, improvising, changing and adding things seems to be pretty easy.

All in all, I like it, even though there are still problems... like the skill challenges being broken as written. But hey, like I said, the rules are easy to change.

Re: 4e

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

I suppose it's a different strokes-for-different-folks situation... most people in my circle lament the loss of druids and such things as animal companions. They might have bogged combat down a bit but they also made it more interesting. I don't really see how something like an animal companion or a paladin mount would slow combat down any more than having an additional player character, if it was integrated with the new combat system. For instance, because the module was balanced for a larger group than we were using, we ended up doubling up on characters halfway through our system, and that didn't even double the time it took to get through a round.

One thing I forgot to mention that I was very glad to see: the easing away from "Vancian" magic for wizards. "I cast magic missile on the orc. See you guys tomorrow." Yeah. Apart from being a terrible game mechanic, it doesn't really map to any (outside of Vance's writing) concept of what a wizard is and how magic works you're likely to find in fantasy and folklore.

Actually, the wizard's one of my favorite classes in terms of how it was handled. I like that they kept the "flavor" cantrips in place... that was a reassuring sign that while the system is most heavy on combat resolution, they really don't intend for the game to be nothing but that.

Though, in order to keep the Old Skool flavor for magic missile, I'm already declaring a house rule for my future campaigns: magic missile can be split into individual 1d4 attacks, or a d4 can be sacrificed for a bonus to hit.

You seem to have your finger more on the pulse of this great rampaging beast than I do... do you have any idea what the ETA on D&D Insider and the virtual tabletop is? I will be very happy to give them my money for that stuff. The people I was gaming with live two hours away and gas is 'spensive.

Re: 4e

[mindwright.livejournal.com]

I've done a lot of Living Campaign gaming, and you get a very different situation when players don't necessarily know what kind of party they'll have until they sit down to the table. It's pretty easy for some character types to dominate combats in 3.5, the druid menagerie build is just one issue, certain other broken builds also tend to dominate, say the ultra high damage heedless charge type that leaves nothing for the rest of the party, or any level 15+ Wizard, or a well built cleric in any situation where the PCs can buff before combat.

Vancian magic is definitely gone, the only lingering vestige of it is the Wizard ability to choose between different daily and utility spells each day. I think they did a good job with the flavor on the Wizard. Rituals also help keep a huge amount of the old D&D flavor for the non-combat type spells.

You might try making magic missile 1d4+Int with a secondary attack for 1d4 damage, and then adding an additional attack for another 1d4 at 11th and 21st. It might get a little weird with it being a basic attack though. You'd have to clarify that things like bracers of the perfect shot only apply to the primary attack.

You won't have to give them money for D&D Insider anytime soon, they are trying to make all of those tools available ASAP, but they are going to be in beta until some time next year, and there will be no charge until they are fully functional.

Re: 4e

[(Anonymous)]

If your friends are just looking for something different, they should check out 3.5/Pathfinder RPG from Paizo Publishing (www.paizo.com/pathfinderRPG).

Paizo published Dragon and Dungeon magazine until Wizards canceled the print editions. They now produce the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, and are the main support going forward for 3rd edition.

They're doing that by having a year long Alpha & Beta playtest of the Pathfinder RPG, which is designed to be a backwards compatible enhancement to the 3.5 rules - polishing instead of demolishing. The Alpha (and Beta next month) are available as Free PDFs.

If it sounds like something they'd be interested in, tell them to check it out - Paizo is responsible for much of the best RPG material available to date. They had similar concerns about 4th edition's focus, which is one reason they went ahead with the new system (and to keep an "in-print" copy of the rules available).

Take care - love MU!
TCM

4th Edition

[nobodez.livejournal.com]

Well, I've played exactly no 4th edition aside from the three hours of cold DMing I did on the 6th of June. From that one day, I have some limited experience, but some concrete opinions.

1) RP vs. Combat. My main problem with people that say "RP is hard in 4th edition" is that, aside from the non-combat encounter system, there isn't any real RP rules, which is exactly how I like it. Combat needs rules, RP should be just that.

2) MMO inspired rules. Considering MMOs are using D&D inspired rules, I'd say this is just a natural progression of things. And really, the main things is the idea of recharge on spells, attacks as "spells"/powers, and class equality. AE, you've said you like the leaving of Vancian magic behind, the attacks as spells/powers is just a way to achieve class equality.

3) New rulebooks every year. They've always done supplemental rules. This is nothing different, except now they've stated that new classes will only come out in PHBs or Campaign Player Guides, everything else will be supplements for existing classes. Also, Animal Companions/Mounts should be out in either Martila Power or Adventurer's Vault (not sure which one it is, but they talked about it in an article), so that's a short lived complaint at best. Also, I think it's only going to be a new PHB and MM every year, rather than all three books, since the DMG is just that, a guide for DMs.

4) Lack of options. I admit, the eight classes and eight races is a bit limiting, but remember, when 3rd edition came out, we didn't get a 12th class until the Psionics Handbook came out, and we only have seven races until Savage Species came out. Plus, the plan, as posted on their website, is for the edition to last at least the same eight years that the combined 3e/v.3.5 lasted, which means that they'll have sixty-four races and classes (assuming the same 8/8 per PHB spread) by 2016, and that's not counting the monstrous races from the Monster Manuals.

Re: 4th Edition

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

The comparison to MMOs was an observation, not a complaint. I like how fast and snappy combat plays (when you've got your moves down... cheat sheets are a must, and the character sheet isn't great for this purpose on its own).

Although one thing I'm not crazy about: the "class equality" has more or less exacerbated one of my jokes about older editions: "The classes are Fighter, Other Fighter, Other Fighter, and Other Fighter." They all have different "flavors" to their fighting, but everybody's pretty much attacking for massive damage all the dang time.

Presumably this will improve a bit as you level up and start getting utility powers (we stopped our session as we were reaching level two), but it was a bit... jarring... to realize that, in essence, the replacement for Bard is called freaking WARLORD: the "cheerleader" support class who exists to buff the performance of others has gone from a musician and storyteller to somebody with the name "WAR" in their title. Granted, I like the class*, but I think it's a little... emblematic... of the new focus.

I'm going to play around a bit more before I start futzing with things, but I've already come up with tentative homebrew rules for making the classes a little more distinct. It's essentially extending their abilities or adding new ones (the basic gist of it is, each class gets some stunts they can spend healing surges on), so it will have the effect of making PCs slightly more powerful, but that might counter the problem of greater-than-minion NPCs being over HP'd.

Though I fully admit, as far as the HP thing goes, that we were floundering the most in the early encounters when we didn't have the tactics down... but the last battle of the night dragged on forever.

---

*Though that's a bizarre name to call it, as it kind of carries some specific connotations with it that aren't necessarily supported by any kind of framework... I mean, a Paladin isn't just a pious person who fights, it's an invested Paladin, but a character who is "of the Warlord class" is not necessarily going to be, in any appreciable fashion, a "Warlord". The fact that this puts it two letters away from another new core class is just bizarre. Why not call it "leader"? or "Tactician"?

My pet theory is that it started off as a joke: the "Warcrafter." And they ended up liking the class and kept it, but had to change the name for obvious reasons.

Re: 4th Edition

[mindwright.livejournal.com]

You need to be careful about adding mechanics that turn healing surges into an easily accessible resource.

One of the occasional problems with 3rd/3.5 was the 5 minute workday. The tendency of adventurers to use their biggest and best powers in a tough encounter, then rest for a day so they hit the next encounter fresh. This can make encounters a lot easier, but doesn't really fit the heroic ideal.

The healing surge mechanic is designed to move most healing to a short rest period between encounters when you recover your encounter powers. If you introduce powers that use healing surges, especially if you make any of them usable at will rather than per encounter, you will quickly end up back in the original situation.

This came up during Mike Mearls' house rules seminar at Origins, in answer to the question. "What should I be careful about changing, and what changes will break the game?"

Re: 4th Edition

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

Well, my original idea was to introduce a separately tracked set of "Ability Points", but I was leaning towards using healing surges because they're already there and it would cut down on bookkeeping.

I'm going to DM a few sessions "as is" before I introduce any homebrew rules that aren't in-the-moment fiats. I'm just gathering ideas at the moment.

Re: 4th Edition

[(Anonymous)]

I've read about the "5 minute day" in various articles by WOTC staffers, but I have yet to experience it in play, even in 2nd Ed when the Vancian system was far harsher on wizards.

As to the new system, our table is divided. Two of our DMs are major WOWers and dropped 3.5 as soon as they got a look at D4. They are enamored with how much it resembles an MMO. Two of our DMs (of which I am one) are switching to the Patfinder rule set. The fifth DM is undecided and will stay with 3.5, at least until we finish our current campaign. When playing, we'll generally play any of the three with little complaint, even if it's a system we would not care to DM. (gaming table runs from 5 - 10 players, DMs swap turns, each with their own campaign)

In D4, combat rounds ran quicker than 3.5 up to 3rd level. For 4th and 5th, the rounds seem to take just as much time as 3.5. However, the entire length of combat seems to take the same amount of time due to the rediculously high hit points monster have as they scale up.

While it doesn't feel like D&D to me, I only have 2 real gripes about it as a player. The first is that each class has a narrowly defined role in the party; a fighter is a wall, if you want to use 2 weapons, you must be a ranger, etc. The other is that if you want to multi-class, it takes 4 of your 6 heroic tier feats and have to multi-class as yor paragon path.

Re: 4th Edition

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, in all honesty, it seems to me like the risk of a "five minute work day" would be exacerbated by the new system, where every character has some of the weaknesses of a Vancian wizard. I could see an opposite problem coming about, too, where players inadvertently designate their favorite Daily Power "too good to use"... "I can't use it on this encounter, it's too early and I might need it later."... the same problem that a lot of limited use items get in console RPGs. This might ensure that they have it available for "boss fights", but on the other hand, the boss could be too resistant for it to be effective or it might be something that works better on a group of lesser foes.

Or they just might not realize that they're at the Absolute Last Battle of the day. Though I throw roleplaying and plenty of flavor and atmosphere into my battles when I DM, so there's not a lot of risk of that.

Anyways, I truly think that as long as a system isn't completely broken, the fun depends on the group and the DM and I had fun playing 4th edition and have already planned about 50% of the first adventure I'm going to run when the D&D Insider tools become available.

Re: 4th Edition

[(Anonymous)]

Kewl and good luck with the DDI tools. Our group gets together in person, but we are still looking forward to the mapping software to use during play. If it turns out ot be a good system, we will be very happy to have that projected on the wall or on the big TV. It'll save loads of setup time.

:-) If your games are as fun as your stories, I know at least 1 MUnkey that would like to play.

Re: 4th Edition

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

I don't have a group here locally, as most of the people I'd care to play with live one state down, so online tools would just be easier. I know there are alternatives like RP Tools, but... I think a tile-by-tile map builder would be a better fit for my artistic (in)abilities.

Re: 4th Edition

[mindwright.livejournal.com]

Actually, since you always have a couple of at-will options, and half or more of your attack powers are encounter powers, I've discovered that you can in fact get through fights without using your dailies. Unfortunately, saving your daily powers only helps if you eventually get to use them, so the best rule of thumb is to wait until you see a moment where your daily would be cool, and then go for it.

Definitely if you are about to spend an action point, consider using a daily ability that round. Especially if you have a tactical warlord around, or you are a human or half-elf with action surge.