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.
no subject
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.