D&D 4th Edition - The positive, constructive thread, Negativism, go post elsewhere! Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Bull]

As the threads title and description states, this is a thread purely for positive and positively constructive discussion about the new 4e D&D. PLease keep the negativity, negative non-constructive criticism, and flat out WotC Bashing in another thread (There's a couple around here).

I'm serious. Behave.

Ok, that out of the way, for those picking the books (or the *cough* PDF's) up and reading through them, what's your read on it so far?

I picked up Keep on the Shadowfell last week to check out the basics. It's a nice, if straightforward adventure. Makes for a decent introductory adventure. It was a tad pricey though. And the rules overview was a bit light. I've been a gamer long enough that I figured everything out easy enough, but a newb would have a hard time tracking some of it.

But, I was interested enough to go out and pick up the core books today. While I played some 3 and 3.5, I never bought any of the books. I was an old school fan, mostly because of nostalgia, but I thought if they were gonna redo the game, they needed to start over fresh and build from the ground up. 3rd didn't do that. 4th does, which I think is a good thing.

I'm still just skimming the PHB, and haven't even cracked the GMG or MM, so I can;t comment too much yet, but I like what I see so far. Mechanically, it borrows a bit from CCG and MMO mechanics and design theory, but to me, this isn't a bad thing. There were what, a couple million copies of 3rd ed sold? Meanwhile, WoW has 10 million current, active subscribers. Even if you assume that half of those are dummy accounts (Gold farmers and "mule" accounts for the real addicts), that's still more than double the number of poeple who bought 3rd Ed. And that doesn't even count in the probably several million inactive accounts from people who've dropped the game over the years.

Likewise, there are probably more kids that have played Magic, Pokemon, YuGiOh, and other CCGs than have played D&D and other RPGs.

So to me, this says that WotC's playing it smart. You put in some familiar aspects, and it makes the game more accessible to folks who might come into the RPG from another medium. Consoles and WoW are really opening up the gaming market some, and hopefully we'll get a little trickle of new players from it.

Ok, that was a bit of a side ramble, but something that's been on my mind since I first started seeing "reviews" of the game and when I started looking the game over myself.

Anyways, I'll post more later once I've had the chance to digest some of it a bit more. But so far, I think it's a positive step forward for the game.

Bull

[FrankTrollman]

Now, play nice Frank. Try and leave your sarcasm and derision to the other threads, please

Oh I am. The 17% wasn't just some random number, that's the actual number for not being the "right" race to play an Infernal Pact Warlock (though it goes up and down as you gain levels). The solid and inflexible math combined with long combats is an advertised feature of the new edition. The Warlock is a "Striker" and his presented role in the party is "DPS." The game math is written assuming that you will play a Warlock of the "right" type and that you will thus hit 50% of the time against normal enemies and 40% of the time against solos. If you play the "wrong" type you only hit 45% or 35% respectively. And since battles are now intended to last 20 rounds or more at high levels, those DPS shifts make a huge difference.

When we say that there are three types of warlocks, that's not character optimization snootiness - that's again an advertised feature of the new edition. There are exactly three types of warlocks that are allowed. That's a feature, and it's there to reduce the number of bad builds fo people to accidentally take and shorten the learning curve.

Frankly I honestly don't know why they didn't go the extra meter and write hard race/class restrictions, because the soft ones they have now are not very soft. Coming to the table with an Eladrin Warlock or a Dragonborn Wizard is like coming to a guild with a Survival Specced Hunter. Making the "proper" synergies is fairly easy (again, an advertised feature of the new edition), and there are a fair number of them for every class (again, an advertised feature of the new edition). There are Laser Clerics and Beat Clerics. There are Tron Paladins and Grind Paladins. This isn't sarcasm, this is explicit designer intent, and real people really like it.

But if you make a Tron Paladin, you go Dragonborn or Human, boost Strength and sub Wisdom. Doing almost anything else is an extremely bad plan. Making a Dwarf or Elf Tron Paladin is possible, but is pretty much restricted to point buy and is considered an unusual build. Making a Halfling or Eladrin Tron Paladin is "wrong." It is an advertised feature of the 4th edition rules that it is very easy to figure out what the optimal builds are, and it is an advertised feature of the game that it is supposed to be played with everyone using them.

-Frank