A VERY positive review of 4E

In article <I_2dnfrpkq3C7UzanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>Del Rio wrote:
>
>> In article <97-dnQntlMR78lHanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>,
>> Tetsubo <tetsubo.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So why support 4E? Why support a game that is heading in the direction
>>> of more combat simulation, less role-playing, an increased use of
>>>miniatures and the need for digital content?
>>
>> What makes you think there will be less roleplaying? The
>> roleplaying aspect of D&D has always been pretty much optional.
>> The RAW scarcely touch on it, compared to the massive heap of
>> pages devoted to combat and spellcasting.
>>
>
> Not optional in my campaigns.
>

What I'm saying is the RAW never had much to say on the subject
anyway, so changing the RAW doesn't have an effect one way or
the other on roleplaying. Roleplaying is something that a game
group chooses to do, or chooses not to do, it's isn't mandated
by the RAW. I was *hoping* that 4e would offer the social
interaction analog to combat, along the lines of allowing you
to do something like attack someone's WILL defense with your
Persuasion to get them to divulge the location of the secret
temple, or whatever. I haven't heard a thing on that since the
earliest rumbling about the game, though, so I have to presume
that it didn't make the final cut.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

In article <GqOdnZ97mI35C1PanZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d.TakeThisOut@comcast.com>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>Del Rio wrote:
>> In 30 years you've never encountered a group that wanted to
>> rest up to full stength after their casters had fired their big
>> guns?? Alrighty, then...
>>
>
> Not 15 minutes into an adventure.

That part was mostly a joke, ya know. Typically about 1 minute
of "intense" combat, wherever it occurs in an adventure is
enough to blow our your resources enough that most sensible
adventuring groups will rest and recharge - which means that
once you've had that one intense combat, your adventuring day
is over. The joke lies in that it could occur 15 min into your
day, and your day would be over.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Allen Wessels" <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:awessels-6FD29F.00172808032008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <o4-dneI9MLKb3U_anZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>,
> "Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Hadsil" <forumite DeleteThis @netzero.com> wrote in message
>> news:f9a7b12b-6f73-4d6a-8a94-8d1426a4edcc@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >> I think that depends greatly upon what your stat resources are.
>>
>> >Agreed. While I don't think a particular character array of 18, 17,
>> >15, 15, 13, 12 means the campaign is doomed to implosion and can
>> >handle a MAD class quite well, too many DMs will have a conniption fit
>> >over it.
>>
>> I find that incredibly strange.
>
> A lot of DMs have either a poor sense of scope, a real desire to play
> the "everyman as hero" campaign, or both.
>
> That another of my worries about 4e. I see 4e bringing a lot of new
> people to the game and introducing a bunch of people to DMing. DMing is
> a gaming experience that I think is just about unique.
>
> I'm very curious to see how they support DM "professional" development.

From what I have read so far, things look positive on that front. They seem
to be emphasizing actual DMing in the DMG, rather than squeezing it in among
Prestige Classes and magic items.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

Del Rio wrote:
> In article <5IGdnTSMLueIeVfanZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 4E: The Unwanted.
>
> Actually it's amusing watching the newsgroup's slow drift from
> - "This sucks unbearably and beyond all measure!", to
> - "Well, it still sucks, but this one thing I heard about it
> is actually kind of cool", to the current state of
> - "Well, it has some things that are kinda neat, but it
> still mostly sucks, and I'm not going to play it!"
>
> I await the arrival of the next stage
> - "Well, I guess I'm gonna try playing it, but that doesn't
> mean I like it!"
>


If you drape a cloth over a portrait and slowly begin punching holes in
the cloth, you're not going to get a good look at the portrait until the
cloth finally comes completely off. We're all describing what we see
through the holes, and so far about half of what I see looks like it
should be mucking an acre of land, while the other half looks like Lady
Godiva.
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Mar 7, 7:10 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav....DeleteThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Malachias Invictus <invictuse....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Hadsil" <forum....DeleteThis@netzero.com> wrote in message
> >news:22b9ba55-990f-4f05-81b3-fa344068f0f9@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> I should clarify that when I say MAD, I mean dependent upon 3
> >> or more attributes. When a class is dependent upon three or more
> >> to do what it's supposed to do, it gets stretched thin and effectively
> >> can't do what it's supposed to do.
>
> > I think that depends greatly upon what your stat resources are.
>
> Indeed. Off the top of my head, the only really MAD classes, by that
> definition, in D&D are monk, paladin, and ranger, and rogue a little bit
> (skills and class abilities can be drawn from three ability scores, but
> you don't *need* all three).
>
> Bard Cha and Dex

Depending on how you play the bard. My bard doesn't really need dex
at all. I've found I've been wanting for Int a lot more. And Con is
always wanted.

> Barbarian Str and Con, Dex and Wis
> Cleric Wis and Cha, Str and Con

Most clerics ignore cha, although it can be helpful. They don't need
str or con unless they are backup fighter focused. Usually it will be
one or the other, or neither. Maybe best to say Str, Con & Cha give
them extra options. Clerics are easily played as a SAD class.

> Druid Wis and Cha, Con and Str (wildshape fixes these)

Yep, so wis. What the hell do they need Cha for? Influencing the
occassional animal? Hardly worth it. SAD class.

> Fighter Str and Con, Dex

And Wis. Unless they want their obvious low will target for all the
enemy spellcasters to take them out of every fight. Usually not too
dependent on Dex though.

> Monk Wis and Dex, Str

+Con

> Paladin Str and Wis, Cha

+Con. Unlike clerics where that cha & strength just add more options,
paladin really needs all those. It's a tough spot, and makes for very
unsatisfying paladins with low to even high point buys. You need
either extremely good roles or ridiculously high point buys. Either
of my two ability score generation methods (27, 25, 24, or the 17 15
13 11 10 8 array) don't have high enough scores for proper paladins.

> Ranger Dex and Wis, Int and Str

+Con. Had a ranger dump con in a previous campaign, didn't work too
well for him. Also add +Cha for that whole animal side of things.
You think Paladins are screwed? I just shake my head at the anger.

> Rogue two of Dex, Int, Cha

+Con. He's going to get into combat, and they do enough damage in it
with sneaks that they will be primary targets. He'll be going down
like a sack of patatoes every other game like one of the rogues with
low Con is in a campaign I'm playing in. Like clerics Dex, Int, Cha,
Str even just give a rogue more options.

> Sorcerer Cha
> Wizard Int

+Con. Low con wizard going down quite a bit in my campaign. No where
near what that poor rogue is though. Dex is somewhat important for ac
and ref saves, but nothing like any other classes might need them,
even Cha sees some use to a wizard for charms/callings. And it sucks
if you really dump Str, you really need to be able to at least carry
your spellbook.
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Mar 7, 4:35 am, del....DeleteThis@panix.com (Del Rio) wrote:
> In article <47d07fda$0$25025$607ed...@cv.net>,
> David Trimboli <da....DeleteThis@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Inconsistency is only an issue if you're looking at it from the "What do
> >I need to roll this time?" aspect, which is the question asked by idiots
> >(who can't learn or can't apply the rules) and the ignorant (who never
> >learned the rules). If the only alternative to "a single rule" were "too
> >many rules to remember," I might agree that the change was necessary.
> >But that leaves out the category of "more than one rule, without being
> >too many," which is where I feel that previous editions of the game
> >fell, to varying degrees.
>
> So comparing these:
> 1e combat: roll dice, add bonuses, cross reference result
> against AC on one of several class-specific combat tables

Thac0 was invented durring 1e, and it's about as quick as the current
method. Possibly quite a bit quicker due to other changes in the
system like tons of niggling little bonuses from a dozen different
sources and stacking considerations.

> 3e combat: roll dice, add bonuses, see if result is >= AC
> ...and you can't see that the latter is a vast improvement?!
> WTF, your position on this is frankly insane.

Not with all those other changes. It's an improvement, but the other
changes make it worse as a whole.

- Justisaur
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Mar 6, 4:30 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos....DeleteThis@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2008-03-06, David Trimboli <da....DeleteThis@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> > And since I originally said, "'higher is always better' is a mnemonic
> > for idiots and the ignorant," we can conclude that your new gamers fall
> > under the "ignorant" category, as in "ignorant of the rules."
>
> Or you're wrong.
>
> Welcome to human factors: If your system consistently fails for newbies,
> it may well be a sucky system.
>
> > Inconsistency is only an issue if you're looking at it from the "What do
> > I need to roll this time?" aspect, which is the question asked by idiots
> > (who can't learn or can't apply the rules) and the ignorant (who never
> > learned the rules). If the only alternative to "a single rule" were "too
> > many rules to remember," I might agree that the change was necessary.
> > But that leaves out the category of "more than one rule, without being
> > too many," which is where I feel that previous editions of the game
> > fell, to varying degrees.
>
> I think you're missing the point.
>
> Imagine, if you will, a game which had started with a single mechanic.
>
> What arguments, if any, would you present for having some d20 rolls be "roll
> high" and others be "roll low"?
>
> I don't see any.
>
> If the additional rules are adding no value, they should go.
>
> > In any case, before saying the "single resolution mechanic of 3.0/3.5
> > was pure genius," one should remember that it was done long before D&D
> > Third Edition.
>
> Sure, but it apparently took some serious brilliance to realize that it could
> be done in D&D

Not at all. We were discussing it the day after we discovered Thac0
in my group. Way back in 1st edition. It just required someone to do
all the hard work and actually write the books and publish it.

Apparently that was too much work for the writers of 2nd ed, or
perhaps like many software companies, they wanted to ensure some
amount of backward compatibility.

- Justisaur
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Mar 7, 2:26 pm, "Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "David Trimboli" <da....TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
>
> news:47d051f9$0$15184$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
>
>
> > Malachias Invictus wrote:
> >> "David Trimboli" <da....TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
> >>news:47cf7a60$0$15183$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> >>> Del Rio wrote:
> >>>> In article <47cae1f1$0$15204$607ed...@cv.net>,
> >>>> David Trimboli <da....TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote:
> >>>>> I'm sorry, but the "higher is always better" is a mnemonic for idiots
> >>>>> and the ignorant. If you know the rules, and you can't figure out what
> >>>>> you're supposed to roll in a given situation, go take a vacation.
> >>>> You've got to be kidding. Consolidating all the disparate
> >>>> mechanics of previous editions under a single consistent task
> >>>> resolution system was best step forward D&D had taken in 20+
> >>>> years.
> >>> Did you have trouble playing D&D without a "single consistent task
> >>> resolution system"?
>
> >> That is utterly irrelevant. I doubt most folks would have trouble
> >> walking to the nearest grocery store. Funny thing, though: most drive
> >> there instead.
>
> > Yeah. Because they need something with which to carry home the groceries.
>
> Are they armless?
>
> > Or because it's too far to walk comfortably.
>
> So, even though they would not have trouble walking to the nearest grocery
> store, they choose not to when there are more efficient alternatives
> available. Check.
>
> > Unless the posters here are willing to admit they had difficulty playing
> > D&D before there was a "single consistent task resolution system," I can
> > only conclude that such is merely the product of the desire to systematize
> > and regularize the game for its aesthetic value,
>
> ...or to, you know, speed gameplay and reduce errors, like others have
> already mentioned.
>
> > not due to any real need.
>
> There is no "real need" to play roleplaying games at all.
>

Liar!

Would I die without them? Perhaps. There'd be little to look forward
too, I might just wither away and die. That qualifies as a need.

- Justisaur
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

In article <5NmdnX3IJO_jJ1DanZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Because my favorite game has ended. I get no further support from
>Wizard's. No future books from the official source. My two favorite
>gaming magazines are gone. While no one has entered my home and taken
>the books I own, I feel like it came close to that. I feel cheated and
>violated and wronged. That pretty much fits my definition of "screwed".

What? I ran 1e, a much less flexible game, for more than 20
years using nothing but the trio of core books and maybe 4
published modules. I really don't see the problem - 3.X is a
much more complete, flexible and expandable system, and there's
already enough 3.X and compatible d20 material out there to run
games until the heat death of the universe!

As for the rest: you paid a fair price for your 3.X books, and
have gotten good value for them; that describes the limit of
your economic/legal/contractual relationship with Wizards.
You're not paying them any kind of perpetual maintenance fee on
3.X, so they don't owe you anything at this point. If 3.X is
your baby, I'd use the publication of 4e as an opportunity to
stock those closets with discounted 3.X and d20 materials, and
count yourself lucky to live amid such abundance.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

In article <slrnfsmdqq.4cj.usenet-nospam.TakeThisOut@guild.seebs.net>,
Seebs <usenet-nospam.TakeThisOut@seebs.net> wrote:
>On 2008-03-01, Blackheart <blackheart666_2000.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> *ding* and now you know what they're trying to do. Flop this edition,
>> kill of the 3rd party market, 5th edition without OGL because "The 3rd
>> Party market was unable to properly support the game last edition".
>
>I think you need to put the tinfoil shiny side *out*.

Missed you Seebs!

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

In article <eb4d57fb-9f0c-4fe6-86ec-d1c245c67b8c.TakeThisOut@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Alcore <alcore.TakeThisOut@uurth.com> wrote:
>
>But 4e is myopically focused on combat balance. If it's outside of
>combat, it's outside the rules for 4e. They don't expect or allow for
>the rules to model whole lives.

If you substitute "D&D" for "4e", I'll agree with you.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "David Trimboli" <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
> news:47d051f9$0$15184$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> "David Trimboli" <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
>>> news:47cf7a60$0$15183$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>>> Del Rio wrote:
>>>>> In article <47cae1f1$0$15204$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
>>>>> David Trimboli <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm sorry, but the "higher is always better" is a mnemonic for idiots
>>>>>> and the ignorant. If you know the rules, and you can't figure out what
>>>>>> you're supposed to roll in a given situation, go take a vacation.
>>>>> You've got to be kidding. Consolidating all the disparate
>>>>> mechanics of previous editions under a single consistent task
>>>>> resolution system was best step forward D&D had taken in 20+
>>>>> years.
>>>> Did you have trouble playing D&D without a "single consistent task
>>>> resolution system"?
>>> That is utterly irrelevant. I doubt most folks would have trouble
>>> walking to the nearest grocery store. Funny thing, though: most drive
>>> there instead.
>> Yeah. Because they need something with which to carry home the groceries.
>
> Are they armless?

They don't have the 20 arms it would require to carry a couple of weeks'
worth of groceries to feed their families.

>> Or because it's too far to walk comfortably.
>
> So, even though they would not have trouble walking to the nearest grocery
> store, they choose not to when there are more efficient alternatives
> available. Check.

Some people live many miles away from the nearest grocery store.
Walking, while an option, is a poor choice. Other people live just down
the street from a grocery store. If they don't have to carry a lot of
groceries, walking is a better option. You don't spend money on gas, you
don't pollute, you don't risk accident or road rage, and you get some
exercise.

>> Unless the posters here are willing to admit they had difficulty playing
>> D&D before there was a "single consistent task resolution system," I can
>> only conclude that such is merely the product of the desire to systematize
>> and regularize the game for its aesthetic value,
>
> ...or to, you know, speed gameplay and reduce errors, like others have
> already mentioned.

Your job is to prove that game-play is faster, not to produce
tautological loops.

>> not due to any real need.
>
> There is no "real need" to play roleplaying games at all.

So you admit BAB doesn't satisfy any particular "need"?

Why is it so hard for you to believe that some people may find table
look-ups faster and easier, or at least not necessarily significantly
slower or harder than BAB? Can't you open your mind just a little?

--
David
Stardate 8190.9
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"David Trimboli" <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
news:47d56de2$0$15199$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "David Trimboli" <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
>> news:47d051f9$0$15184$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>>> "David Trimboli" <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
>>>> news:47cf7a60$0$15183$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>>>> Del Rio wrote:
>>>>>> In article <47cae1f1$0$15204$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
>>>>>> David Trimboli <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but the "higher is always better" is a mnemonic for
>>>>>>> idiots and the ignorant. If you know the rules, and you can't figure
>>>>>>> out what you're supposed to roll in a given situation, go take a
>>>>>>> vacation.
>>>>>> You've got to be kidding. Consolidating all the disparate
>>>>>> mechanics of previous editions under a single consistent task
>>>>>> resolution system was best step forward D&D had taken in 20+
>>>>>> years.
>>>>> Did you have trouble playing D&D without a "single consistent task
>>>>> resolution system"?
>>>> That is utterly irrelevant. I doubt most folks would have trouble
>>>> walking to the nearest grocery store. Funny thing, though: most drive
>>>> there instead.
>>> Yeah. Because they need something with which to carry home the
>>> groceries.
>>
>> Are they armless?
>
> They don't have the 20 arms it would require to carry a couple of weeks'
> worth of groceries to feed their families.

No one said they were carrying that much. If you want to keep adding your
own details in an attempt to break the analogy, by all means continue.

>>> Or because it's too far to walk comfortably.
>>
>> So, even though they would not have trouble walking to the nearest
>> grocery store, they choose not to when there are more efficient
>> alternatives available. Check.
>
> Some people live many miles away from the nearest grocery store.

That is not who we are talking about, though. We are talking about people
within walking distance.

> Walking, while an option, is a poor choice. Other people live just down
> the street from a grocery store. If they don't have to carry a lot of
> groceries, walking is a better option. You don't spend money on gas, you
> don't pollute, you don't risk accident or road rage, and you get some
> exercise.

....yet the point, which you appear to be wilfully ignoring, is that in spite
of that fact, many folks choose to drive, because it is faster and easier.

>>> Unless the posters here are willing to admit they had difficulty playing
>>> D&D before there was a "single consistent task resolution system," I can
>>> only conclude that such is merely the product of the desire to
>>> systematize and regularize the game for its aesthetic value,
>>
>> ...or to, you know, speed gameplay and reduce errors, like others have
>> already mentioned.
>
> Your job is to prove that game-play is faster, not to produce tautological
> loops.

That has already been shown pretty clearly by Seebs and David. If you need
a double blind study to figure out the obvious, I cannot help you.

>>> not due to any real need.
>>
>> There is no "real need" to play roleplaying games at all.
>
> So you admit BAB doesn't satisfy any particular "need"?

It satisfies a desire.

> Why is it so hard for you to believe that some people may find table
> look-ups faster and easier,

....because, unless you are innumerate, adding a bonus to a die roll and
checking against a target number is faster.

> or at least not necessarily significantly slower or harder than BAB?

Define significant in this context.

> Can't you open your mind just a little?

You act like I did not play each of these editions for years, with many
different people. The current resolution method is faster for everyone I
have played with so far that played multiple editions.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E