It had been a few months — since January, to be honest — since my tabletop group had gotten together, so they were more than happy to get together for a game. At first, only 4 could come; one couple wasn't going to be able to make it. Another couple then arranged for their adult son to come with them, so we had a full slate of characters. Then, last night, the couple who couldn't make it ended up becoming free, so I was looking at a prospect of having 7 PCs at the table, or excluding some of the players. Oy.
So last night, I ended up cutting and taping up a couple of spare sets of character sheets. Rather than giving players identical characters, I decided to try out the modularity of the new system's character building. I came up with two new characters: an Elf/Fighter/Knight/Magic-User which I dubbed a "Bladesinger," and a Human/Cleric/Soldier/Slayer that I dubbed an "Avenger." For Abilities, I simply took the ones for the Pregens of those particular races and shuffled them around to fit the builds. I gave them what I considered appropriate weapons/armors (Leather & Greataxe for the Avenger, Studded Leather & Longsword for the Bladesinger - his cantrips were Magic Missle and Ray of Frost), made sure to adjust attacks and damages according to what I could deduce from the pregens, and went from there.
As it turned out, I only needed the one — the son ended up going and spending time with his in-laws, instead — but the Bladesinger turned out pretty well. I'd decided at some point that I didn't want to go overboard with the maps & tactics; at the same time, knowing where people were for purpose of Area Effects and Ranges was necessary, so we went with the hand-drawn maps on graph paper, and initials to represet where people were. Because of there not being any Opportunity Attacks, and Movement being allowed to sandwich Actions, we went with an interpretation of the rules that allowed people to make melee attacks from allies' squares, so long as they could move back to unoccupied squares by the end of their movement. This meant that melee attacks became much more prevalent — only the Rogue and the Pelor Cleric used ranged attacks with any regularity. The wizard used some Magic Missiles for finishing moves, but tended to use Shocking Grasp a lot; and the two fighters and the "paladin" (Moradin Cleric) kept entirely with melee. Anyway, we started about 2pm and finished up around 6, with frequent pauses for food and drinks. I went with "The Devil You Know" for the hook, sending the group to find out what was up with the Kobolds and why all the raiding. Once in the ravine, the group decided to start with the left-most cave, and look for someone. The Rogue — who discovered, later, how poor of a "scout" she made, in terms of perceiving things — didn't see anyone at the first cave, and only saw a sleeping bear at the second one, so decided to head on to the third one — the one with the skulls in the cave, and the big door, and the "Come on in" sign (ie, the Hobgoblin Lair). The group — with the Pelor Cleric leading the decision-making process — decided to knock on the door. This lead to some minor RP, except the Hobgoblins didn't want to piss off their Warlord by fetching her, and the PCs refused to disarm or be blindfolded; needless to say, fighting broke out.
After the first round, 3 of the guards were dead; the other two got killed in the second. The Slayer ended up getting hit for a bit by this time, and the clerics each used one of their spell slots to heal her up as the next group of Guards (4 more) joined the fight. These 4 were dead in a little more than one more round — everyone hitting and having high damage pretty much finished off the combat quickly. The two fighters both discovered that they'd be carrying their minor wounds (both were lacking a couple of hp, so it wasn't much) around, though, and the first complaints of the new HD Healing system came up. As a note, half the players had only ever played 4e, and the rest of us hadn't played 2e this century, so most of our point of reference is the Healing Surge system.
Anyway, at this point the rogue discovered just how useless her halfling ears were. The wizard thought it was odd that she didn't hear anything in any direction, so followed up himself — and heard a distant scream coming from the prison. They hurried along, found the prison, and took care of the jailers in three actions. They freed the humans, killed the gnoll out of mercy, and let the orc join them. They sent the rogue to scout out the crowd at the end of one hall, and decided not to do anything there. (Throughout this, I kept rolling to see if any of dead guards got discovered, and kept getting low rolls, so they hadn't.) They went back to the armory, the slayer got herself a set of platemail, and the rest of the group discovered the secret door while she was donning her armor.
They managed to get surprise on the next set of guards, and finished them off in a little over one round. By this time, the next set of guards came in; the group got through half of them in the next round. Then the consorts and warlord came in, and the group finished off the "little guys" leaving the queen for last. By round 4, only the Warlord was left; and she was dead by the end of Round 7. The bladesinger required the last two of the clerics' heals during this fight, and both he and the "paladin" used their Hit Dice afterward — and still had single digit hps; detect magic was used to discover the hidden wand. It was about 6pm by this time — 4 hours, interrupted by occasional breaks, a phone call, and our 2-year-old daughter — so we agreed that the group would head back to town and spend their long rest; they would use the money they took from the hobgoblins to buy components for healing potions. We've got a day set aside in about a month to play some more, and are probably going to give this another go.
The group had 3 encounters, which lasted approximately 11 rounds, give or take — a little over 1 minute of fighting. One break of about 5 minutes while they freed prisoners. One break of about 15 minutes while the slayer got dressed. Add in time for the halfling to scout out the one room they didn't go to, and travel time to explore the rooms that they did hit, and I'd say that they were in the places for about 40 minutes total, 45 at the most. Not including travel time to and from town (which I never defined for them, so...). Notes as DM & Observer: 1) I really think that the group was fortunate, in terms of healing; if they'd hit the Ogre's lair earlier, and ended up fighting him (which, admittedly, they may not have), they probably would have discovered what I perceive as this "edition"'s biggest weakness — low-level healing. The players were not happy about the single HD, and not happy about the rolling of them. They avoided using the cleric's healing potion (saving it for an emergency that they managed to avoid), but used all 4 of the healing spells available by the end of the third combat. 2) I am very happy about the modularity of the character creation system. The bladesinger seemed as much an equal to the other classes as anything, and even used his magic missile a couple of times as a finishing move. Not knowing how the abilities were set was annoying, as was deciphering the various attack modifiers and making sure I'd gotten them as close to right as I could. 3) That being said, one thing that I really wish the developers would consider is "minimizing" the number of classes and using the combination of themes and classes to create the variety available in 4e. For example: • Fighter + Slayer = "Slayer" • Fighter + Guardian = "Knight" • Fighter + (currently non-existant) Archer = "Ranger" • Fighter + Magic-User = "Bladesinger" • Cleric + Healer = "Cleric" • Cleric + Guardian = "Paladin" • Cleric + Slayer = "Avenger" and so on.
I believe that if a couple of variations of each "source" were available in terms of classes — some non-Vancian magic users, some different Primal and Psionics frames, and a few other things, of course — and the themes were used, similar to the Roles of 4e or the Kits of 2e, to differentiate how the classes utilized those sources, I think they'd go a long way toward giving a very good variety without the difficulty of having to recreate every single class.
Then, there'd only have to be some sort of built in "trade-off" system, to let people pick up or drop weapon & armor proficiencies. But even that's not really necessary; I could have let the Bladesinger have Chainmail, if I'd really wanted, but decided to keep to the spirit of the old kit, instead.
I've read some of what they're talking about with the Paladin; I think the "Cleric of Moradin" pregen was a lot better a Paladin than anything they've been thinking of. Not that they'll listen to me, but *shrug*.
4) Other than the issues with Healing, the other biggest "disappointment" was in the Vancian portions of the spell system. The healers used all of their combined slots for healing spells; once they understood the option, then never considered casting any of their other "limited" spells. In fact, other than that, the Paladin never used her spells, swinging away instead; the Healer used Radiant Lance frequently in combat (when not healing someone), and Detect Magic half the time it was needed (when the Wizard didn't call it first). The Wizard used one of his 3 spells — Sleep, when only 1 of the 5 hobgoblins had to save, as it happened — and debated using a second (Comprehend Language), but thought better of it. Pretty much everything cast was a cantrip.
Now, I am not a fan of the Vancian system. I recall the days of, "Well, there's my one spell used, good luck guys." As the only person willing to play a healer, being a low-level caster sucked big time. I am pleased that they included Cantrips to make healers feel less useless, as were my players; but the Vancian portions of the system were not enjoyed, appreciated, or liked. I accept the fact that some people absolutely love the Vancian system, though I've never had any of them explain to me precisely how it is superior to any others. And it's clear that the developers fall into this crowd, and are insistant on bringing it back in full force (though I'd think the Daily portions of the 4e spells would suffice for this masochistic behavior). I suppose I would have to concede that the system they've provided is an acceptable mix of Vancian and non-Vancian elements; however, I still find the whole thing vaguely unsatisfying.
5) The whole "Skill" change that's being debated elsewhere is, IMO, way overblown. And once I found their list of suggested DCs for things (in a place in the DM's packet that wasn't where I'd expected it, for some reason, don't know why), there was absolutely no difference between the two. I have leeway in 4e to set DCs; I have leeway in Next to set DCs. I have suggested guidelines in 4e; I have suggested guidelines in Next. I've run lots of skill checks in 4e for things over the years, and except for saying, "What's your Wisdom" instead of "What's your Perception," there was little difference between the two systems. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been playing 4e wrong, IMO.
The closest thing to a complaint was that there wasn't a way to overcome certain abilities in the Pregens. The rogue is also the group's usual Scout, and in addition to having the Thieving skills she loves to have (even with her Avenger character), she also tends to have the best Perceptions and Streetwises in the group whenever possible. So her having to concede listening checks to the Wizard (the Bladesinger had a lower Wisdom and didn't feel like doing it) was not easy. But, I'm sure there'll be ways to adjust or train skills in the future.
6) Finally, combat went quickly. The low HPs of what they faced contributed to this partially; one-shot kills really pleased the fighters, not to mention the casters when they managed to pull them off too.
But, too, the lack of decision-making helped. Each player, in the first combat, figured out (if they had a choice) what their prefered attack was, and did it. Over and over and over again. The wizard alternated between Magic Missile and Shocking Grasp, depending on circumstances of layout and how injured his targets were; and the Bladesinger used Magic Missile a couple times when he knew someone was on the verge of death. But beyond that, they all did the same thing, to the point of being predictable. By the end of the third combat, they were knocking their turns out in mere seconds, but it was little more than picking a target (easy at that point, there only being the one) and rolling, and seeing if they'd hit or not (they figured the AC out fairly early — 19 missed, 20 hit — so didn't need me to confirm anymore, just to track hps and see if they'd gotten hit themselves).
I'm not sure if any of that's a Good Thing™ or a Bad Thing™. Part of my thinks its a bit of each, but I haven't put my fingers on the whys or wherefores just yet, so it's something to think about. One player (the Rogue) was happy about not having multiple pages of different actions anymore. But that doesn't prove anything, either; she was annoyed that the only way she could regularly get Advantage was by attacking only every other round, and Hiding around the corner the rest of the time; her Thief could just choose an appropriate move action to get CA about every time. So it's a trade-off, in the end. My ultimate thought on Next after one game? It is. The parts that keep getting promoted by the anti-4e people as Better Than 4e — Skills, Healing, and Vancian Magic — aren't really. They are either ultimately the same (Skills) or dissatisfying (the Rest). Develop a new character sheet, make some adjustments to the system of Modifiers....
The Issues of 4e aren't solved with Next. It would have been nice if the Issues of 4e had been solved by WotC, but that's asking too much, I know.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
I like your idea of Character Creation! Since they have only given us an idea of what the Fighter option may be it could work pretty well. Not sure if the Cleric should be getting three options though.
I don't know about others, but I hope the Cleric goes back to some of the OD&D flavor, No access to sharp weapons and maybe bonuses for Deity preferred weapons, along with the healing.
I personally don't care how it's written, I will never use "Skill Challenges" in any more games, Skill Checks sure but my players would rather RP skill use than just get a "Pass/Fail" from the 4e style challenges.
In this playtest the Fighter seems to be at first glance your best choice as Scout. He has the +2 Wis. as well as the Perception bonus. The Rouge isn't a bad choice as he gets Advantage for some of the "Perception" based checks. I'm guessing that both of your Rouge players dice were low for the Perception rolls?
(1) Not sure what you mean about Clerics getting three options?
(2) And sorry, but I played Cleric back in the day; all my friends wanted to be fighters or wizards, so I was always the Cleric, the Thief, or every so often Both; someone had to do it.
Restrictions like that are great for fluff. Someone follows a god who doesn't believe in sharp weapons, or plate mail, or eating meat on Fridays, or ham & cheese sandwiches, or whatever. More power to them.
But preventing an entire class from doing something... sorry, but I think that sort of enforced restriction is as bad if not worse than saying that all creatures of a specific race are evil, that there's no way nowhere no how that at least one of them can't be redeemable. Somewhere, in my mind, there's a cleric out there who's god has him wielding a red sword. Restrictions like that should be at the DM level, not the mechanics level.
Same, by the by, as wizards; some of the best wizards wield swords. One of the most iconic, Gandalf, did just that. As for armor interfering with magic-wielding, same thing as above. That sort of thing ought to be GM-perview. I suppose if they wish to make it default, so long as there's a way to override....
(3) The moment you have a player roll a skill to attempt to do anything, you're running a skill challenge. I remember having to negotiate or haggle with people in the Old Days, and make multiple Charisma checks, or figuring out puzzles with Intelligence checks. Sure, wasn't called Skill Challenges then; but it strikes me as being a great description of what they are. Whatever else you want to call them, they're still the same.
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.... Just like calling them Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges. Going around and renaming 4e stuff with pre-4e names? Pandering to a specific demographic. I see why they might feel the need to do so; I just fail to comprehend why it matters, and why everyone seems to be buying it.
(4) The Cleric of Moradin (the one I call the Paladin) has a Wisdom of +3, making it the best on a single roll; successful on a DC15 about 45% of the time. However, the Wizard's an Elf and has Advantage on checks related to that sort of thing due to Keen Senses; that makes him successful on a DC15 about 48% of the time, if I've done the math right. Thus, the Elf Wizard is the best option for scouting.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.... Just like calling them Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges. Going around and renaming 4e stuff with pre-4e names? Pandering to a specific demographic. I see why they might feel the need to do so; I just fail to comprehend why it matters, and why everyone seems to be buying it.
Thank the gods of dice and Cheetos someone else is noticing this! I felt like I was taking crazy pills there for a second.
Thank you very much for pointing out a disturbing and somewhat inexplicable trend in the current design.
Swmabie, great post. I think you might be onto something about character generation... I found myself wondering if they were going to go that way as more rules were released. Sure, I would like to see entirely different classes for Ranger, Paladin, Druid, etc but if Background and Theme end up working to handle these options, I would be OK with that. I don't think that Cleric + Guardian = "Paladin"... I would think that Fighter + Crusader background + Holy Warrior + "Paladin"; the cleric combo has no Protection from Evil, killer saving throws, high Charisma, restriction on money & magic, etc. Though I certainly applaud your post and thoughts, I'm just hoping that we see a little more in the final rules for Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Monks & the like.
There also seems to be a resounding cry for some sort of Non-Vancian Arcane casting; what the Wizard now is Vancian . Probably a good idea to have Non-Vancian options; maybe a Sorcerer Theme & others of that nature. One thing that is a little unbalanced: the Magic Missile spell is an auto-hit for 2-5 damage. I know the Dwarf Fighter does 3 damage on a miss but other fighters probably won't have that. I would argue that with poor rolling of the Fighter, the Wizard is a more reliable damage dealer than the Fighter, especially against a target with a higher AC. ---The Fighter does seem to have some scaling in his attacks: LV 2 allows 2 extra actions each day; LV3 Adds the cleave feat; one extra attack per turn IF you drop a foe to zero HP or lower. There should be a little scaling at LV3, like +1 to hit and damage... No progression there makes me worry that the Fighter isn't getting a fair shake.
With the new higher starting HP, LV1 characters are a little more durable. That being said the hit die healing is a little too weak at lower levels. You can very easily roll low and if you have a low CON score, you're hosed. Otherwise, this mechanic is very much like a healing surge. In the playtest I ran, Hit Dice worked OK but seemed like not enough. Here's my idea I had before the playtest was released, posted on EN World back on Feb 8th: www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discuss...
Rest of post relocated to another, more appropriate thread.... Here.
1) You made a Cleric/Slayer/Soldier. The only one we have ideas of so far is the fighter getting two themes. If the Cleric does get more than one great! It would make them more versatile and maybe more people would choose to play them.
2) All the classes to date have that same type of restriction, it was put under the "Armour/Weapon Proficiency" heading. You just had to take a Feat to gain access to others. The weapon proficiency choices could come from the Deity you choose to follow. I know its more fluff than mechanics but it does add flavor that could make them more interesting.
3) I know what you mean but I was referring to the 4e style Skill Challenge, it isn't just a name, I had lots of complaints from players about the feel of 4e did skill challenges vs. how 3.5 did them. When I started to re-write them to a more 3x/od&d feel the players had a lot more fun doing them and I got no more complaints.
4) How are you getting 48% for the Elf? The Wizard has a +1 so he needs a 14 or better on one of his dice. That gives him a 35% chance on each die. The Fighter with a +5 (Wiz. +2, Perception +3) has a 60% chance on a single roll.
5) I think a lot of why people don't like the 4e names was that it took so heavily from WoW and other MMO's. There didn't seem to be problems with the 3x or older names for things, but when they started taking from computer games it just started to make people think they may as well just go play on their PC. And they didn't seem to think as hard about what their character was going to do.
I'll address the later when I have more time — need to run an errand — but I'll hit this one right off the top because it's obvious to me...
"You made a Cleric/Slayer/Soldier. The only one we have ideas of so far is the fighter getting two themes. If the Cleric does get more than one great! It would make them more versatile and maybe more people would choose to play them."
What I actually made was: • Race: Human • Class: Cleric • Background: Soldier • Theme: Slayer
Nobody got "2 themes." I think the idea of Fighters getting a second theme is... I'll be polite and say "Inane." (Yes, I know it's not your idea.) Fighters need a second theme like a fish needs a bicycle. The current fighter class with one theme has pretty much the same amount of options as any other current class does. As I noted at some point, except for the Healers making sure they didn't need to use up their healing, and the wizard choosing between a ranged attack and a melee one, everyone did pretty much the exact same action every turn. Oh and the rogue going back and forth with hiding and attacking. Everything else was The Same Each Time. If that's how they want to simplify the game, great; like I said, some of my players liked not having decisions to make. But giving Fighters two themes is putting lipstick on a pig. If there's a problem with the class, address it in the class, don't go pasting on other stuff from other mechanics.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
Sorry to say, that was a big problem with 4e, and some of 3x. "Putting lipstick on a pig" was the solution to problems with the Fighter being so much less than the Casters in 3x once they both got to higher levels.
Not going to discuss the qualities or issues with 4e, not directly, in this forum. Though I disagree strongly with your statement, but that's another discussion for another place if not time.
What I do know is that... well, Casters can have different spells; Rogue can have the bits of thievery they have to focus on on the side. But Fighters have one primary purpose, in old-style D&D: They are made to Hit Things, preferably as often and as accurately and as hard as possible. If that is what they are doing in any given system, then they are doing it correctly, and anything else is just window-dressing; different fighting styles, different weapons, brawler or gladiator or whatever.
If people don't like the repeatedly hitting things part, then maybe it's not the fault of the Fighter class; maybe it's the fault of the players themselves. People have been wanting to paste extra goodies and sweeteners on Fighters since the days of Basic. Well, except for the one time that I know of in which they actually such things into the class itself (though I never played 3e or 3.5e, so don't know how they were handled then).
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
5) I think a lot of why people don't like the 4e names was that it took so heavily from WoW and other MMO's. There didn't seem to be problems with the 3x or older names for things, but when they started taking from computer games it just started to make people think they may as well just go play on their PC. And they didn't seem to think as hard about what their character was going to do.
