|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 3:50PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2009
|
See, this is where problems occur. I'm here making conversation, and here you are, thinking you're correct at everything, and in your certainty that you're right, you not only harass me for my 'paragraph-style' of writing, you harass me because I didn't make a suggestion.
I didn't put my posts in paragraph-style because I didn't intend for this to turn into some kind of English Class. I didn't know I was being marked for my perspicacity.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 3:50PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2008
|
wrecan, it sounds like you're saying that critical input is something Wizards does not listen to on these forums, and that you, as well, simply see it as "white noise" and ignore the specifics of any such statements. Is this accurate?
I think that's fairly chilling, if so. You're acknowledging:
1: Actual willingness to ignore the wishes of potential customers, on the company's part.
2. Actual willingness to disregard the opinions of others if they are disagreeable, on your own part, and,
3. An assertion that there is nothing wrong with this, and it's the nay-sayers who should change their behaviour.
Think about this for a moment. Doesn't it make more sense for you, and the company behind the forum, to change, rather than us? Doesn't blocking out criticism as 'white noise' rob you of outside input, and condemn the product to stagnation?
I think it does, and I think you'd do yourself a service to respond to individual criticisms, acknowledging their points, and offering a reasoned response. In the same way, the company would benefit from admitting to alienating part of their market, and taking active and drastic steps to win them back.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 3:51PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2006
|
And here we have another thread where the 4e defenders show they are holier than thou. Gee thanks Wrecan for pointing out JUST how wrong some of us are. And here I though t you were someone I respected.
And for the record - I have sent some emails of complaint and I got zero response.
Just because there are BETTER ways to do something doesn't mean our intention is to be a Jerk...although this thread is confirming that it isn't a one way street. Way to go.
I stand by what I said in the other thread. It is my way to be among the masses and I'll hope (even if its a snowballs hope in hell) that someone from WOTC is trolling these threads and something is done in the future. If you don't like it - put me on ignore.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 3:55PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2009
|
This isn't a text war. This is where I am personally stating what I think is wrong with the game. It may not be what everyone agrees with, but there are those out there who have the same feelings or relatively the same feelings about it as I do. No, it's not about the fact that I can just say, "Ah, to hell with it, I'll just go back to 3.5" , it's a matter of, "What can we do as players and DM's to make the game better?"
Yes, I put alot of negatives in the previous post because there are hardly any positives about 4E right now. They took alot of things out. You have to admit that you can't see any relevance between 3.5 and 4e if you look at the two PHB's or the two DMG's. They have been completely re-written.
It doesn't give the players who transferred; the die-hard core 3.5 fans, the feel of D&D anymore.
Hell, when 2nd Edition turned into 3rd, It took me a bit of getting used to, but there were similarities between the two editions that let me know: "Hey, it's still D&D, even though TSR was sold. It's still got the foundation of Dungeons and Dragons, still has that feel."
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 4:01PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2008
|
So I suppose you would prefer that casters get 500 spells that they can permute and combine to become basically omnipotent while warriors have to stick with basic attacks, basic abilities, nothing out of the ordinary?
Casters had to be pared down, brought to a more reasonable level with everyone else, so their concept had to change from 'do everything' to 'do specific things'.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 4:05PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2009
|
Panzeh, exactly.
Don't completely overpower the spellcasters, but at least balance them to be capable either in a group or by himself. I am not saying do it like 3rd edition and give the guy Wish this and Disjunction that. But completely revamp the spell list, balance the power out a bit. Let's face it, wizards in 4e don't have 30 spells to choose from on a 1st level spell list, you know?
Clerics only have 5 spells to choose from and they are only effective if you meet certain prerequisites. 4 of the 1st level abilities for a cleric are tailored to Battle Clerics only. You must be in the heat of battle to use these abilities. It almost doesn't give you the option of being a sit-back full support cleric. You must be at the forefront. Not to mention that Clerics aren't as needed as they used to be because Fighters and other classes can HEAL themselves now.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 4:14PM
#27
|
|
|
I have to disagree with Jorgandr on the Cleric point.
It's completely possible, and in fact, viable to have a "sit backs and shoots divine lasers" cleric. The "Lazer Cleric" archetype focuses on Wisdom-based implement attacks, and can function without picking up a mace if they don't want to.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 4:16PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2008
|
Jorgandr, that is because those are the lists of, specifically, combat-oriented spells. That is why they are the daily and encounter attack spells/prayers. Rituals have taken the place of the enormous percentage of the old spell-lists dedicated to non-combat spells, save those non-combat spells that require a swift casting. Those latter types of spells have instead been made into Utility powers. Combat is the portion of the game in which raw balance between the numbers behind classes is the most important, and thus it is the portion of the rules most in need of heavy-handed codification. That is what 4E, by and large, delivers.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 4:17PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2009
|
Yeah, but if you put a 4e Cleric against a 3.5 cleric, the 4e Cleric is completely outgunned. That's just what some 3.5 converters are complaining about. They're used to the 'foundation of D&D' . 4e completely changed things around, so they aren't used to this. They're asking: "Where did all the powers for a cleric go?" or "Why is a Fighter so weak?"
I have to agree, the Fighters have been seriously cut in power. I've seen Rogues in 4e do more damage than Fighters. Something's up there.
Even so, support in battle saved my arse when playing a cleric in 3.5 . Even the cruddiest spells can be most effective.
In the end, I am just saying that people who are coming from 3.5 to 4th are having difficult times accepting the power decrease. It's mainly the problem.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2009 - 4:19PM
#30
|
|
|
Clerics only have 5 spells to choose from and they are only effective if you meet certain prerequisites.
How is this different from other editions? Didn't you always have to meet certain prerequisites to be effective at your class? Heck, I remember when a cleric's Wisdom score determined how many spells he could memorize at a time.
4 of the 1st level abilities for a cleric are tailored to Battle Clerics only. You must be in the heat of battle to use these abilities. It almost doesn't give you the option of being a sit-back full support cleric. You must be at the forefront.
Except that it does give you the option of being a sit-back cleric, since the other half of the 1st level abilities are ranged. Have you actually played 4th edition?
Not to mention that Clerics aren't as needed as they used to be because Fighters and other classes can HEAL themselves now.
Once per encounter, for 1/4th of their total hit points, while they're still conscious. Unless, of course, there's a CLERIC (or other type of leader) in the party. Have you actually played 4th edition?
|
|
|
