|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 3:15PM
#31
|
|
|
If I sound chastising, it's because I don't like it when people say "blah, this is wrong," without actually taking the time to think about it, determine if it really IS wrong, and giving it at least enough credit to mull it over.
Maybe people have taken the time to think about and mull it over... and still don't like it.
I guess there must be something wrong with them?
Violence only works if you use it.
Set the controls for maximum HATE!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 3:21PM
#32
|
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2004
|
Maybe people have taken the time to think about and mull it over... and still don't like it.
I guess there must be something wrong with them?
Nope.
But if they sit around and complain, rather than playing something that makes them happy, and let other people play whatever games make them happy.....that does not a wonderful life make. Constructive criticism can help, sure, but for that, you have to understand why the changes were made, not just what they are.
........As a total aside. HATER, ever since that one guy suggested hearing everything you say in the voice of the two heckling muppets, Statler and Waldorf, everything you've posted has become incredibly awesome.
Go forth and heckle, HATER. I loves ya! :D
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 3:22PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Why did you expect 4e to be a version of 3.5 modified slightly to your tastes? 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 3:35PM
#34
|
|
|
Nope.
But if they sit around and complain, rather than playing something that makes them happy, and let other people play whatever games make them happy.....that does not a wonderful life make. Constructive criticism can help, sure, but for that, you have to understand why the changes were made, not just what they are.
But they didn't sit around and complain. They played, found some things they didn't like, came here to voice their concerns/opinion, and got flamed and baited.
........As a total aside. HATER, ever since that one guy suggested hearing everything you say in the voice of the two heckling muppets, Statler and Waldorf, everything you've posted has become incredibly awesome.
Go forth and heckle, HATER. I loves ya! :D
:heehee
Yeah, that was pretty funny!
Violence only works if you use it.
Set the controls for maximum HATE!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 4:10PM
#35
|
|
|
OP here,
To answer a few common general comments,
Yes, I am about a year late. And yes, I've actually played the game. Those two are related. I've been playing the game since it came out. Most of that time has been DMing. I have most of the supplements, and a DDI subscription.
I liked 3.5 quite a bit, but a few things about it felt mechanically clunky. My problem with 4e has nothing to do with the mechanics. Mechanically, it's very polished.
The complaints that I've had come from both me, and my fellow players. Some here, some there.
I get the idea that "it sucks to be punished for a certain power source" but there was something very flavourful about, say, magic not working in silence, let alone antimagic. Magic has become so reliable now that it seems less, well, magical.
I'm not saying that magic should be completely vance -- wizards being able to contribute a few spells to every fight is one of the best design decisions they made -- but daily martial powers just feel weird!
To reply to a specific complaint, the problem I have with the +1 being at 12 is this: take an ordinary power that says, say "you may slide the target a number of squares equal to your wisdom modifier."
The assumption is that in order for that power to be useful, you have a wisdom of at least 12. This means that in order to use the power, you had better be above average in wisdom. In short, your ordinary character with average scores often makes a very poor PC. I'm not against the idea that the PCs are a cut above the norm, but in most cases, a PC is at above average in -every- score.
Additionally, the comments about "page 42" being the catch all answer for things like tripping misses the point. An edition shouldn't go backwards in terms of what it supports.
I'm not saying I want 3.75. The mechanical assumptions behind 3.5 needed to change. Things like adding level to defense AND attack, or the way standard/move/minor actions work in combat -- those were all good changes. It feels like in order to gain some things though, we lost others.
In particular, the usage of homogeny for balance feels like a copout. Surely years of development could have done a better job than "everyone has the same power structure?"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 4:18PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Have you tried playing the game?
A lot of your issues are nonsense btw.
Did you read his post? Because he said:
"I've only GMed at the heroic level, but I've already noticed something."
And whatever you may see as "nonsense", may be real issues in other groups -- your opinion is not the universal truth, right? If this had been a typical "4E SUXXXX!"-type of post, I would understand your negative tone. However, I happen to think this post was very well thought and meant as *constructive* criticism and to raise discussion on subjects he feels should be "fixed", so he doesn't deserve this kind of replies.
If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 4:25PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
PCs aren't average at everything, unless they want to not excel at anything. Besides, they're HEROES, its part of the basic assumption of 4e that they are above average. Average folks don't put themselves in harms way like adventurers do, and if they do they don't survive long enough to gain a level.
Classes don't feel the same when you actual play them. As a DM all you see from the other side is the PCs bashing your monsters... its not the same thing as playing two different characters FROM THE SAME CLASS and realize they don't feel the same at all!
Basically PCs of different classes are as different from one another as two monsters of the same role and level are.
I love Horseshoecrabfolk.
What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 4:27PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2008
|
In particular, the usage of homogeny for balance feels like a copout. Surely years of development could have done a better job than "everyone has the same power structure?"
Not to detract from the rest of your post but this part is what I find interesting. In my humble opinion there are 2 camps of gamers/DMs:
Those that need Fluff
Those that don't.
The "homogeny" some see as a hindrance, is actually a feature to others. The basic stripped down rule and image says one thing but, that, like the Pirates Code is only guidelines really. You can make up as much fluff as you want as long as it fits the crunch.
That the Class Definitions. i think what it boils down to is that it hackles some peoples fur to be TOLD that their character is a Defender or a Striker.
They want to make what they want to make. Heck a lot of people don't like the roles at all. The thing is they were ALWAYS present. Now they have just been put down to paper.
I don't think it's homogeny. I think that each character if made right (that does not necessarily mean optimized or min/max) can shine just as bright as the next....just in a different hue.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 4:32PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
I get the idea that "it sucks to be punished for a certain power source" but there was something very flavourful about, say, magic not working in silence, let alone antimagic. Magic has become so reliable now that it seems less, well, magical.
There's still quite a bit of flavor left (see familiars and other X power source only abilities). They just removed the "cheap turn your powers off BS" that only existed as a balance kludge. Since 2nd ED I saw so many damn antimagic fields in various places that came to hate the things. Especially since they screwed the noobs mostly. The fact that the power sources exist means you can via DM fiat alter those fields into existance. But I'm so very glad they didn't tell new players that garbage was in any way shape or form a good idea.
but daily martial powers just feel weird!
Why? What is so incredibly odd about a martial character only having the opportunity to pull off a very tricky maneuver once a day? Why is this more odd then a deity only answering a cleric in dire needs prayers once a day? This is pure legacy issue right here I'm afraid.
To reply to a specific complaint, the problem I have with the +1 being at 12 is this: take an ordinary power that says, say "you may slide the target a number of squares equal to your wisdom modifier."
The assumption is that in order for that power to be useful, you have a wisdom of at least 12. This means that in order to use the power, you had better be above average in wisdom. In short, your ordinary character with average scores often makes a very poor PC. I'm not against the idea that the PCs are a cut above the norm, but in most cases, a PC is at above average in -every- score.
This I sorta agree with. I'd prefer slightly lower scores across the board, but I have a feeling we've been voted down on this one....
Additionally, the comments about "page 42" being the catch all answer for things like tripping misses the point. An edition shouldn't go backwards in terms of what it supports.
It didn't. It went forwards. Sunder, and pin are fight winning techniques. Giving them away for free would be bringing back instant win moves. Disarm is similarly awesome (or worthless) though not quite as bad as sunder, and thus is very restricted. Trip is the only one that can be given out as a maneuver, and even then it should kinda suck compared to a basic attack and be somewhat infrequent. Page 42 covers that nicely.
In particular, the usage of homogeny for balance feels like a copout. Surely years of development could have done a better job than "everyone has the same power structure?"
Once again why does the number of powers matter more then what the powers and class features do? I think when you look hard at it, the only reason you care at all is because it's different from what you're used to.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 4:33PM
#40
|
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2004
|
I think the problem is how concerns are voiced.
Any individual point in the OP's rant could be an interesting point of debate. We could talk about the cost effectiveness of rituals, for example, and it would be an interesting discussion about mundane skill, elitism within the magical community, and the cost effectiveness of accuracy versus price.
Or we could chat about expanding basic combat maneuvers, and we might add something flavorful to the game. A big block of problems, however, isn't very helpful as constructive material for debate. It would be like walking into a Cthulhu board and saying "You know, I think the frequent death, insanity, and madness isn't very good, and should be taken out of the game." Or saying that third edition was too fantastic, and wishing it was more down to earth and only mundane classes should matter. It's too broad a complaint to be worth much beyond saying "Well, that's not really the point."
Shift: just noticed the new post by the OP. Now we have something to delve into. :D
For attribute requirements within powers, I think it's important to note three things.
1) Your character advances two different attributes every time he gets +1 stat bonuses. So even if you have average stats, you can boost that secondary stat up a bit to make any relevant powers better.
2) Conversely, not every power per tier is going to have these sorts of subsections. There's usually a default option, sometimes two, for those who are just focused on primary, and haven't bothered with either of the secondary stats.
3) Unless I'm horribly mistaken, which I must admit has been known to happen, you won't find any of these stat bonuses that don't fall within the secondary stats of the class. Wizards don't have strength-requiring powers, paladins and intelligence just don't mix, and clerics don't need to be remotely agile. For each class, there are usually three stats to worry about and juggle points between. Most people focus on two, with a slight tip of the hat to the third, or ignore the third wheel completely. It helps round out a character, rewarding a fighter for reading his opponent's movements and good use of perception, without requiring that all fighter types be insightful.
The result, at least in this one's opinion, is a nice incentive to boost certain stats and be rewarded by the system, without terrible losses should the character choose a different path. Since that particular power isn't a necessity and it is balanced by others that rely on different stats or have other effects altogether, it forms a nice set of fair and diverse options.
|
|
|
