|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 1:37PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2009
|
For the life of me, I fail to understand how constantly tweaking and balancing the game based on feedback in order to make the game fun for everyone is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 1:38PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2008
|
TWF Ranger, Toughness+Melee is more safe for you.
Though you could try a 2h Fighter or Paladin.
A smity weapon paladin could be of great benefit, though you may wish to keep Lay on Hands and try MC'c into Leaders to gain extra healing.
Alternatively if you have Primal Power and the PHB2, a Lifeblood warden would work.
For your PrC i'd reccomend the Symbarch of Aglarond, or MCing into Rogue and focusing on hiding and the Master Infiltrator.
For the later, focus on Wide area AOE damage and hope you crit or kill something that's higher level than you. That will give you the option to run away if things go sour (your friend will be screwed though).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 2:13PM
#23
|
|
|
Opra: "For the life of me, I fail to understand how constantly tweaking and balancing the game based on feedback in order to make the game fun for everyone is a bad thing."
Yeah, Iv a couple of friends who prefer 3e. I keep asking them to try explain in words what it is 3e has, that 4e lacks. But all their explanations just dont seem to make sense to me.
LOL! All I hear is something to this effect ...
"I dont need no dentist! I got two tooth to chew - and thats good enough for me!"
I know Im being unfair, but I honestly dont get it.
Anyway, one of the main gripes is the *consistency* of 4e. The wildness and imbalance of 3e doesnt have the same element of surprise in 4e. Nor does rules mastery have the same reward. Nevertheless, this unpredictability of the level of adversity is a job for the DM to do, not the job for sloppy mechanics to do.
It was a 3e-DM who used the rule to mix up the levels of encounter challenges. Some encounters should be very low level, extremely easy, and players should enjoy flexing their powers. Some encounters should be sweat-dripping uncertainties. And some encounters should be a much higher level than appropriate - and these are the encounters players must recognize to run away from. About 1 in 8 encounters should be near impossible. This DMing rule made 3e more interesting. But for 4e, the rule is much more important because the rules themselves are so balanced. On the other hand, the well-balanced rules give the DM tools to precisely calibrate the level of the encounter that the DM intends - and that makes the game experience better.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 2:16PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Dec 24, 2004
|
Last night we were wrapping up our 3rd edition game for the night and while we were discussing the 4th edition game we had four players in our group decide they were quitting the 4th edition game and sticking with our 3rd edition game.
All four players have played 4th every step of the way but they just could not get into it. One person said that playing the game just seems like a chore, another player says that he likes the 3rd edition rules better and would just like to devote his time to that edition, one player says he feels extremely limited with regards to the players and he is sick of the endless errata that makes the game unstable, and the last one likes the complexity of 3rd edition better.
We are all veteran gamers of 25+ years and before you start saying well it's our DM's fault for not doing this or doing that. Being a consumer of a product means that you are never at fault. These four guys are heavy gamers and die hard D&D fans and it saddens me that in this edition Wizards failed to produce a game that these long time veterans of D&D would walk away from.
Personally I like 3rd edition better and I'm glad we still have a game going. I will continue to play 4th edition because we have a few people (2 out of 8) who really do enjoy it so I don't want to ruin their fun by not having enough people to play.
Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition or quit gaming period because of 4th edition?
P.S We are down to a Leader (Tac Warlord), Defender (Swordmage Aegis of Assault), and a Controller (Staff Wizard). I am currently playing the Wizard because I believe we need some kind of striker in the party and while I don't want to give up my Wizard we will be in trouble without some kind of good damage output. This is one of the gripes I have about the game. If I were playing a Wizard, Cleric or Druid I could modify my spells to make me a decent melee fighter. What type of striker do you recommend I go with?
to me it sounds like these players were not going to like 4th don't matter what. I wish there was a name for that type of player.
The player who will try a new system, but no matter how good or bad it is they will find reason to hate it and can't find anything good about it
I read threads like this. I look to see if the players in question could find anything good about the new system, but still prefer the old system. If they do find somethings they like and others things they don't about the new edintion, I believe they gave it a honest try but prefer the older edidtion
When I read that the players find nothing good about the new system I know they didn't try it. There were going to hate it, and find flaws that are not there.
I think your player are those players. They were going to hate 4th no matter what. I had a few players like that.
"Ok I am going to attack the goblin"
"With what power"
" I am just going to attack him"
" We know but you have powers to hit him with'
" But I just want to swing my sword at him"
"soooo a basic melee attack?"
" Yes I will do that"
"why your powers are just like a melee attack, but with additional benfits"
"God 4th is so dumb."
I really wish I was making this up but this is a converstation with a guy who was going to hate 4th don't matter what
The only thing that gets me as to player's concerning 4e is that those that never read/played 4e
always seems to gripe or "CRY" that this or that dont work,and they have no real clue what they are talking about.It's a shame,after all, 4e is a sweet game well made.So i guess when looking for new player's,one must ask......dice or tissues!!
I say dice!!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 2:19PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition...
No we gained a player who stopped playing because of 3.x
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 2:54PM
#26
|
|
|
I also need to mention the current 4e DM. He has what I can only describe as a 'multivalent' approach to rules errata.
His philosophy is, just be because the errata exists doesnt mean we need to implement it right away. He is very comfortable with letting each player choose for their own character what new rule or erratum they want to implement. Even if different players choose conflicting rules.
For example, my character uses the inherent-enhancement bonus option, but none of the other characters do. Other players have been given a choice whether or not they want to implement a new erratum that would impact their character.
So far, wev seen no detrimental consequences to this laissez-faire approach. Everything seems balanced so far. Indeed that is a testimony to the overall stability and balance of the 4e game.
By tying specific to rules to specific characters, it helps contain any unintended consequences. The quirks even grant a kind of unique flavor to each character. Players regulate their own rules variants.
This approach also makes adapting to rules errata a comfortable transition.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 2:56PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2009
|
For the life of me, I fail to understand how constantly tweaking and balancing the game based on feedback in order to make the game fun for everyone is a bad thing.
Stability is very important when it comes to any game that has rules. If my car is in the shop more than it's on the road then I can't enjoy it. Besides, if I have a car that it only two years old and it has to go to the shop as much as it does then I would think about buying another car because it should have been done to start with.
No there is no perfect balance when it comes to games and I understand this but Wizards honestly needs to stop trying to achieve the impossible.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 2:59PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2009
|
I also need to mention the current 4e DM. He has what I can only describe as a 'multivalent' approach to rules errata.
His philosophy is, just be because the errata exists doesnt mean we need to implement it right away. He is very comfortable with letting each player choose for their own character what new rule or erratum they want to implement. Even if different players choose conflicting rules.
For example, my character uses the inherent-enhancement bonus option, but none of the other characters do. Other players have been given a choice whether or not they want to implement a new erratum that would impact their character.
So far, wev seen no detrimental consequences to this laissez-faire approach. Everything seems balanced so far. Indeed that is a testimony to the overall stability and balance of the 4e game.
By tying specific to rules to specific characters, it helps contain any unintended consequences. The quirks even grant a kind of unique flavor to each character. Players regulate their own rules variants.
This approach also makes adapting to rules errata a comfortable transition.
We tried this before and we had nothing but problems. Someone would do something using the errata and if the DM wasn't then we would have to stop the game in order for the DM to look over it if a problem came up.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 3:06PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2006
|
Being a consumer of a product means that you are never at fault.
A long history of axe murderers, gun-wielding assassins, vindictive poisoners and countless other consumers beg to differ with you.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 3:10PM
#30
|
|
|
Philosophically, D&D is game that is in touch with the way society and humanity is evolving.
During the 70s and 80s, D&D concretized the feeling that individuals can and do make their own worlds. They dont have to obey historical tradition. If they dont like an ideology (even religion), they can just make up a new one that they do like. This ... awareness ... scandalized and terrified many in the previous generation for who tradition was sacrosanct.
Now in the 21st century, especially in America, I dont think change itself scares anyone. Not to the same degree anyway.
However, what might be scaring people is the *rate* of change.
The 21st century is a time of *accelerating* technological and social changes. It may be the older generation doesnt really have the skills to cope with this kind of change, whereas the younger generation is internalizing the necessary skills and aptitudes to adapt to this rate of change.
As far as D&D goes. I wonder if there is a generational gap between players who can handle changing rules (ie errata) and players who cant who yearn for their rules to remain carved in stone and ... not exactly immutable but sluggish.
|
|
|
