|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 8:32PM
#1
|
|
|
I thought I saw it in the preview book for 4e.
It would have been interesting if some of the controller role stuff was baked into the class, making subclass building much less cookie cutter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 4:55AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
Wow, and here I thought I was the only person in the world who'd read those.
Yes, you're correct, but the book is pretty clearly describing the Wizard's encounter spells: "Power words are spells that drain energy from you, but not so much that you need a long period of rest to recover. With a minute to catch your breath, you can concentrate and summon forth the energies needed to use your power words... [they] are your most trustworthy tool, spells that you use again and again in a variety of situations." (R&C 76)
...You know, I can't help but wonder if one of the reason I like 4e and none of my friends do is because I've read these books, and actually got all the fluff that wasn't in the PHB. Food for thought.
EDIT: Wow, you ORCs are quick tonight. Insomnia much?
-m4ki; one down, one to go "Retro is not new.
Retro-fit is not new."
--Seeker95,
on why I won't be playing DDN
| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II |
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk.
2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy.
3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia.
4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk.
5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
Show
1. When in doubt, wing it.
2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow.
3. Sometimes things make the best characters.
4. Always give players lots of things to do.
5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’
6. Cheating is largely unnecessary.
7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy.
8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange.
9. Avoid talking too much.
10. Save some details for later.
11. Be transparent.
12. Don't show all your cards.
Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
Show
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:06AM
#3
|
|
|
I've removed content from this thread because off topic posts are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 09, 2012 - 12:22PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
...You know, I can't help but wonder if one of the reason I like 4e and none of my friends do is because I've read these books, and actually got all the fluff that wasn't in the PHB. Food for thought.
The preview books are pretty fantastic, so it's quite possible.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 16, 2012 - 8:48PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
What are the preview books?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 17, 2012 - 9:59PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2011
|
What are the preview books?
They were released when Wizards was in the midst of creating 4e, and they gave us, essentially, a few small books few full of article-style previews, which included one of my favorites, Worlds and Monsters. That book included some good explanations of the rearranged plane situation, the introduction of new races like tieflings and dragonborn, and explained the "points of light" concept in-depth.
--BladeMaelstrom
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 18, 2012 - 7:46AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
Oh right, I think I remember those now.
|
|
|
