|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:22PM
#61
|
|
|
The former 3e players lament they can't build the exact same character they had in 3e. The characters they /do/ build make the 2e guy and myself facepalm with some of the selections they have made.
This seems to be the most common criticism of 4E that I run into. People expecting it to be the same. Or complaining that there aren't enough possible class combinations because they don't have the prestige classes and infinate multi-classing that they did before. Seems like they want their characters to be solos capable to taking on everything and being able to ignore the whole idea of working within a group. Maybe that's just my perception.
What I like about 4e is that while characters aren't always as useful as they could be (certain skill challenges have left my characters useless), there is always someone in the group who gets a moment to shine brighter because of it. A balanced group (by which I mean different attribute/skill priorities, not the defender/striker/leader/controller mechanic, the 'necessity' of which is BS) allows for great interaction, and I have yet to run into a character I couldn't build (OK, it was a little embarrassing when Dresden Files got its own RPG, making my efforts worthless). And every character I have built has been fun.
Heh, the main guy who does that is pur present DM. He's constantly "but it's not a pirate"...even though I've built him 3-4 characters that do the same kind of stuff. 3e fans /really/ seem to have a problem with refluffing. The ability to refluff in 4e is something that really sticks with me.
A prime example is, I wanted a paladin that was a 2h sword carrying bringer of divine justice. The "defender" paladin really doesn't do much for me. Avengers....kinda cool, /if/ you are tactically proficient enough to get your double rolls going on a regular basis. I decided I didn't like either of those chassis, nor did I care for the slayer or barbarian.
So, I made a ranger|cleric hybrid. With the hunters quarry, he can hit pretty hard (although not an optimized striker by any means) wears scale armor, has some healing, and other paladin-y type things. Who's to say he isn't a paladin?
Refluff to your little heart's content....4e lets you do what you want, how you want for the most part. I can't imagine going back.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 4:02PM
#62
|
|
|
The former 3e players lament they can't build the exact same character they had in 3e.
I can only think of one character I played in 3e that I can't make a reasonable facsimile of, and I probably could if I went way-out-there on the refluffing (a psion who specialized in the crystal-based attack powers).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 1:25AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
If D&DN has DDI or a version it would be smart IMHO for WoTC to bundle the 4th ed material with it somewhere evenif it is buried in an options menu. You pay youfee to keep using it and also get D&DN for free. Even if you never plan on using it you have that option and can always try it or run a one off game if you want to take a break short term from 4th.
If D&DN doesn't have DDI I would more or less expect DDI to be shut down around the launch or just after of D&DN.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 10:01AM
#64
|
|
|
A prime example is, I wanted a paladin that was a 2h sword carrying bringer of divine justice. The "defender" paladin really doesn't do much for me. Avengers....kinda cool, /if/ you are tactically proficient enough to get your double rolls going on a regular basis. I decided I didn't like either of those chassis, nor did I care for the slayer or barbarian.
So, I made a ranger|cleric hybrid. With the hunters quarry, he can hit pretty hard (although not an optimized striker by any means) wears scale armor, has some healing, and other paladin-y type things. Who's to say he isn't a paladin?
Refluff to your little heart's content....4e lets you do what you want, how you want for the most part. I can't imagine going back.
As discussed in other threads, between lvl4 and lvl21, the Avenger I play with has only been denied his double roll 7 times (once last week!) in his entire career. that isn't really a limitation.
I'm not playing an assassin! I'm playing a paladin of the Raven Queen.
Colors
Show
Bow down, my subjects, for I am your master! Yesss.....
Show
For some reason, none of my friends were surprised by this...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 12:10PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
|
All I can say is if they don't continue to support 4E it won't be long till they lose a lot of buyers. I will continue to pay for the tools like Builder, and the others but if they completely drop them I will drop Wizards and can only pray to the gods of D&D that a benevolent savior saves our beloved worlds from destruction worse that the spell-plague.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 10:02AM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
If D&DN has DDI or a version it would be smart IMHO for WoTC to bundle the 4th ed material with it somewhere evenif it is buried in an options menu. You pay youfee to keep using it and also get D&DN for free.
Strikes me as a likely tactic. That way they can count ongoing 4e-fan DDI subscriptions as 5e sales, since they'll be 'buying' 5e to keep access to the old 4e tools.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 12:30PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
If D&DN has DDI or a version it would be smart IMHO for WoTC to bundle the 4th ed material with it somewhere evenif it is buried in an options menu. You pay youfee to keep using it and also get D&DN for free.
Strikes me as a likely tactic. That way they can count ongoing 4e-fan DDI subscriptions as 5e sales, since they'll be 'buying' 5e to keep access to the old 4e tools.
I don't think it would count as a sale itself...otherwise, PF would still be 2nd place if the sales took into account 4e's DDI subscribers per month as a sale. And seeing how much they have talked about online support for D&DNext...at this point i am starting to doubt they will keep DDI as a service, they are way to obsesed with the old ways...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 4:55PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
mexrage I suspect DDI cannibaliased sales of 4th ed books. In theory $15 a month would probably make you more money as a company than selling a book to a distributer assuming the average D&D player would even buy a new D&D book each month. Another problem is you really only need 1 account per D&D group.
It does however create problems at the grass roots level with FLGS competing directly with WoTC to distribute their material. If 4th ed gamers are buying direct form WoTC it actually gives incentive to FLGS to sell books from rival companies such as Pathfinder and you get a situation where they can't sell 4th ed books if 4th ed players prefer DDI as the books are basically optional at this point. So DDI has a double whammy attached to it with a third being it reduces visabilty of 4th ed material at the local level.
Sometimes giving consumers options is bad from a company point of view. Pathfinder PRD is free but you do not get a character builder, every splatbooks material and a monster builder as well. Those are great tools but they invalidate book sales. DDI is a great tool if you like 4th ed but it would not surprise me if D&DN does not have a verison of DDI or something. DDI is great for the consumer but I suspect it was a double edged sword. I could be completely wrong of course but DDI being so good may have cannibalised 4th ed sales from 4th ed fans. It doesn't increase your profit margin but decreases it.
Try not to take it as a dig at 4th ed I would have loved a similar program for 3.5. DDI was so good it may have been bad and its like giving a large kid a bag of candy and a bucket of fried chicken and telling him to make it last a week.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 5:19PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
mexrage I suspect DDI cannibaliased sales of 4th ed books. In theory $15 a month would probably make you more money as a company than selling a book to a distributer assuming the average D&D player would even buy a new D&D book each month. Another problem is you really only need 1 account per D&D group.
It does however create problems at the grass roots level with FLGS competing directly with WoTC to distribute their material. If 4th ed gamers are buying direct form WoTC it actually gives incentive to FLGS to sell books from rival companies such as Pathfinder and you get a situation where they can't sell 4th ed books if 4th ed players prefer DDI as the books are basically optional at this point. So DDI has a double whammy attached to it with a third being it reduces visabilty of 4th ed material at the local level.
Sometimes giving consumers options is bad from a company point of view. Pathfinder PRD is free but you do not get a character builder, every splatbooks material and a monster builder as well. Those are great tools but they invalidate book sales. DDI is a great tool if you like 4th ed but it would not surprise me if D&DN does not have a verison of DDI or something. DDI is great for the consumer but I suspect it was a double edged sword. I could be completely wrong of course but DDI being so good may have cannibalised 4th ed sales from 4th ed fans. It doesn't increase your profit margin but decreases it.
Try not to take it as a dig at 4th ed I would have loved a similar program for 3.5. DDI was so good it may have been bad and its like giving a large kid a bag of candy and a bucket of fried chicken and telling him to make it last a week.
The thing is...DDI was incomplete, it never delievered what it intended, if DDI was to have everything it meant to have, it would justify having more than 1 account for gaming group, make more people to keep it's subscription instead of sporaidic subscription and even more...attract new people into it that is otherwise outside of the PnP Tabletop RPG market...It turned into an even worst situation when WotC decided to make everything online only, alot of people cancelled their sub out of inconvenience (also when it was cancelled, was the last update before essentials, and alot of 4e players didn't care for the direction of essentials so for most part, they didn't care for having their Character Builder updated) and others decided to drop subscription and went for other "options" out of boycot against WotC of changing the direction of the service and product that was delievered to them.
I will say this, if it wasn't for online tools, compedium, DDI and stuff...i wouldn't care less to play D&D at all, being player or DM...even the SRD from Paizo is not enough (this is one of the reasons i don't care that much to try other systems, as i consider it more of a chore for those systems). I have alot of things to do with my time, i can't afford myself loosing more time than i do with something that should be fast and easy thru online software and tools, it's the freaking 2013....
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 5:31PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
DDI promised much and failed to deliver. Software development costs millions and problems can sink a project. WoTC wasn't the first and won't be the last company to fall victim to this. Its more or less the way it goes.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
