i don't think you're the only one who does that.. Someone else I seem to remember does that too, I think.. Ally, help me out here? who was that?
It may actually have ben me. I may have ranted on that particular point before. You know, because it is eterenally frustrtating to do something that stupid to myself. Although things are coming around full-circle now, at least for one of my games. I erased my windwaker save file - actually, I overwrote my finished gamefile without copying it when I beat the game. But now I'm actually in the mood to play through the game agian, so I can enjoy link's pajamas.
I'm very much looking forward to 4th Edition D&D. It seems like they've really come to a point where they can express their design intentions in ways that makes it easy to understand what game mechanics are supposed to do. All that I've been seeing so far has been exciting.
It looks like they're going to take a very different approach to both class and class balance, which is welcome. In addition, "powers," including magic, etc, will have a different integration with character concepts.
Anyone else been tuning in?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Not a bit. I've been kinda turned off from D&D 4E, mostly because 3.5 wasn't broken. So why fix it? They could've made 4 a 'D&D 3.5.5', with changes to balance the issues.
I would say it was "not broken" in the sense of being sufficient for play, but I disagree with you insofar as I think there were/are long-term balance issues that stem from the very nature of class abilities and levels, that simply couldn't be fixed by an additional .5 of an edition. I remain cautiously optimistic about 4E.
I would be reading the regular updates, but my Dungeon/Dragon account spontaneously stopped working.
I'm very much looking forward to 4th Edition D&D. It seems like they've really come to a point where they can express their design intentions in ways that makes it easy to understand what game mechanics are supposed to do. All that I've been seeing so far has been exciting.
It looks like they're going to take a very different approach to both class and class balance, which is welcome. In addition, "powers," including magic, etc, will have a different integration with character concepts.
Anyone else been tuning in?
I had the initial reaction of suspicion about their motives. I also thought they were basically overstating the brokenness of 3.5 in order to sell a new set of core and supplements. But after looking into it, I see a system that is so much more fixed than I could have imagined. A lot of the things I had really not liked about 3.5 are getting attention and that really had just never occured to me.
I do hope that they don't oversimplify things, though. The new rules for grappling seem childishly simple, even if the old rules are among 3.5's archaicly complex system. I look forward to better base classes, more balance for each class at each level, and an easier calculation of encounters/experience/wild shape/all the crap that takes you a half hour to calculate.
And Warlock is now a base class striker! finally! And sorcerer gets the boot!
Sorcerer is actually still a class, it's just not in Player's Handbook I.
I'm not yet aware of the new rules for grappling, except that there will be some. Perhaps I'll check the page again for updates.
Oversimplification doesn't seem like an appropriate guess at this point, because there are mechanics that will already known to become more complex. Complex skill checks will be more common, especially in social situations. It's evident they plan for spatial relationships to come into play more, as well.
It's seems like they are "streamlining," much in the way that True20 and Saga (both distinct from regular d20 to different degrees) did. We'll have to wait for more information for the final verdict, though.
I'm looking forward to the things you mentioned, Wamyc, as well as the format for how they're going to do classes now. Just as a designer, I'm quite excited.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
While I haven't been following real closely, it seems like this is the first time they've more or less attempted to build from the foundation up to really work out the bugs rather than attempting to do an overhaul on a standing structure. A lot of D&D stuff, even if it isn't explicitly broken, may not be as good as it -could- be. The grappling rules get picked on a lot, but in general (in design of anything at all, not just RP systems) it's not good if a feature is complex enough that many users avoid it. In RP systems, this is especially a big deal if balance is affected by this; for example, if the game is balanced around the idea that strengthly guys and gals will often initiate grapples against casters to keep them in check but many players don't because they don't want to mess with the grapple rules, this throws balance off.
Grapple rules, like most RP rules, have to serve two masters: they must accommodate a player's desire to grapple an opponent where it narratively makes sense to do so, and they must provide balance checks and balances. If the grapple rules are complex enough to discourage players from grappling, they don't do either. If they're too simple in the wrong way, they might not reflect what a story-centric player believes grappling should be able to do and what happens when something grapples something else. All else being equal, however, complexity generally is grievously harmful in design. (That's kind of a simplification - certain kinds of complexity can be used to sell certain products, since complex designs often seem more feature-rich to users even if they're not.)
Supplements seem to be a good place for additional complexity for groups that want it. Most groups don't want to mess with the effects of climate too much, but an extreme environments supplement can accommodate them. The same is true of things like very large scale battles between armies and numerical nuances for social interaction. This encourages players to add complexity where they want it, instead of junking portions of the rules as written to get rid of it where they don't (with unpredictable balance effects.)
EDIT: Joyd casts Wall of Text, apparently. Let's break this up a bit.
Sorcerer is actually still a class, it's just not in Player's Handbook I.
I'm not yet aware of the new rules for grappling, except that there will be some. Perhaps I'll check the page again for updates.
Oversimplification doesn't seem like an appropriate guess at this point, because there are mechanics that will already known to become more complex. Complex skill checks will be more common, especially in social situations. It's evident they plan for spatial relationships to come into play more, as well.
It's seems like they are "streamlining," much in the way that True20 and Saga (both distinct from regular d20 to different degrees) did. We'll have to wait for more information for the final verdict, though.
I'm looking forward to the things you mentioned, Wamyc, as well as the format for how they're going to do classes now. Just as a designer, I'm quite excited.
I don't want them to get rid of sorcerers altogether. In fact, I think I prefer it to Wizard as a more appropriate base class in terms of simplifying things. But I think spellcasters have the most work to be done on them in general to give them balance of power and complexity, so it's hard to say what they will do with them in the end for 4th ed.
What I've heard about the new grappling rules is that if you want to take a standard full round action, you can do so to grapple some one. No check needed. Likewise, you can spend an action (full round or standard) to break all grapples on you. And you can supplement grappling with feats, but it is super basic as is. I have heard nothing about strength or size mods.
While I haven't been following real closely, it seems like this is the first time they've more or less attempted to build from the foundation up to really work out the bugs rather than attempting to do an overhaul on a standing structure. A lot of D&D stuff, even if it isn't explicitly broken, may not be as good as it -could- be. The grappling rules get picked on a lot, but in general (in design of anything at all, not just RP systems) it's not good if a feature is complex enough that many users avoid it. In RP systems, this is especially a big deal if balance is affected by this; for example, if the game is balanced around the idea that strengthly guys and gals will often initiate grapples against casters to keep them in check but many players don't because they don't want to mess with the grapple rules, this throws balance off.
Grapple rules, like most RP rules, have to serve two masters: they must accommodate a player's desire to grapple an opponent where it narratively makes sense to do so, and they must provide balance checks and balances. If the grapple rules are complex enough to discourage players from grappling, they don't do either. If they're too simple in the wrong way, they might not reflect what a story-centric player believes grappling should be able to do and what happens when something grapples something else. All else being equal, however, complexity generally is grievously harmful in design. (That's kind of a simplification - certain kinds of complexity can be used to sell certain products, since complex designs often seem more feature-rich to users even if they're not.)
Supplements seem to be a good place for additional complexity for groups that want it. Most groups don't want to mess with the effects of climate too much, but an extreme environments supplement can accommodate them. The same is true of things like very large scale battles between armies and numerical nuances for social interaction. This encourages players to add complexity where they want it, instead of junking portions of the rules as written to get rid of it where they don't (with unpredictable balance effects.)
EDIT: Joyd casts Wall of Text, apparently. Let's break this up a bit.
I agree. Complexity should never be a deterrent to use a feature. And I think there are a lot of features like this in 3.5; even for experienced players. And try convincing a newbie that D&D is worthwhile when you have to scare them ten times with how complicated the game is just in making a character. Calming down such a player and convincing them to contine - that's a diplomacy check that's easy to fail.
Hello all again, I come back to you shortly with a quick question...
What level character do you think would be equivalent in power/whatever to a Planeswalker? Would it have to have Divine Ranks? (Not to break up the discussion on 4Ed.)
Also, I am sticking to 3.5, too late to go buy new books and all, especially when we hardly get together to play anyways.
It's hard to say, because of what happened in Future Sight. Planeswalkers have lost their godlyness, and become powerful characters with an uber-powerful spell. The problem is, plane-hopping isn't hard at all in D&D; a simple Plane Shift spell or Gate will do the trick.
Well, there are planeswalkers of different levels of power (even before the future sight depowering). Some are godlike, and some are simply high-level casters. Like Ala says, Plane Shift is good enough for the actual act of planeswalking. Since planeswalkers can cast more or less any spell there is, a mid-to-high-level arcane caster seems the closest. Even before the depowering, most of the impressive stuff planeswalkers do can be accomplished with regular spells, such as Genesis. Some of the more legendary planeswalkers might be epic characters, but there's no reason to make them divine. Some planeswalkers, like Serra, probably do have divine rank, and in fact have many of the trappings of divinity, such as a divine realm and (arguably) the ability to grant spells to their clerics. However, old planeswalkers are kind of weird in that they're not really mortal; they're sort of transcendent mortals. I don't know how you'd represent that. In a sense, they're perhaps all at least demigods. Another clue is that Wizards considered planeswalkers way too powerful to represent on a card, which means that they're more powerful than a 20/20 flying indestructible legend. (Marit Lage is -nearly- as powerful as a planeswalker, and can even planeswalk, but isn't one.)
The wiki describes "old" planeswalkers as being about as powerful as the most powerful mortal wizards, which makes them probably epic characters if they're not divine. New planeswalkers, on the other hand, probably range in power between a mid-level caster and an epic level character. (While it's a horrible comparison to make, most of the existing planeswalker cards can be defeated in combat by mid-sized creatures.)
What level character do you think would be equivalent in power/whatever to a Planeswalker? Would it have to have Divine Ranks? (Not to break up the discussion on 4Ed.
The wiki describes "old" planeswalkers as being about as powerful as the most powerful mortal wizards, which makes them probably epic characters if they're not divine. New planeswalkers, on the other hand, probably range in power between a mid-level caster and an epic level character. (While it's a horrible comparison to make, most of the existing planeswalker cards can be defeated in combat by mid-sized creatures.)
I would estimate things a little higher in favor of planeswalkers being more powerful on both accounts. Old planeswalkers are probably more like epic casters - approximately 15-30 casting levels, I'd say, with a LA+10 planeswalker template added on that comes with a number of awesome benefits.
I'm not sure how much has changed in the new estimation of planeswalkers, but I don't think they are on par with a mid-range creature, as that merely represents the amount of power needed to make the walker in question stop being loyal to you, not the power needed to destroy him/her. The new planeswalkers, or at least how they are represented in the cards themselves, would be best converted to a magical staff with a certain number of charges, or perhaps a summoned outsider that draws power from the planeswalker in question.
Quote from Oceanos »
Also, I am sticking to 3.5, too late to go buy new books and all, especially when we hardly get together to play anyways.
I think I will actually buy core for 4.0 - that is unless they screw the pooch. But I am actually getting to play D&D regularly now and I think my playgroup will be online for the update. But 3.5 is by no means inherently flawed. I suppose I can hope that 4th comes out and makes it look that way by comparison, but 3.5 is really fun if a bit unwieldy.
Well, we all love yo play, it's just hard to get everyone together, and it gets annoying when people "phase out" or "go 2d and follow the party". And nobody wants to play a character they don't know...
Well, I am sticking with 3.5, but we actually made a date for a weekend long mini-campaign...So that's good news.
Second ed? Wow. that takes me back. I didn't play much but I'd give it a spin again just for kicks.
Has anyone else noticed this little glitch to get past Wizards' premium account requirements? I'll repost it here because I think it allows you to get more info on 4thed. I really don't know what to do with it ATM since I'm unfamiliar with the site but I am going to check it out.
Well if you're following 4th edition, the difference between the two is going to be less than it has in past. That is, the flavor is going to be the same but since nobody likes Vancian spellcasting 4E wizards are going to be a lot more like psions.
I realize this is off topic, but if anybody has interest in D&D 4th edition I want to point out that you don't need the coveted D&D Insider account to access their information. Here's a simple way to get past it.
It it shameful that this works. I've even e-mailed them about this and they haven't fixed it. Anyway, in the designer developments they have some neat stuff about 4E, and I believe psioncs have been mentioned too. There's more here too: http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
Hey, I'm thinking of taking this old clan and shaking it down, posting up a new thread and all that. How's that sound to everybody? Seeing as how the Pen & Paper Inn is enjoying some regular activity, I thought this one could too.
Sounds like a good idea to me. [/comments from a non-member]
All I found so far with my illicit hacking into WOTC's DnD insider page was a link to an awesome series of hilarious Youtube flash promos for 4th ed. Gnome with a minion.
The best part of the gnome and tiefling animation is that it's official release promo material. Which is really cool. Usually that kind of thing only gets done in a fan/parody way.
There's also another animation about a beholder. It isn't as funny imo, but it does explain that save or die effects are gone, replaced with a more gradual death. Also, that gives me hope that there will be more of these animations to come.
EDIT: Also, here's the link to the signup and an explanation. It's a really easy contest to be in this time around.
1 Pick a card.
2 Rianalnn gives us a criterion.
3 Each clan votes to eliminate the card that matches that criterion. The card with the most votes is out.
4 Repeat the last two steps and try to stay alive. Last one standing wins.
Clan Contest
Pick a Card. Any Card.
One card per clan.
Cards will be eliminated turn by turn in voting for critera that will be laid out by rianalnn each week.
Hmm, I agree with you on the saying, but yeah, it's pretty much pointless to try to get this clan into contests. On the ones we tried while I was around, we missed deadlines. Nobody really cared in the first place, but you know...
Well, this one is pretty easy. If no one else cares, you could probably do this one yourself Oceanos. It's just a matter of picking one card a week, and if you miss a week you can still keep playing.
There is a lot of discussion of the fact that 4e has Tieflings as a playable core race. I know the flash animation makes it seem cool, but the gleemax boards are less than pyched about it. It seems the *****ing about it rises above the level of the usual geek complaining when anything changes. I mean, tiefling is an odd choice, as they have presented them as having a demonic heritage but have encouraged DMs not to play up bias against them. Well, what is the point of that? You're supposed to get the cool factor of playing a nightcrawler type without any of the natural medieval provincial bias that comes with it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symr::symr: Elemental Synthesis :symu::symu:
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It may actually have ben me. I may have ranted on that particular point before. You know, because it is eterenally frustrtating to do something that stupid to myself. Although things are coming around full-circle now, at least for one of my games. I erased my windwaker save file - actually, I overwrote my finished gamefile without copying it when I beat the game. But now I'm actually in the mood to play through the game agian, so I can enjoy link's pajamas.
It looks like they're going to take a very different approach to both class and class balance, which is welcome. In addition, "powers," including magic, etc, will have a different integration with character concepts.
Anyone else been tuning in?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
I would be reading the regular updates, but my Dungeon/Dragon account spontaneously stopped working.
I had the initial reaction of suspicion about their motives. I also thought they were basically overstating the brokenness of 3.5 in order to sell a new set of core and supplements. But after looking into it, I see a system that is so much more fixed than I could have imagined. A lot of the things I had really not liked about 3.5 are getting attention and that really had just never occured to me.
I do hope that they don't oversimplify things, though. The new rules for grappling seem childishly simple, even if the old rules are among 3.5's archaicly complex system. I look forward to better base classes, more balance for each class at each level, and an easier calculation of encounters/experience/wild shape/all the crap that takes you a half hour to calculate.
And Warlock is now a base class striker! finally! And sorcerer gets the boot!
I'm not yet aware of the new rules for grappling, except that there will be some. Perhaps I'll check the page again for updates.
Oversimplification doesn't seem like an appropriate guess at this point, because there are mechanics that will already known to become more complex. Complex skill checks will be more common, especially in social situations. It's evident they plan for spatial relationships to come into play more, as well.
It's seems like they are "streamlining," much in the way that True20 and Saga (both distinct from regular d20 to different degrees) did. We'll have to wait for more information for the final verdict, though.
I'm looking forward to the things you mentioned, Wamyc, as well as the format for how they're going to do classes now. Just as a designer, I'm quite excited.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Grapple rules, like most RP rules, have to serve two masters: they must accommodate a player's desire to grapple an opponent where it narratively makes sense to do so, and they must provide balance checks and balances. If the grapple rules are complex enough to discourage players from grappling, they don't do either. If they're too simple in the wrong way, they might not reflect what a story-centric player believes grappling should be able to do and what happens when something grapples something else. All else being equal, however, complexity generally is grievously harmful in design. (That's kind of a simplification - certain kinds of complexity can be used to sell certain products, since complex designs often seem more feature-rich to users even if they're not.)
Supplements seem to be a good place for additional complexity for groups that want it. Most groups don't want to mess with the effects of climate too much, but an extreme environments supplement can accommodate them. The same is true of things like very large scale battles between armies and numerical nuances for social interaction. This encourages players to add complexity where they want it, instead of junking portions of the rules as written to get rid of it where they don't (with unpredictable balance effects.)
EDIT: Joyd casts Wall of Text, apparently. Let's break this up a bit.
I don't want them to get rid of sorcerers altogether. In fact, I think I prefer it to Wizard as a more appropriate base class in terms of simplifying things. But I think spellcasters have the most work to be done on them in general to give them balance of power and complexity, so it's hard to say what they will do with them in the end for 4th ed.
What I've heard about the new grappling rules is that if you want to take a
standardfull round action, you can do so to grapple some one. No check needed. Likewise, you can spend an action (full round or standard) to break all grapples on you. And you can supplement grappling with feats, but it is super basic as is. I have heard nothing about strength or size mods.I agree. Complexity should never be a deterrent to use a feature. And I think there are a lot of features like this in 3.5; even for experienced players. And try convincing a newbie that D&D is worthwhile when you have to scare them ten times with how complicated the game is just in making a character. Calming down such a player and convincing them to contine - that's a diplomacy check that's easy to fail.
What level character do you think would be equivalent in power/whatever to a Planeswalker? Would it have to have Divine Ranks? (Not to break up the discussion on 4Ed.)
Also, I am sticking to 3.5, too late to go buy new books and all, especially when we hardly get together to play anyways.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
The wiki describes "old" planeswalkers as being about as powerful as the most powerful mortal wizards, which makes them probably epic characters if they're not divine. New planeswalkers, on the other hand, probably range in power between a mid-level caster and an epic level character. (While it's a horrible comparison to make, most of the existing planeswalker cards can be defeated in combat by mid-sized creatures.)
Oh well, Thanks for the replys.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
I would estimate things a little higher in favor of planeswalkers being more powerful on both accounts. Old planeswalkers are probably more like epic casters - approximately 15-30 casting levels, I'd say, with a LA+10 planeswalker template added on that comes with a number of awesome benefits.
I'm not sure how much has changed in the new estimation of planeswalkers, but I don't think they are on par with a mid-range creature, as that merely represents the amount of power needed to make the walker in question stop being loyal to you, not the power needed to destroy him/her. The new planeswalkers, or at least how they are represented in the cards themselves, would be best converted to a magical staff with a certain number of charges, or perhaps a summoned outsider that draws power from the planeswalker in question.
I think I will actually buy core for 4.0 - that is unless they screw the pooch. But I am actually getting to play D&D regularly now and I think my playgroup will be online for the update. But 3.5 is by no means inherently flawed. I suppose I can hope that 4th comes out and makes it look that way by comparison, but 3.5 is really fun if a bit unwieldy.
Well, I am sticking with 3.5, but we actually made a date for a weekend long mini-campaign...So that's good news.
Has anyone else noticed this little glitch to get past Wizards' premium account requirements? I'll repost it here because I think it allows you to get more info on 4thed. I really don't know what to do with it ATM since I'm unfamiliar with the site but I am going to check it out.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
Magic Coffeehouse!
Come in, sit down, relax, get to know somebody!
Open Three and a Half Years as of October 19, 2009!
Banner by PurpleD and avatar/custom by Tanthalas
All I found so far with my illicit hacking into WOTC's DnD insider page was a link to an awesome series of hilarious Youtube flash promos for 4th ed. Gnome with a minion.
nuff said.
@wamyc: that animation is hilarious i linked it in the coffehouse.
They set him up with a gorgeous lair.
Do you have a lair?
He has a LAIR!
There's also another animation about a beholder. It isn't as funny imo, but it does explain that save or die effects are gone, replaced with a more gradual death. Also, that gives me hope that there will be more of these animations to come.
EDIT: Also, here's the link to the signup and an explanation. It's a really easy contest to be in this time around.
1 Pick a card.
2 Rianalnn gives us a criterion.
3 Each clan votes to eliminate the card that matches that criterion. The card with the most votes is out.
4 Repeat the last two steps and try to stay alive. Last one standing wins.
Clan Contest
Pick a Card. Any Card.
One card per clan.
Cards will be eliminated turn by turn in voting for critera that will be laid out by rianalnn each week.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
Yeah. I know you guys don't normally go for it, but it never hurts to beat a dead horse.
Actually, that saying is misleading because it's more like beating a live horse that has just decided that he is not going to respond to beatings.
There is a lot of discussion of the fact that 4e has Tieflings as a playable core race. I know the flash animation makes it seem cool, but the gleemax boards are less than pyched about it. It seems the *****ing about it rises above the level of the usual geek complaining when anything changes. I mean, tiefling is an odd choice, as they have presented them as having a demonic heritage but have encouraged DMs not to play up bias against them. Well, what is the point of that? You're supposed to get the cool factor of playing a nightcrawler type without any of the natural medieval provincial bias that comes with it?