# pawsplay's dealbreaker list



## pawsplay (May 9, 2008)

While I like the idea of streamlining, and I enjoy Star Wars Saga pretty well, I think today I am a confirmed non-switcher. 1 hp orcs are just the final straw. However, there are plenty of other things that make me say, "What do I get in return for tolerating this?" The short list:

*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.
*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.
*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...
*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person? 
*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.
*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.
*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck. 
*Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.
*The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?


----------



## Nikosandros (May 9, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.



In 1st edition AD&D you can attack with two weapons, provided that the secondary weapon is a dagger or a hand axe. I'm curious, what are you referring to?


----------



## dystmesis (May 9, 2008)

Thank you for telling us this. We were all waiting with bated breaths for pawsplay's opinion to hit the forums! Now that we know your feelings, we can finally go on with our lives.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 9, 2008)

dystmesis said:
			
		

> Thank you for telling us this. We were all waiting with bated breaths for pawsplay's opinion to hit the forums! Now that we know your feelings, we can finally go on with our lives.




Lose the snark please.

If PawsPlay wants to post the reasons why he doesn't want to go to 4e, then it is reasonable to do so. It is also reasonable for people to chat about those reasons too. It isn't reasonable to poke fun at someone though.

Thanks


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 9, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> While I like the idea of streamlining, and I enjoy Star Wars Saga pretty well, I think today I am a confirmed non-switcher. 1 hp orcs are just the final straw. However, there are plenty of other things that make me say, "What do I get in return for tolerating this?" The short list:
> 
> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.



Doesn't having 1 hp measure minionness?


> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.



It can't have bothered you that much since there were rules for attacking with two weapons in 1e and there weren't any powers in 1E.


> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...



Fair enough. (But, as always, I recommend that you investigate alternate forms of artist reward other than copyright and contact your local politicians.)


> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?



Fair enough.


> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.



Fair enough.


> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.



Hunh? So every race has net penalties? This just doesn't make any sense mathematically, let alone conceptually.


> *Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.



Fair enough.


> *Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.



Fair enough.


> *The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?



For money, that's what. The open content movement is dying all over the place. Radiohead used it as a gimmick and they still relied on traditional album sales to make their money and they have already indicated that they will be using standard release methods for future albums.  Without some kind of robust system in place to reward artistic creativity, it is up to the use of copyright, and every method that provides, to generate income for these activities. To do otherwise is to end the entire enterprise of professionally designed games.


----------



## Festivus (May 9, 2008)

The thing is, I don't want is something overly complex.  Getting some of my friends who don't play D&D currently is what I want.  All those other systems are too much for them to want to grasp, at least at this time.  If that means a slimmed down system, I can live with it.  If you have a group of friends and are playing happily in 3.5, I think you are right, you should keep on playing what you love.  There is so much 3.5 content out there you could probably live two lifetimes before you finished it all.

I am still awaiting the books before I decide if I really do like the system or not, but I am really leaning towards my next campaign being a 4E campaign... I have about two years to decide, that's when we should be wrapping my my current 3.5 campaign.


----------



## GnomeWorks (May 9, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.




But if they were going to be given so few hit points as to only need one hit to take out anyway, then what's wrong with the idea?



> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.




It's no different than requiring a feat. In 3e, if you tried using two weapons without TWF, you were basically throwing your attacks away. 4e is all about the removal of suboptimal choices, so they took out the ability to use two weapons if you didn't have TWF (or its 4e equivalent).



> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...




Times change, different monsters become popular.

And isn't it easy enough to reflavor monsters to other flavors, anyway? Like the frost giant thing - just take another giant and replace "[energy type"] with "cold". Bam, frost giant.



> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?




It's not that pulling out the crossbow is the problem, it's the resource-management game. It's the idea that a low-level wizard can toss one, maybe two spells a day, which is dull and not really evocative of fantasy fiction. While being able to throw spells all the time may be a bit much, it is a step in the right direction.



> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.




Illusions are absurdly difficult to adjudicate, and usually wind up causing no end of problems.

Gnomes didn't have a niche. They were sorta-halfling sorta-dwarf sorta-elf, all balled into one weird conglomerate. Attempting to carve out a niche for the gnome would require messing with at least one of these races' shticks.



> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.




I'd think that this works out mechanically different, though. I imagine it has a very different impact upon "the math," and since 4e is much more focused on "the math," turning everything into bonuses or lack of bonuses may have been easier to deal with than bonuses and penalties.



> *Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.




It's once every five minutes, it's 30 feet, and they have to travel through a coterminuous plane to do so.



> *Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.




But it beats "I stand there and full-attack it." You have to admit, having more options is rather neat, and gives somebody other than the wizard and cleric some fun things to do and consider. It makes the game a bit more tactical.



> *The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?




To prevent a bunch of products of the like that we saw in the 3.0 glut. By keeping a bit of a tighter control on what's going on, WotC can at least help out to ensure that the market isn't flooded by a ton of crap.

</devil's advocate>


----------



## baberg (May 9, 2008)

Sorry you won't be converting.  Have fun with Paizo's game, or 3.x, or whatever game you enjoy.


----------



## Piratecat (May 9, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Sorry you won't be converting.  Have fun with Paizo's game, or 3.x, or whatever game you enjoy.



Yup. Both are great. It seems a little premature to me to declare that you hate a game before you actually play it, so if you do end up playing in someone's game you should check in. But there's nothing wrong with liking and playing older editions.

Personally, I can't dislike a game for what it _doesn't_ have yet. I'm all for people liking or disliking a game for what it does have, though.


----------



## GnomeWorks (May 9, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Personally, I can't dislike a game for what it _doesn't_ have yet. I'm all for people liking or disliking a game for what it does have, though.




Two things in the OP were things that are not yet included in 4e, but may be in the future: gnome illusionists and some monsters that might be left out of MM1. The open-gaming thing is a bit muddier, granted; we'll have to wait and see on that one.

The rest are pretty clearly, IMO, part of 4e as we know it, and so they would seem to form a pretty solid basis for a dislike of the system.


----------



## pawsplay (May 9, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> In 1st edition AD&D you can attack with two weapons, provided that the secondary weapon is a dagger or a hand axe. I'm curious, what are you referring to?




At what, -10 to hit or something? And it was impossible in Basic D&D, and probably OD&D as well.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.




How many minions are actually 1HP?  Higher than 1st level Minions have more HP, I know I've seen higher level listed minions w/ say 10HP.  Still a 1 shot kill, but a L30 Minion will have more than 1HP for example.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...




I've been too busy to ready many previews this last week..which monsters aren't going to be around?  Besides good dragons, which I could care less.  Good parties aren't busy killing good dragons 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?




Funny this is a selling point for me.  In 3E games I've made 0 level spells freely cast for awhile now.  The 1hp heal has a max of 3/day/person tho....some explanation about an excess of low level holy energy already infusing their body for the day 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.




For me the illusion was always that they had any value in the game.  I don't miss them at all.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.




So yr saying D&D is too anime w/o actually using the word.  Duly noted.  4E feels more like Die Hard with spells and teleporting to me and I'm alright w/that 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?




It was an experiment that they did and chose to end.  Companies can still continue producing their lines under the 3.x OGL or they can uprgade the lines to 4E.  It's still pretty open and they can even have some lines stay 3.x and some stay 4E, they just can't produce supplements for both under the same line.  For example, Arcana Evolved will have to stay 3.x OGL or go 4E, it can't be both.  Considering it isn't even in print right now, any new version on shelves would be welcome


----------



## Nikosandros (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> At what, -10 to hit or something? And it was impossible in Basic D&D, and probably OD&D as well.



Nope. -4 to hit with the secondary weapon and -2 to hit with the primary one. The reaction adjustment from dexterity reduces this penalty.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 10, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Times change, different monsters become popular.




Oooh, bad call. The new monsters in the MM don't seem to reflect what's "popular" at all, indeed, the general reception to most of them has been somewhat frosty, on this board and elsewhere. It's more like they've spread the popular/classic monsters around and put in a lot of new "filler" monsters, a few for popularity, but most of which seem destined for extremely mediocrity and causing player eye-rolling.

So, monsters not removed for unpopularity. Precisely the opposite.


----------



## GnomeWorks (May 10, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Oooh, bad call. The new monsters in the MM don't seem to reflect what's "popular" at all, indeed, the general reception to most of them has been somewhat frosty, on this board and elsewhere. It's more like they've spread the popular/classic monsters around and put in a lot of new "filler" monsters, a few for popularity, but most of which seem destined for extremely mediocrity and causing player eye-rolling.
> 
> So, monsters not removed for unpopularity. Precisely the opposite.




Eh, I was just trying to argue from the pro-4e point of view.

If I was wrong, oh well.

Though I admit that I wouldn't be surprised if they're be sticking "filler" monsters into the MM. While they can put enough interesting stuff in the PH2 and DMG2, doing the same for new MMs may be difficult, so maybe they solved the issue by spreading out the more interesting and iconic creatures.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (May 10, 2008)

While I don't give a svirfneblin whether Mr. Pawsplay goes 4E or not, he's done a lot more than what most folks do when they come slumming around here - he listed his reasons and, though he failed in some aspects, did the best he could do to explain his rationale.

Are some of his concerns valid? I think so.

Are some, ah, not-so-valid?  I think so.

But that's just it - I _think_ so.  He _thinks_ certain things are not for him. 

Who cares? Everyone's got an opinion.

As for me, the orc article was one of the best ones to date in terms of getting my 4E thrummin' a hummin'.

Wis


----------



## Will (May 10, 2008)

My one point of agreement is the open gaming thing. I'm VERY disappointed with the direction 4e is going, and I honestly think they are doing themselves a disservice.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Hunh? So every race has net penalties? This just doesn't make any sense mathematically, let alone conceptually.




If every other race gets +2 Str and you don't, that's the same as you getting -2. It's called inflation.



> For money, that's what. The open content movement is dying all over the place.




I'm less interested in comparing D&D 4e to Radiohead than I am to D&D 3e, which was seemingly a very successful game.


----------



## Kishin (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.




Except they are specifically tailored so that they can be disposed of relatively easily, but still have an effect on combat, as opposed to if say you threw a 20 1 HD orcs into a higher level combat and watched them do nothing but miss the entire time?[/quote]



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.




Kinda annoys me too, but I'm waiting to see how full the TWF system is. Fair enough.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...




You don't need to 'keep up'. You never did. But other than that, don't have much to say here myself.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?




As someone else pointed out, its terribly un-evocative of fantasy, and just plain dull.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.




No opinion here, really. Stylistic quibble, I'd say. I don't see what's so valuable, but fair enough.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.




Heroic fantasy is all about 'ZOWIE'.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?




...Have you read any of the recent news about the licenses?  Both are still more than capable of supporting open gaming.

Expecting someone to be 100% open with their IP in this day and age is IMO very naive.

Open gaming wasn't exactly some huge movement before 3E. It seems like talking about it as if it was is a bit fallacious.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 10, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Nope. -4 to hit with the secondary weapon and -2 to hit with the primary one. The reaction adjustment from dexterity reduces this penalty.



From a great article in Dragon, "Be a Two-Fisted Fighter".

Changed the D&D I saw played, I'll tell you that. Really boosted the in-game economy, since almost every fighter was buying more weapons.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> But if they were going to be given so few hit points as to only need one hit to take out anyway, then what's wrong with the idea?




Have you seen the orc bareknuckle death match thread? If it they die in what hit anyway, what do we gain from the 1 hp thing? I can tell you what we lose: the ability of an orc not to go down in one hit. Every single hit will be a finishing blow, which is kind of boring. In the movies, the mooks sometimes take at least a little effort to put down. But in 4e, it would take a different kind of orc.



> It's no different than requiring a feat. In 3e, if you tried using two weapons without TWF, you were basically throwing your attacks away. 4e is all about the removal of suboptimal choices, so they took out the ability to use two weapons if you didn't have TWF (or its 4e equivalent).




It is different. Rather than creating options for two weapon fighting, they've trimmed them down. I don't see how you can get any more different than that. It's a pet peeve of mine, since two weapon fighting is, in real life, very effective and commonplace throughout history.



> Times change, different monsters become popular.




Yet the frost giant has held up pretty well for the past 1500 years or so. What's wrong with it now?



> It's not that pulling out the crossbow is the problem, it's the resource-management game. It's the idea that a low-level wizard can toss one, maybe two spells a day, which is dull and not really evocative of fantasy fiction. While being able to throw spells all the time may be a bit much, it is a step in the right direction.




My opinion is the opposite. In fiction, magic tends to be two or more of slow, dangerous, unreliable, subtle, or exhausting. I can think of very few fantasy characters who could sling magic missiles or the equivalent all day who were truly human.



> Illusions are absurdly difficult to adjudicate, and usually wind up causing no end of problems.




And yet appear in virtually every other game on the market. What do they know that the 4e team doesn't? For that matter, why haven't they destroyed my games?



> Gnomes didn't have a niche. They were sorta-halfling sorta-dwarf sorta-elf, all balled into one weird conglomerate. Attempting to carve out a niche for the gnome would require messing with at least one of these races' shticks.




Well, they were illusionists, at one point. Or thief-illusionists. And there's the whole badger thing. But here's the thing: I like gnomes. Whether or not they have a completely unique "niche" is less important to me than whether they are appealing. Dragonborn have a niche, and I have little inclination to play one. So as far as I am concerned, dragonborn are taking up real estate that could be occupied by the more attractive, and more traditional, gnome.

Plus, gnomes should not look like Elijiah Woods. They should have big, big noses.



> It's once every five minutes, it's 30 feet, and they have to travel through a coterminuous plane to do so.




It's still a _super power_.



> But it beats "I stand there and full-attack it." You have to admit, having more options is rather neat, and gives somebody other than the wizard and cleric some fun things to do and consider. It makes the game a bit more tactical.




I haven't had that problem. But last I heard, they actually took away tripping and disarming, or at least nerfed them. I don't think there's anything "boring" about trying a full attack against, say, a hydra. Or a fire elemental. To me, it's an invented problem.

Maybe somewhere out there are players who slug it out with level 12 warriors all day or something, but I've never seen such a game.



> To prevent a bunch of products of the like that we saw in the 3.0 glut. By keeping a bit of a tighter control on what's going on, WotC can at least help out to ensure that the market isn't flooded by a ton of crap.




Hasn't Darwinian selection already taken care of that, pretty much? And it certainly won't protect us from WotC's glut of crap. In fact, now you get free crap in every MM.


----------



## tuffnoogies (May 10, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> My one point of agreement is the open gaming thing. I'm VERY disappointed with the direction 4e is going, and I honestly think they are doing themselves a disservice.




I'm surprised this is such a big deal for so many people.  I hardly noticed that 3.x was OG.  I couldn't care less if 4e is either.  To each their own, eh?


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> ...Have you read any of the recent news about the licenses?  Both are still more than capable of supporting open gaming.




Have you? I think you must be confused, because the GSL is not an open license.



> Open gaming wasn't exactly some huge movement before 3E. It seems like talking about it as if it was is a bit fallacious.




What do you mean by "fallacious?" I didn't specify any particular year. And open gaming systems predate D&D 3e.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> /snip
> 
> 
> I'm less interested in comparing D&D 4e to Radiohead than I am to D&D 3e, which was seemingly a very successful game.




Yup, 3e was successful.  But, that's not the same as saying the OG movement was.  As far as D&D was concerned, by this time last year, you had less than five companies producing OGL material for D&D.  And that's counting Green Ronin which produced what, 5 or 6 Bleeding Edge modules last year for 3.5.  Outside the pdf market, there was pretty much no 3rd party D&D support anymore.  

So, given that pretty much nobody was supporting D&D anymore, what sense does it make to hope that companies will support 4e?

Never mind the fact that the new GSL is apparently pretty much as open as the old STL, which is what drove the OGL movement in the first place.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (May 10, 2008)

Yeah, i understand that everybody is welcome to share their personal thoughts about 4E with us here...but reading a collection of (highly subjective) dislikes of one member every now and then just becomes a bit... tedious after a while. I mean i like to read lots of different opinions in thematical focused threads, but guys, come on what do we gain from these 'collection of previously posted likes/dislikes of one single member' threads? And what does the OP gain from this thread? Most of his points were discussed to death elsewhere by now...


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (May 10, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> ...And what does the OP gain from this thread? Most of his points were discussed to death elsewhere by now...




Whining is cathartic.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 10, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Yeah, i understand that everybody is welcome to share their personal thoughts about 4E with us here...but reading a collection of (highly subjective) dislikes of one member every now and then just becomes a bit... tedious after a while. I mean i like to read lots of different opinions in thematical focused threads, but guys, come on what do we gain from these 'collection of previously posted likes/dislikes of one single member' threads? And what does the OP gain from this thread? Most of his points were discussed to death elsewhere by now...






			
				Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Whining is cathartic.




Or maybe he thought the Fourth Edition Forums was the proper place to post his thoughts on Fourth Edition.

It disturbs me that "disliking somethings about 4e" somehow automatically equates to "whining."


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 10, 2008)

Eh, he's not just posting his thoughts, he's negative language and in some cases rather ridiculous hyperbole to make his point.

Maybe that's not whining, but it sure ain't a logical argument, nor does it promote discussion (I'd argue that it shuts it down before it starts, actually).

That said, it's really just a matter of opinion and preference.  Paws doesn't like it, so he isn't gonna play.  Pretty simple, really.


----------



## GnomeWorks (May 10, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Eh, he's not just posting his thoughts, he's negative language and in some cases rather ridiculous hyperbole to make his point..




Nevermind that those who sing 4e's praises are not required at all to provide any amount of rational argument or thought into why, that their arguments tend to fail just as poorly as some of those made against 4e.

Screw. This.

As Kamikaze Midget has been saying as of late, the fanbase is more destructive to the game than any design decision. Rather than constructive discussion of the ruleset, we have a ton of fanbois who hate on anyone who doesn't immediately love the new game. Rather than discuss the game for its merits, and have rational discourse on what elements are good and which are poor, we have... garbage.

Clearly I should not have bothered coming back to EN World.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Have you seen the orc bareknuckle death match thread?




Honestly, that thread supplies pretty much a textbook example of a problem that only exists on the internet, and will almost certainly never come up at the table.



> if it they die in what hit anyway, what do we gain from the 1 hp thing? I can tell you what we lose: the ability of an orc not to go down in one hit. Every single hit will be a finishing blow, which is kind of boring. In the movies, the mooks sometimes take at least a little effort to put down. But in 4e, it would take a different kind of orc.




Well, you've kind of solved your own problem: the ability of an orc to take more than one hit isn't lost when there are 4-5 orcs in the MM who can take more than one hit. And even 4e minions can take a little effort to put down, since you don't automatically hit them.


----------



## Kishin (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Have you? I think you must be confused, because the GSL is not an open license.




There are two licenses forthcoming.  And also, the GSL is more than open enough to allow for third party development. Its not going to allow you to make your own system to the degree the OGL did, but let's face facts. You're not going to get the OGL again. It was far, far too generous from a business standpoint. Its naive to think such a thing could exist the way world is, as I said.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> What do you mean by "fallacious?" I didn't specify any particular year. And open gaming systems predate D&D 3e.




Correction then. -Successful- open gaming. Though, perhaps successful is a bad word for it. What I'm getting at is 3E basically made the concept a household name, in much the same fashion as how an obscure band occasionally experiences a significant popularity growth because a band that is hugely influenced by them openly declares them an influence. (I apologize for the potentially overextended and bizarre example, I'm a musician)



			
				GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> As Kamikaze Midget has been saying as of late, the fanbase is more destructive to the game than any design decision. Rather than constructive discussion of the ruleset, we have a ton of fanbois who hate on anyone who doesn't immediately love the new game. Rather than discuss the game for its merits, and have rational discourse on what elements are good and which are poor, we have... garbage.




Welcome to fanbases.

Also, do not pretend like you've been 100% constructive and civil in your own discussion. Some of us remember your ridiculous hyberbole and mockery at the beginning of the thread in which you complained about not being able to accomodate your ranged warlord concept. (I believe it consisted of a great deal of repetition of the word 'war' in various compounds, such as warlord, warforged, etc. To name but the beginning.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (May 10, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Nevermind that those who sing 4e's praises are not required at all to provide any amount of rational argument or thought into why, that their arguments tend to fail just as poorly as some of those made against 4e.
> 
> Screw. This.
> 
> ...




Screw those positive-thinking sons of guns!

But, um, seriously - I don't think the original post really had anything meaningful in it.  It was just a laundry list of...complaints.  If you want "rational discourse on what elements are good and which are poor" I'd suggest you try some other threads.

There ain't anything ground-breaking, mildly interesting, or profound in this one. (Yes, I realize I'm including myself in that indictment.)

Fair enough. Move on.


Wis



p.s. Where you gonna go for logical discourse if not here?  You name another board that beats EN World on that metric, and I'm a svirfneblin.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 10, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Nevermind that those who sing 4e's praises are not required at all to provide any amount of rational argument or thought into why, that their arguments tend to fail just as poorly as some of those made against 4e.
> Screw. This.
> As Kamikaze Midget has been saying as of late, the fanbase is more destructive to the game than any design decision. Rather than constructive discussion of the ruleset, we have a ton of fanbois who hate on anyone who doesn't immediately love the new game. Rather than discuss the game for its merits, and have rational discourse on what elements are good and which are poor, we have...



It's true that a lot of the fanboys choose not to discuss the merits of the game in rational, thoughtful terms.  But it's also true that most of the anti-fanboys are also quite *abrasive*, and this is actually *less* encouraging for rational discussion than just "wai wai wai 4E roxxors."
People who don't appreciate 4th Edition would be much better off in their efforts of presenting clashing viewpoints if they calmly presented their arguments without overwhelming and obvious pessimism.  They're angry at WotC, so they don't.  And this is their mistake.
I have a lot of problems with 4E (admittedly, far fewer than with pre-4E), but it seems pretty elementary that presenting said problems as Truthful, Immutable and Horrible probably isn't going to spark a thoughtful discussion of ideas.



> garbage.  Clearly I should not have bothered coming back to EN World.



Yeah, this sort of outburst probably doesn't help.


----------



## arscott (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> At what, -10 to hit or something? And it was impossible in Basic D&D, and probably OD&D as well.



No, -10 is the penalty for off-hand attacks in 3rd edition.  The One that's supposedly so supportive of TWF.

The fact is, in 3e, a character who wasn't built for TWF sucked at it.

In 4e, a character who isn't built for TWF sucks at it.

The only difference is the manner in which they suck.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 10, 2008)

The idea that accepting something could _ever_ be more beneficial to the creators then criticism is beyond backwards.  By sitting still, nodding, and just politely accepting everything, all you're doing is breeding complacency and the complete lack of ambition.  A person should never just sit back and think "Well, things are the best they'll ever be," they should always strive for improvement.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Furthermore, 



> People who don't appreciate 4th Edition would be much better off in their efforts of presenting clashing viewpoints if they calmly presented their arguments without overwhelming and obvious pessimism. They're angry at WotC, so they don't.




This is PRECISELY the kind of broad brushing Gnome Works is talking about.  It comes off as arrogant, as if you're saying "Oh, I'm sure if they could speak INTELLIGENTLY those people who dislike 4th could have reasonable conversation, but those unreasonable brutes just can't."


----------



## eleran (May 10, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Nevermind that those who sing 4e's praises are not required at all to provide any amount of rational argument or thought into why, that their arguments tend to fail just as poorly as some of those made against 4e.
> 
> Screw. This.
> 
> ...





What's the point?  I like/dislike 4e and someone else doesn't.  So what?   If I make my points and it does/does not fit into their playstyle/sense of immersion/whatever their mind is not going to change and vice versa.  It's all just really subjective opinion about what works for each individual poster.  

Did you really come to the internets to find people swaying each others opinions thru logically constructed civil discourse?  This isn't some Ivy League debate society.  All we can do here is post our opinions/thoughts/applause/criticisms anonymously and pretend it matters one whit what we think to anyone else.  

I guess this whole idea of internet discussion just boils down to mental masturbation.  Everyone has a different idea of what "does it" for them.


----------



## hong (May 10, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."




"Last night's 'Itchy and Scratchy Show' was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured, I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world."


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> If every other race gets +2 Str and you don't, that's the same as you getting -2. It's called inflation.



Does every race get +2 to Str? If not, then your point still makes no sense.


> I'm less interested in comparing D&D 4e to Radiohead than I am to D&D 3e, which was seemingly a very successful game.



Sure, but you aren't the one who has an opportunity to maximize rent-seeking behaviour based on your rights to an intellectual property. Unless you want merely fan-produced RPGs, you're going to have to live with profit-maximizing behaviour from professional RPG manufacturers.

(Of course, the circumstances could change so that profit-maximizing behaviour is different from that of the current system.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 10, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> "Last night's 'Itchy and Scratchy Show' was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured, I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world."




Did someone on the Dungeons and Dragons website insinuate that someone else was a nerd?

I'm not even sure how that works.


----------



## DandD (May 10, 2008)

This thread is only about 4th edition enthusiasts and 4th edition dislikers throwing mud at each another again, and both sides do it nastily.


----------



## Will (May 10, 2008)

tuffnoogies said:
			
		

> I'm surprised this is such a big deal for so many people.  I hardly noticed that 3.x was OG.  I couldn't care less if 4e is either.  To each their own, eh?




Oh sure. The thing is, this had many subtle effects. Here's one: I can go to d20srd.org at any time and check rules without digging through books. Here's another: if I felt like it, I could cut/paste stuff from d20srd.org (or some other source) and make a 'cheat sheet' of useful rules for my character. Or just paste into my character sheet snippets about how each spell works. Or spell descriptions for spell cards. Or...

Another advantage was the security of knowing that if something was published under the OGL, it was safe. WotC could never come along later and say 'eeeeh, we changed our minds.' It fostered a lot of growth and sharing of ideas. Current GSL, notably, is not perpetual. (at least as per last information on it; who knows, that might change)

Now that might not affect some, or even many, folks. My view is that the business model of OGL reaped a LOT more rewards for WotC than it cost, and the shrinking back to standard business practices is a real shame; it looked like WotC might actually be figuring out business in the 21st century. But, no, it'll have to be pulled kicking and screaming with the rest of publishing.


----------



## hong (May 10, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Did someone on the Dungeons and Dragons website insinuate that someone else was a nerd?
> 
> I'm not even sure how that works.




I hate it when somebody else steals my schtick. So PLEASE DO NOT STEAL MY SCHTICK.


----------



## Alzrius (May 10, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yup, 3e was successful.  But, that's not the same as saying the OG movement was.  As far as D&D was concerned, by this time last year, you had less than five companies producing OGL material for D&D.  And that's counting Green Ronin which produced what, 5 or 6 Bleeding Edge modules last year for 3.5.




This is patently untrue. Paizo's Game Mastery modules were being released, as were Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics. Ptolus from Malhavoc Press was still going strong. Necromancer Games released City of Brass, and White Wolf had put out Monte Cook's 3.5 World of Darkness. Kenzer Co. still, I believe, had some 3.5 Kingdoms of Kalamar books, and were certainly still selling them. You mentioned Green Ronin already. Mongoose was still releasing 3.5-based books, particularly under their Flaming Cobra imprint, and Paradigm Concepts was also putting out new Arcanis products. And that's just off the top of my head.

And, by the way, judging the Open Gaming movement by the success of 3.5 OGL material is completely fallacious. The fact that the Open Gaming movement grew beyond 3.5 and allowed whole new games that deviated from the base 3.5 system - such as True20, M&M, RuneQuest, etc. - is the biggest indicator there is of the Open Gaming movement's success.



> _Outside the pdf market, there was pretty much no 3rd party D&D support anymore._




Beyond having already proven that untrue, you can't write off the PDF market. It may not make huge companies, but having a back catalogue of always-available products, and allowing for easy distribution, isn't something that can be ignored.



> _So, given that pretty much nobody was supporting D&D anymore, what sense does it make to hope that companies will support 4e?_




If by "nobody" you mean "everybody"...



> _Never mind the fact that the new GSL is apparently pretty much as open as the old STL, which is what drove the OGL movement in the first place._




No, the OGL drove the OGL movement. The d20 STL had a bunch of extra restrictions that people quickly grew to chafe at as time went on, hence why we saw companies stop using it as they did things like create new stand-alone systems, make books that dealt with topics that didn't live up to "community standards," etc.


----------



## BryonD (May 10, 2008)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> Honestly, that thread supplies pretty much a textbook example of a problem that only exists on the internet, and will almost certainly never come up at the table.



And in that way it is very much like the laundry list of "major problems" with the vastly successful third edition games  The great majority of which never once made an appearance at my table.  That isn't to say that 3E didn't have some problems.  It certainly did.  But if we're gonna play the brush everything away as internet smoke game, then 3E is going to come out way way better off for that trade.  IMO.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (May 10, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And in that way it is very much like the laundry list of "major problems" with the vastly successful third edition games  The great majority of which never once made an appearance at my table.  That isn't to say that 3E didn't have some problems.  It certainly did.  But if we're gonna play the brush everything away as internet smoke game, then 3E is going to come out way way better off for that trade.  IMO.




No doubt. 3e was a great game, and I staunchly defended and praised it for years. Just because I think 4e is going to be an improvement doesn't mean that I buy into all the half-baked slams made against 3e in the last eight years.

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to brush away all 4e criticisms -- or even all of pawsplay's --  as "smoke". But the minion bar brawl one strikes me as very much in the same category as 3e's sack of rats and blindfolded kobold. I just can't see the string of decisions that would lead to such a thing happening at an actual table.


----------



## Wolfspider (May 10, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Yeah, i understand that everybody is welcome to share their personal thoughts about 4E with us here...but reading a collection of (highly subjective) dislikes of one member every now and then just becomes a bit... tedious after a while.




So what are YOU doing here?


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 10, 2008)

> The idea that accepting something could ever be more beneficial to the creators then criticism is beyond backwards. By sitting still, nodding, and just politely accepting everything, all you're doing is breeding complacency and the complete lack of ambition. A person should never just sit back and think "Well, things are the best they'll ever be," they should always strive for improvement.




Heck yar! "Whining on the Internet" is where a good 3/4ths of the 4e changes are coming from, I'd wager. 

So let's go down the list, since I don't think my deal is broken.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.




I'm comfortable with it as an abstract simplification of play that actually has a different meaning in the world itself. Orc minions don't have 1 hp really, they just have 1 hp _functionally_. There are some fiddleybits about minions that I'm not too happy with, but that's not one of 'em. 



> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.




I actually really like this. Swinging two swords like a maniac is awesome, and it should require some "awesome points" (feats, whatever) to get. 



> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...




I'm more with you here. I have MASSIVE apprehensions about the MM. The humanoid entries look like they'll be kind of badass, but there are _so many freakin' phantom fungi_ in 4e that it's giving me a headache. And a lot of monsters that were awesome that have had the awesome sucked out of them for no obvious reason. 

Part of this is why I'll be waiting 'till October, probably. When the 3rd party stuff comes out, we're going to see the Tome of Horrors and (probably soon thereafter?) the Advanced Player's Guide for 4e. I'm fairly sure that the first will basically replace my MM, while the latter will make my PH "complete."  Until then, I'll get free stuff in the Rules Compendium beta.



> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?




I'm kind of with you, here. I want there to be a place for a basic attack. Anything at-will should ideally, IMO, have a trade-off vs. your standard attack. It doesn't really look like we're getting that, which is a bit irksome. Not enough to be a deal-breaker for me, though, because it's still lots of fun going around zotting all day long, so I can't get that worked up about it.



> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.




Heh, yeah...I will miss them, but I actually have a lot of fun designing stuff, and some experimental illusionists look to be something that's going to be a lot of fun for me to tinker with, so it's not a deal-breaker for me per se. Even if I don't get around to it, there's plenty of options to try out, I'm not too worried about those two specifically.



> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.




Eh. I can't get that worked up over fiddly first-level stat mods that are eclipsed in five levels anyway. 



> *Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.




I'm with ya, here. I'm pretty sure eladrin will get nuked when I start up 4e-ing. It'll kind of depend on how awesome the rest of the fey world is and how much I think I need a "mediator."



> *Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.




No, I want that. 



> *The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?




This is a big blow, but it's still "good enough" for me. I'm going to ramp up my support of open gaming outside of D&D, though. True20 and Pathfinder are both going to become things I follow closely, and I'm looking forward for the first wave of OGL that implements 4e ideas and makes them open, since the mechanics can never be closed.


----------



## Stogoe (May 10, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> It disturbs me that "disliking somethings about 4e" somehow automatically equates to "whining."




It disturbs me that misrepresenting the available facts about 4e and then complaining about the ensuing distortions is somehow viewed as valid.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.



If it's not really different (which I agree with for the most part), why is it a dealbreaker?


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 10, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The idea that accepting something could _ever_ be more beneficial to the creators then criticism is beyond backwards.  By sitting still, nodding, and just politely accepting everything, all you're doing is breeding complacency and the complete lack of ambition.  A person should never just sit back and think "Well, things are the best they'll ever be," they should always strive for improvement.



Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be abrasive to support the less popular point of view.  But it happens all the time, and it's why I don't take people seriously when they argue *with* dislike rather than in spite of it.



> This is PRECISELY the kind of broad brushing Gnome Works is talking about.  It comes off as arrogant, as if you're saying "Oh, I'm sure if they could speak INTELLIGENTLY those people who dislike 4th could have reasonable conversation, but those unreasonable brutes just can't."



I suppose I could go back to my post and make sure that it's clear that I'm referring specifically to those people who flame 4th edition (or people who flame 3rd edition) without showing reason or objectivity, but I think it was pretty obvious, and if it wasn't, it will be by the time you finish reading this sentence.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 10, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> It disturbs me that misrepresenting the available facts about 4e and then complaining about the ensuing distortions is somehow viewed as valid.




If the facts are easily available, then it should be extra easy for a person to prove them, instead of sitting back and just going "Whiners!"


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.



It would seem that they don't, by WotC's definition.  The point of minions is to create a class of faceless, nameless orcs that Legolas can kill instantly because he's Legolas and they are orcs, but they can still hurt Legolas if they get too close, rather than just auto-miss.  It isn't particularly realistic, but it doesn't have to be.


> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.



I don't appreciate the fact that two-weapon fighting isn't seem to be available without using powers...of course, we don't know that that's true.  It's an assumption.


> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...



This is definitely a opinion thing that can't be argued with.  I don't know what all monsters are in the MM, so I don't know if I approve.  However, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the designers weren't thinking "let's just throw some random monsters in there, for the heck of it."  Every edition has opted for different monsters in the core monster manual, and each time there was a reason.


> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?



'Cuz it isn't what Wizards are meant to do in a setting chock-full of magic.  I approve of Gandalf, the dude who was full a Wizard and acted more like a Fighter or Cleric; but the setting was filled with passive magic, not active.  The Vancian magic system was incredibly silly, and this is better--especially for settings that have lots of magic--even if it has its problems.


> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.



Personal preference.  I feel that good, "realistic" effects of illusions would require intensive collaboration between player and DM, which toes the line between who is and isn't in control.


> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.



If you don't like it, you can always change the point-buy method or make it 4d6 drop highest or whatever you want.  This way WotC can emphasize more than one ability score, which adds to the character of races and makes me happy.


> *Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.



Sorry that upsets you.


----------



## ryryguy (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.




I find this "two weapons _must_ grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting.  Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.

Why do people feel so strongly about this?  I mean, I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se.  It does have a certain thematic symmetry.  But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs.  "Attacks" are really an abstraction... we know that "one attack" might represent several feints and swings in the imaginary action.  Having two weapons and the right training (feat) might enable more feints and swings, translating perhaps into a game abstraction of a bonus to hit, and a resulting boost to average damage as a tradeoff for not carrying a shield. This has a similar outcome to enabling two attacks; perhaps also advantages in ease of play (one attack roll vs. two is quicker, maybe easier to balance).  Yet I think to the "two attacks" crowd it's just not going to be satisfying.  Somehow, "two attacks in the round" has been transformed from a game mechanic almost into _reality_.  Taking away the two attacks is like denying reality.

A slow guy with a greatsword gets as many attacks in a round as a quick guy with a dagger... why doesn't this "lack of realism" get anyone upset?


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (May 10, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> .... I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se.  It does have a certain thematic symmetry.  But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs.  .....
> A slow guy with a greatsword gets as many attacks in a round as a quick guy with a dagger... why doesn't this "lack of realism" get anyone upset?



This argument here highlites the problem with people being too obsessed with a simulationist style of game. To many people, the idea that having a weapon in each hand is more "realistic" because that is the way they have always imagined it. This comes from D&D "teaching" all of us that this is how it works. For many real life fighting styles, the extra weapon just allowed better feints or extra defense, not any weird idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment". The idea of extra attacks was a fun but exploitable gamist interpretation in previous editions. I was so good that almost everyone had to have it (that or power atack). This just devolves into everyone being the same. I am glad that the gamist constructs of 4e are putting more character concepts on even footing. Sword and board deserves some love, along with an einhander concept. Abstraction, to a degree, makes for a more diverse, fun, and smoother gaming experience in my opinion. And it works very well, to quote Hong, as long as you don't think too hard about fantasy.


----------



## Will (May 10, 2008)

I like the idea of one-hit mooks that can be built more powerfully.

The problem, in 3e, with throwing a horde of low-hit point creatures at a moderately leveled party is that the horde's hit bonuses and damage are so low they pretty much just stand there waiting to be hit.

It'd be more interesting (to me) to have some hordes of dangerous creatures that remain mown down by the party.


----------



## Darth Cyric (May 10, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> I like the idea of one-hit mooks that can be built more powerfully.
> 
> The problem, in 3e, with throwing a horde of low-hit point creatures at a moderately leveled party is that the horde's hit bonuses and damage are so low they pretty much just stand there waiting to be hit.
> 
> It'd be more interesting (to me) to have some hordes of dangerous creatures that remain mown down by the party.



Well, to be fair, the 3e low HD creatures could all use Aid Another. But yeah, 4e's minions seem far more interesting overall.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 10, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Nevermind that those who sing 4e's praises are not required at all to provide any amount of rational argument or thought into why, that their arguments tend to fail just as poorly as some of those made against 4e.




Some of us have chosen to be positive about the game we enjoy.  That is a rationale in and of itself.  As I said, it is a matter of opinion and whichever chosen is that person's prerogative.

You may interpret a positive attitude however you wish.


----------



## ryryguy (May 10, 2008)

PrecociousApprentice said:
			
		

> This argument here highlites the problem with people being too obsessed with a simulationist style of game. To many people, the idea that having a weapon in each hand is more "realistic" because that is the way they have always imagined it. This comes from D&D "teaching" all of us that this is how it works. For many real life fighting styles, the extra weapon just allowed better feints or extra defense, not any weird idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment".




Exactly... what I find so fascinating is how you can go from the idea that "this is how it works" to that idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment" being the _only_ way it can be modeled.  To the point where somebody in another thread, FallingIcicle I think, was suggesting that you try getting two kitchen knives and seeing if you couldn't stab faster than with just one knife.  I mean, how does what I do in my kitchen with one vs. two knives translate into "attacks" in a "round"?  There are no "attacks" nor "rounds" in my kitchen...

There's a cool factor to two-weapon fighting and I don't want to see it gone, just better balanced vs. some of the other options like you suggest.  And if part of the way the designers accomplish that goal is to keep the "two attacks" option very limited, that's fine by me.

Finally I think folks maybe be underestimating the benefit from the rule that you can attack (once) with either of the two weapons without penalty.  It's not going to come up a whole lot, but in some cases it will provide a useful option, and in those cases it's an option anyone can use without a feat or anything.  Of course in real life all people aren't so ambidextrous, but so what?


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> I find this "two weapons _must_ grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting.  Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.
> 
> Why do people feel so strongly about this?




Maybe it has something to do with 15+ years of combat sports experience that tells me two longswords is better than one longsword. For much of history, two weapons has been the preference. A single weapon is used for some kinds of dueling. A shield is useful for some kinds of warfare. But for individual combat, you want a two-handed weapon or two weapons. Not using one hand for attack would be like going into a boxing match and only using one hand for punching.



> I mean, I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se.  It does have a certain thematic symmetry.  But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs.  "Attacks" are really an abstraction... we know that "one attack" might represent several feints and swings in the imaginary action.




I'm completely okay with that, but wielding two weapons with some reasonable level of skill should be an advantage. Which currently it is not. And since in D&D you could have a situation where one weapon does flaming damage and the other crits extra hard, using some kind of mechanic that involves two separate attack rolls is probably best.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> Honestly, that thread supplies pretty much a textbook example of a problem that only exists on the internet, and will almost certainly never come up at the table.




Once again, I am startled to learn that other people play RPGs apparently in an entirely different fashion than I do. Just as an example, the campaign I'm running now kicked off with the PCs joining a team of dwarf soldiers fending off an attack by goblins. If I give the goblins and the dwarves 1 hp, strange things happen. And if I don't, then the minion rules have not assisted me in the encounter design at all. It's just a really bad design. The only advantage is that you can say, "Well, they die in one hit, so that's pretty much like having 1 hp," which is a conclusion most DMs can handle on the fly. What I want in the MM is stats for stuff I would prefer not to have to make up on the fly.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> No, -10 is the penalty for off-hand attacks in 3rd edition.  The One that's supposedly so supportive of TWF.
> 
> The fact is, in 3e, a character who wasn't built for TWF sucked at it.
> 
> ...




Can you substantiate that? I'm looking at a 1e Player's Handbook and I do not see a reference to fighting with two weapons at all.


----------



## ryryguy (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Maybe it has something to do with 15+ years of combat sports experience that tells me two longswords is better than one longsword. For much of history, two weapons has been the preference. A single weapon is used for some kinds of dueling. A shield is useful for some kinds of warfare. But for individual combat, you want a two-handed weapon or two weapons. Not using one hand for attack would be like going into a boxing match and only using one hand for punching.




Sure, I don't disagree - fighting with two weapons should be a viable style in D&D combat.  But why does that absolutely have to be modeled as "one attack with each in the same round"?  Not just that, but that a character with no particular skill or training (feat or power) should have the opportunity to attack once with each weapon (even if at a big penalty)?  At least I think that is what you are saying, please correct me if I have misunderstood.



> I'm completely okay with that, but wielding two weapons with some reasonable level of skill should be an advantage. Which currently it is not. And since in D&D you could have a situation where one weapon does flaming damage and the other crits extra hard, using some kind of mechanic that involves two separate attack rolls is probably best.




We haven't seen it yet, but I'm pretty confident there will be some advantages granted to combatants with "some reasonable level of skill" (read: feats) fighting with two weapons.  That advantage just may not be implemented as one attack with each weapon.

As for having weapons with two different "procs" being best with two separate attack rolls - well sure, that would be a tremendous way to grant an advantage to the two-weapon fighter.  But I would suggest that's one of the big reasons that "one attack with each weapon" is very problematic when it comes to balance.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> I don't appreciate the fact that two-weapon fighting isn't seem to be available without using powers...of course, we don't know that that's true.  It's an assumption.




Some one-handed weapons are light enough for you to use in your off hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand. Doing this doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round (unless you have powers that let you do so), but you can attack with either weapon. Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> As for having weapons with two different "procs" being best with two separate attack rolls - well sure, that would be a tremendous way to grant an advantage to the two-weapon fighter.  But I would suggest that's one of the big reasons that "one attack with each weapon" is very problematic when it comes to balance.




Whereas does it any other way is very problematic when it comes to deciding whether you hit, how much damage you cause, and what "procs" activate. How would you do it?


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

I am looking at the AD&D 2.5 Player's Handbook right now, and I see that only fighters and rogues can attack with two weapons, and that it is impossible to attack with two longswords. Holding a longsword in each hand grants no advantage to any person of any skill at any time.


----------



## Parlan (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Whereas does it any other way is very problematic when it comes to deciding whether you hit, how much damage you cause, and what "procs" activate. How would you do it?




The procs can be problematic to conceptualize.  

That said, I could handle something like:

Attack with either weapon, but resolve the hit using whichever weapon has a higher proficiency bonus, and any enhancement bonus on the weapon being used to attack.

(So someone with a +1 warhammer and a dagger would use the +3 proficiency bonus granted by the dagger, and add the +1 from the warhammer for a +4 to hit.  They would do d10 +1 (+ str bonus) damage.)


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

Parlan said:
			
		

> The procs can be problematic to conceptualize.
> 
> That said, I could handle something like:
> 
> ...




There were MUDs that used to do it that way. It was dissatisfying in many ways, though. For instance, wielding a +1 longsword and a +5 dagger was the same as wielding a +5 longsword and a +5 dagger.


----------



## AllisterH (May 10, 2008)

Hmm?

Didn't we debunk the myth that TWF was the superior fighting form back in 2E on rec.games.frp.dnd?

It has risen again?


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.




I think the key here is the "unless you take a power." Powers in 4e are extremely mundane. Consider the rogue power Deft Strike. It let's you move two squares before the attack. Whoopdedo.

In this context, it's reasonable that something as simple as attacking with two weapons would be a power.


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> If I give the goblins and the dwarves 1 hp, strange things happen. And if I don't, then the minion rules have not assisted me in the encounter design at all. It's just a really bad design. The only advantage is that you can say, "Well, they die in one hit, so that's pretty much like having 1 hp," which is a conclusion most DMs can handle on the fly. What I want in the MM is stats for stuff I would prefer not to have to make up on the fly.




Why do they _all_ have to be minions or _all_ have to be regular soldiers? You probably already know this, but the point of 4E encounter design is to include more monsters per encounter, and make those monsters of varying types, so why shoehorn all of them into one role or the other? There are several ways to setup this encounter with minion rules that can not only add to the experience, but alter it in drastically different ways.

If the Dwarves aren't meant to be real contenders, than you can make them all minions and task the PCs with defending them from a smaller group non-minion goblins. 

Or, you could choose to make a few select Goblin/Dwarf NPCs 'leaders' of their particular bands, giving them regular monster stats while the rest fall into the domain of minions. In this situation, perhaps the death of the Goblin leaders could force their sizable minion force to retreat, while if the Dwarf leaders go down, the remaining Dwarf minions break ranks, giving the Goblins an advantage.

Another 'mix' situation is to place one or two powerful Goblins among a large number of minions, but instead of leaders, they continually strike at the Dwarf/PC group's flanks before once again hiding themselves among their more mundane brethren.

With aid of the normal NPC Dwarves, perhaps you could even make the PCs go up against a massive warband of Goblins, making them all minions or giving them just one, regular enemy leader. This would have them lining up alongside the Dwarves in a formation to whether a literal flood of Goblins that throw themselves at the defenders.

And that's just four of the top of my head. I could easily write 4 more without even having to put much conscious thought to it. Minions are supposed to be the guys that aren't trained as well, and don't have that strong sense of self that their stronger brothers have. Peasants turned warriors, goblin runts, orcs that never quite recovered from some old war injury; _these_ are what minions are meant to represent. Going down from one hit can make a lot of sense from an rp perspective, and in terms of basic combat, I can't see how they fail to add anything to an encounter.

And please don't ignore this post; I'm not patronizing you, I'm just trying to find out if you've misunderstood something or if you have an entirely different complaint than the one I've assumed you to be making. I'm honestly asking you: given the above, what's wrong with minions?


----------



## ryryguy (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Whereas does it any other way is very problematic when it comes to deciding whether you hit, how much damage you cause, and what "procs" activate. How would you do it?




Well, maybe you can choose which one is your primary weapon, and if you hit with your one attack, that's the "proc" you get and the damage you deal.  You can't get both "procs" but I'm thinking that might be a feature, not a bug.

As far as non-proc benefits, like proficiency bonuses or other bonuses to hit granted by the non-primary, it's not as clear how I'd handle that.  I'm already assuming you have a feat that gives you some simple bonus just for attacking with two weapons - flat +1 or +2 to hit, perhaps.  Perhaps the feat would also allow you to apply some or all of the secondary weapon bonuses.  It's hard for me to say what would be appropriate in a vaccuum, without knowing how high those bonuses might go.

In the end I don't see that a two weapon fighting implementation _requires_ that the fighter be able to take full advantage of all the properties of both weapons.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.




I don't like this either.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.




Totally with you on this one.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...




I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If it's metallic dragons, I say bleh. They never really appealed to me to begin with.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?




I disagree with you here. There's only a few spells that a Wizard can cast at will and they're no more powerful than a normal attack. I've never thought crossbows were really thematically appropriate weapons for wizards anyway, but that's just my opinion.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.




I'm not happy about Gnomes being put in the MM, but as far as illusions go I'm taking a wait and see position. If they really did remove almost all of the illusion spells, I will be very unhappy.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.




I agree with you, but to me it's a minor annoyance.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.




I don't really get why so many people flip out over the once-per-encounter 25 ft Eladrin teleport. I mean, seriously, it's a whopping 25 ft. Whoop dee doo, I say.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.




You lost me here. But then, I've never seen Sailor Moon.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?




I can understand why people are upset, but as someone who has stuck to official material anyway, it doesn't really affect me.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

ZetaStriker said:
			
		

> I'm honestly asking you: given the above, what's wrong with minions?




Look at your post again. Every suggestion you made involved either changing the scenario, or using less minions. I just don't see how they are useful, and I do recognize how they trip up certain scenarios. Since minions basically have a negative effect on that scenario, I'd say that's a problem.


----------



## FadedC (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Once again, I am startled to learn that other people play RPGs apparently in an entirely different fashion than I do. Just as an example, the campaign I'm running now kicked off with the PCs joining a team of dwarf soldiers fending off an attack by goblins. If I give the goblins and the dwarves 1 hp, strange things happen. And if I don't, then the minion rules have not assisted me in the encounter design at all. It's just a really bad design. The only advantage is that you can say, "Well, they die in one hit, so that's pretty much like having 1 hp," which is a conclusion most DMs can handle on the fly. What I want in the MM is stats for stuff I would prefer not to have to make up on the fly.




Believe it or not, minions are not intended to be used for every single encounter in the game. There are stats for regular orcs and regular dwarves too that you are free to use. Complaining that minions are useless because you can come up with an encounter idea they are inapropriate for is rather silly.


----------



## Beckett (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Can you substantiate that? I'm looking at a 1e Player's Handbook and I do not see a reference to fighting with two weapons at all.




Well, of course you don't see it there. The rules are in the 1E DMG, page 70. Use a dagger or a hand axe as the second weapon, take a -2 to hit with your primary weapon, -4 with the secondary. Modify these with your dexterity reaction/attacking adjustment (note- this will only reduce the penalty, it cannot provide a bonus).


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 10, 2008)

Well how large is this battle supposed to be? You seem to want the Goblins and Dwarves to be evenly matched, which eliminates my first and last examples, but I don't see how the 'leader' and 'hidden elite' examples fail to mesh with what little information was provided. I assume you have more to the encounter in mind that you didn't put up for simplicity's sake, which puts me at a disadvantage.

I also want to ask how you'd deal with a large scale battle in 3E. Would you compartmentalize it, having the PCs fight in one small skirmish of the overall war, with reinforcements constantly coming in from both sides, at a time, having them secure the lines area by area? If so, replacing just one regular NPC on either side with an equal XP value number of minions could be used to add drama to the situation. If the PCs aren't told what's a minion and what's not, seeing half again the normal number of Goblins could create good dramatic tension, while having half again the number of Dwarves could add dramatic impact when the line crumbles from the minion's deaths. You don't necessarily need to use them in massive numbers, remember, just swelling an enemy party enough for dramatic tension is enough to add something different to an encounter.

If you'd do it all the math at once with a battle consisting of more than 20 NPCs and PCs, I feel bad for you, I really do. Minions might help speed things up a _little_, but using them in smaller numbers as I suggested above, as you've said, just doesn't solve your problem. It's a specific design choice, and I will admit that minions just don't fit into every encounter, in the same way Elites and Solos don't. I for one will use them in small numbers or not at all most of the time, only putting them out in large numbers every so often so that kind of encounter doesn't begin to feel underwhelming.

Final question before I head off for the night: what _exactly_ is your problem with minions? You've been somewhat vague, only talking about unspecified problems. I assume it comes from the view that any one of these Dwarves or Goblins should be the equal, or at least close to, the PCs in terms of strength. Is this correct? Especially at lower levels, you want the PCs to feel that they're a part of the world, not somehow better than a large number of its inhabitants. This is you specifically deciding minions don't fit into the situation, which is fine, but shouldn't be a deal breaker. After all, in another ten levels, what's wrong with the Goblin threat having grown larger in the PC's absence, but given their new level of power, Goblins are now merely level appropriate minions with much greater numbers than before?


----------



## Counterspin (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Look at your post again. Every suggestion you made involved either changing the scenario, or using less minions. I just don't see how they are useful, and I do recognize how they trip up certain scenarios. Since minions basically have a negative effect on that scenario, I'd say that's a problem.




If they have a negative effect, you're using them wrong.  If you can't imagine a scenario where they'd be useful, just skip them.  They're a tool that's being provided, and they're not a requirement.


----------



## Primal (May 10, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> But if they were going to be given so few hit points as to only need one hit to take out anyway, then what's wrong with the idea?



It's the Minion "template" which obviously feels wrong to him -- 27th level "mooks" that grant you thousands of XP and yet die from one attack. And there's a difference between 1 HP and 2, 3, 4 or even 5. For example, my 3E Halfling paladin only does (on an average hit) 3 points of damage, so there's a huge difference there. 



> It's not that pulling out the crossbow is the problem, it's the resource-management game. It's the idea that a low-level wizard can toss one, maybe two spells a day, which is dull and not really evocative of fantasy fiction. While being able to throw spells all the time may be a bit much, it is a step in the right direction.




Oh, I think it's definitely essential to the genre. There are a lot of fantasy books about apprentices (who cast a spell or two or none at all) learning magic and slowly becoming wizards. And you still have resource management in 4E, don't you?



> But it beats "I stand there and full-attack it." You have to admit, having more options is rather neat, and gives somebody other than the wizard and cleric some fun things to do and consider. It makes the game a bit more tactical.




I think this is a matter of taste and preference. I don't want the game to be more tactical, or combats to play out like a hybridization between chess and M:tG. And I liked combining Feats to full-attack.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> In fact, now you get free crap in every MM.




I lol'd, and almost passed cheerios out of my nose!


----------



## Shadeydm (May 10, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Yeah, i understand that everybody is welcome to share their personal thoughts about 4E with us here...but reading a collection of (highly subjective) dislikes of one member every now and then just becomes a bit... tedious after a while. I mean i like to read lots of different opinions in thematical focused threads, but guys, come on what do we gain from these 'collection of previously posted likes/dislikes of one single member' threads? And what does the OP gain from this thread? Most of his points were discussed to death elsewhere by now...



Yes clearly what this thread really needed was a post telling us how useless it is.../rolls eyes


----------



## Shadeydm (May 10, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Screw those positive-thinking sons of guns!
> 
> But, um, seriously - I don't think the original post really had anything meaningful in it.  It was just a laundry list of...complaints.  If you want "rational discourse on what elements are good and which are poor" I'd suggest you try some other threads.
> 
> ...




And we needed this giant stinking thread turd why?!?


----------



## Shadeydm (May 10, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> "Last night's 'Itchy and Scratchy Show' was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured, I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world."




Yes clearly the 4E forum is the right place to tell us about Itchy and Scratchy...


----------



## Shadeydm (May 10, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> This thread is only about 4th edition enthusiasts and 4th edition dislikers throwing mud at each another again, and both sides do it nastily.




It started out as an intelligent and reasonable post about someone view on 4E until f4nbois reared thier ugly heads doing thier best to try and get it locked down per usual.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 10, 2008)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> No doubt. 3e was a great game, and I staunchly defended and praised it for years. Just because I think 4e is going to be an improvement doesn't mean that I buy into all the half-baked slams made against 3e in the last eight years.
> 
> For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to brush away all 4e criticisms -- or even all of pawsplay's --  as "smoke". But the minion bar brawl one strikes me as very much in the same category as 3e's sack of rats and blindfolded kobold. I just can't see the string of decisions that would lead to such a thing happening at an actual table.



Personally I find amusing that the people who railed against a housecat being able to kill a wizard (in theory) are now ok with one killing an orc.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Can you substantiate that? I'm looking at a 1e Player's Handbook and I do not see a reference to fighting with two weapons at all.



In 1st edition combat rules are in the Dungeon master Guide and this one is no exception. It's on page 70.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Some one-handed weapons are light enough for you to use in your off hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand. Doing this doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round (unless you have powers that let you do so), but you can attack with either weapon. Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.



Yeah...from this we know that you can't attack with each weapon in a round without a power to do so, but that doesn't mean that _two-weapon fighting _is off the table.  From that factoid, it's obvious that two-weapon fighting is viable, and there might be feats we don't know about that increase your defense, or change how each hand handles each weapon, or whatever...we don't know yet.  Thus the assuming and subsequent pessimism.
Hey Shadey, try to consolidate your posts please.


----------



## Darth Cyric (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Maybe it has something to do with 15+ years of combat sports experience that tells me two longswords is better than one longsword.



What "experience" led you to this utterly WRONG conclusion?


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 10, 2008)

The hilarious irony in the whole two weapon combat thing is....

You can't use two-weapon fighting without a feat (and really, to be effective at higher levels its painfully restricted to the improved/greater two-weapon feats that also force a high-dex build upon you) in 3.x. I mean, yea, technically you can swing two longswords without a feat in 3.x, but you aren't going to be hitting the broadside of a barn.

I'm not sure what the difference is in 4e. Yea, you either have to take a power, or possibly a feat, or hey, maybe even both. But um, you had to use the same finite character creation resources to do so in 3.x as well. Calling it a dealbreaker sort of implies you didn't play 3.x, either.

As far as some of the OP's concerns, I feel him on some of the stuff: Eldarin teleport is a little iffy, haven't seen a MM table of contents so we'll see how that goes.

On other things, like the minions and the two-weapon fighting thing though, you totally lose me. Minions are presented in the MM as a tool. There are plenty of non-minion options within the Orc MM entry that you can use if you want to. In fact, if you want to run slightly wimpier orcs, we already know the rules for how to do that. Take the Orc Raider, move him down to level 1, adjust his stats, tadaa. It's like doing it in 3.x, but quicker because the reverse engineering isn't nearly so obtuse.

If you dislike Minions because hypothetically a group of 200 peasents will inevitably triumph over 4 level 30 minions (requiring only 4 20's for victory), I think you are basically just looking for ways to make the rules NOT work for you. From my perspective as a DM, minions look a little more like this:

Minions are totally an abstraction. They are meant to create cinematic battles for higher level players battling against enemies that were once a threat that they can now mow down easily. Sure you can do this in 3.x, they just couldn't really hurt you, which made the threat kind of... unthreatening.

Minions also represent the bastard children of destiny. These are the Orcs that the first hit from a player they will fail to parry, and off with their (insert vital body part here). A standard raiding party of Orcs against a town does not include "X Drudges, X Raiders, X Bloodragers, etc". The DM needs to make intelligent decisions about when the inclusion of minions will add to the encounter. Heck, we've seen a level 3 human sentry who wasn't a minion, and with even a little luck he could kill 3 Orc Drudges, which are significantly higher level than he. It bears repeating that minions are a plot device, not a specific subspecies of the race that somehow evolved to die when hit by anything.

Now, this may be too abstract for some people, and I can buy that. It is the kind of thing that works just perfectly for me, though, as you can easily create larger scale battles for the PC's without overwhelming them with wimps that can barely touch them.

Trust me, I feel your pain, as I have a player in my 3.x campaign who loathes the idea of minions for the same reasons. But it's for the bag of rats reason, not a reason that would ever occur at a gaming table run by a sane DM.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 10, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Personally I find amusing that the people who railed against a housecat being able to kill a wizard (in theory) are now ok with one killing an orc.



Are they?

Edit: 
[sblock]
Or to elaborate bit: 
It is a common technique to invalidate a sides opinion by claiming it is inconsistent, while missing the fact that neither side consists of uniform people that all have the same priorities and concerns. I have seen this technique employed both by f4nbois and h4ters, and it is just not helpful.

For me: Yes, it would be problematic to me if a Commoner or a Orc can be killed by a housecat. But I have learned that it is a useless idea to run this kind of combat in the first place. It is a theoretical example, maybe one step above the bag of rats, but still outside of the actual concerns of what matters at the game table. 
[/sblock]


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> It started out as an intelligent and reasonable post about someone view on 4E until f4nbois reared thier ugly heads doing thier best to try and get it locked down per usual.





Let me make it clear - comments like this do more to bring this thread to lockdown than the others.  However, these days we generally prefer booting people from a thread to locking it down.

So, Shadeydm, don't post in this thread again.

The next person to be so rude in here will likely get a three-day vacation.


----------



## roguerouge (May 10, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> The open content movement is dying all over the place. Radiohead used it as a gimmick and they still relied on traditional album sales to make their money and they have already indicated that they will be using standard release methods for future albums.  Without some kind of robust system in place to reward artistic creativity, it is up to the use of copyright, and every method that provides, to generate income for these activities. To do otherwise is to end the entire enterprise of professionally designed games.




Please see:

www.creativecommons.org

There is another way.


----------



## roguerouge (May 10, 2008)

Also, for those arguing that we need zealous enforcement of copyright to stop digital downloading from ruing the gaming industry, we might look to what studies have shown about digital downloading:

Researchers at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina tracked music downloads over 17 weeks in 2002, matching data on file transfers with actual market performance of the songs and albums being downloaded. Harvard professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee’s results showed that it took 5,000 downloads for the sale of an album to be reduced by one copy.  In addition to this startling discovery came an even bigger one:  when it came to popular artists, record sales actually improved from downloading music – sales increased by one copy for every 150 downloads. Even high levels of file-swapping seemed to translate into an effect on album sales that was "statistically indistinguishable from zero," they wrote. (Borland, John.  “Music sharing doesn't kill CD sales, study says.” Cnet News.  29 March 2004)

I agree with the OP: the OGL was a reason to support them, as it was a voice of cooperation.


----------



## AllisterH (May 10, 2008)

What monsters arent we getting in this MM?


----------



## Mirtek (May 10, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> It's true that a lot of the fanboys choose not to discuss the merits of the game in rational, thoughtful terms.  But it's also true that most of the anti-fanboys are also quite *abrasive*, and this is actually *less* encouraging for rational discussion than just "wai wai wai 4E roxxors."
> People who don't appreciate 4th Edition would be much better off in their efforts of presenting clashing viewpoints if they calmly presented their arguments without overwhelming and obvious pessimism.  They're angry at WotC, so they don't.  And this is their mistake.



Actually it doesn't matter. Even the bestly presented most well formulated argument against 4e will be hooted down by the "wai wai wai 4E roxxors" anyway.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 10, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> What monsters arent we getting in this MM?



Frost Giant, Delver, as far as I know. I must admit, I had a soft spot for the Delver, but I think I'll get over it.  
And weren't a lot of Dragons missing, too? (Metallics?)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 10, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Actually it doesn't matter. Even the bestly presented most well formulated argument against 4e will be hooted down by the "wai wai wai 4E roxxors" anyway.



No.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 10, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Please see:
> 
> www.creativecommons.org
> 
> There is another way.



That is a legal framework, but not an _economic_ framework. It;s always possible to give things away for free, but there is not incentive. WOTC is simply doing the responsible thing by taking maximum advantage of the rents available to it through copyright law. To do otherwise would to be to hurt the interests of its shareholders and employees.


----------



## Mirtek (May 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> No.



Yes. It's a lose-lose-situation. The pro-4e side it not in the slightest more reasonable than the anti-4e side.

Just listening to some pro-4e threads gives the impression that 3.x was the worst and most unpopular system ever and WotC should have never sold a single book because everybody hated it (obviously they all were just buying 3.x books so that they could torch them and curse them while they burned)

Not a single bit better than the anti-4e rants, neither side can claim to have anything over the other in regard to reasonable behaviour


----------



## Will (May 10, 2008)

Uh, I don't know where you saw those pro-4e threads, but most of the pro-4e threads I've read are much more focused on stroking themselves raw about how unbelievably wonderful 4e is and how excited they are and so on.

Very few focus at all on 3e.


----------



## AllisterH (May 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Frost Giant, Delver, as far as I know. I must admit, I had a soft spot for the Delver, but I think I'll get over it.
> And weren't a lot of Dragons missing, too? (Metallics?)




Um, surely there's more than that...The Delver I thought was created for 3E while Metallics don't get used that often. As for Frost giants, one monster is a make or break issue?

From reading the OP, I thought we were losing whole swathes of the 1E/2E/3E Monstrous Manual. 

Personally, I think we could've stood to lose more creatures (really, do we need entries for kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins and gnolls and please, PLEASE let's not get more than 1 entry for aquatic evil humanoid!!!))


----------



## Pistonrager (May 10, 2008)

*then go away.*

Ok... I read the first post and that's enough...

OP.... good riddance...  seriously... leave.  If fourth edition isn't for you don't complain just don't buy it... and get off the 4E board.

Go. Seriously. 

This isn't flaming or baiting, it's the truth, complain elsewhere.

If you had concerns you might be consolable but "dealbreakers" if that's really the case, leave, you're beyond help.


----------



## Lackhand (May 10, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Ok... I read the first post and that's enough...
> 
> OP.... good riddance...  seriously... leave.  If fourth edition isn't for you don't complain just don't buy it... and get off the 4E board.
> 
> ...



<-- not a mod.

It's really rude to be psychic (assume you are an authority on what other posters are thinking) or to make recommendations like "get out".

We're all one big, happy family! He's free to make a mixture of excellent complaints and left-field misapprehensions into a constructive thread, and I'm free to (fail at) rebut(ting) it. 


I'm really torn about the "wowie" factor in 4e. On the one hand: full wizards get magic missile all day long, eladrin teleport all of the times.

On the other hand, you can build someone with less magical potency than a 1st level wizard (finally!) allowing "apprentice wizard" to exist; the game-setting has been looked at again to make it more... mythic, from what I can tell... and in general, a bit more care seems to have been spent on ensuring that there is a flavor for each mechanic (which I approve of, though I understand not everyone does).

I'm really going to need the books in front of me before I can definitively come down with this edition's wowee index.


----------



## DandD (May 10, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Ok... I read the first post and that's enough...
> 
> OP.... good riddance...  seriously... leave.  If fourth edition isn't for you don't complain just don't buy it... and get off the 4E board.
> 
> ...



 He won't. He will stay and observe the threads in the 4th edition forums. Then, he will buy the 4th edition rulebooks. He will be playing and enjoying them months later, and he will be embarassed to have started this thread. Then, he'll participate in other discussions about what sorts of campaign might be fun to play, what classes might need tweaking, if it's a good idea to advance the campaign in a higher tier and so on. 
The longer one rants against a new edition on a message board dedicated to it, the more you can be sure that the one who "dislikes" it is in approval of it.


----------



## Aristotle (May 10, 2008)

I'm likely too deep in this thread for the OP to notice and I certainly don't think I can change your opinion. I would urge you to play a few sessions, as I think (having been on the fence a little myself prior to DDXP) a lot of the perceived flaws of the game simply don't come up at the table. There are a ton of fun games on the market. Wizards doesn't own the industry by any means. I'm sure, if this isn't your cup of tea, you'll find the experience you want somewhere.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.



I didn't even know the kobold minions at DDXP only had one hit point. They stayed standing long enough to make for an interesting encounter. It didn't drag out like some "minion encounters" have in previous editions. I think I could easily roll a few hit dice and apply hit points to a minion if I wanted to. Also, I think it's a given that most humanoid races will get racial write ups either in the book or via third party.

*I* had a huge issue with mob entries for humanoids when it was announced. I hate the idea that different races are only challenges at certain level ranges. That said: I really like the mob entry we've now seen. I intend to use it "out of the book" within that level range... but I'm also still counting on the ability to make leveled NPC orcs for other situations.



> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.



 I need more info before I make up my mind on this. I don't think we have all the facts.



> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...



 I can't fault a company for wanting to continue to produce products that people want, and there is only so much room in a book. Tastes change over time and different monsters gain or lose popularity. This has always been a game with multiple monster books. I can accept that. I'm more concerned as to what they left out of the DMG, or what they think they can put into multiple supplemental DMGs.



> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?



This boils down to style of play and the campaign setting. 4e is sort of 'high magic' and I like a setting where my wizard can cast spells as frequently as my fighter can swing his sword (realistically that should be a finite number of times per day too given exhaustion.)



> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.



 I'm with you. I'm not happy about the changes to gnome. Hopefully we will get our illusionist class.



> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.



 I humbly disagree.



> *Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.



Not really a big deal in play (in my experience), and not much different than playing a race with wings, digging, or other extra locomotive ability.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 10, 2008)

Im coming late to this thread, so I'll just throw all of my thoughts in a single post...



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'm less interested in comparing D&D 4e to Radiohead than I am to D&D 3e, which was seemingly a very successful game.




Not really... As of today, the number of roleplaying gamers in the world has not increased significantly since the days of 2nd edition AD&D.

However, it seems that WotC's strategy with 4E is to simplify/clarify the rules, make the game more accessible and fun. 

This, combined with Hasbro's marketing know-how, could mean that D&D could actually enjoy a second golden age of popularity. If I am reading the signs right, the Beholder in Seattle is just a taste for whats coming, I would expect product placement in TV shows and movies, a few TV commercials (maybe featuring Vin Diesel or other D&D-playing celebrities), a print ad campaign in teen/young adult magazines... etc.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Have you? I think you must be confused, because the GSL is not an open license.




The OGL was not open either, at least not in the sense of the Creative Commons, GFDL or other "truly free" licenses.

The whole economic point of both the OGL and the GSL is to *let third parties make supplements for Dungeons and Dragons*. Period.

Both licenses allow third parties to do that, and therefore both are useful.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> "Last night's 'Itchy and Scratchy Show' was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured, I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world."




Thank you Hong. As always, we can count on your jokes to provide enlightenment. You are like a Zen master in that.



			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> I find this "two weapons _must_ grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting.  Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.




I practice historical fencing on Sundays, and let me tell you: Fighting with sword-and-dagger (and also sword-and-cape) really adds a whole level of complexity to the whole thing and it mainly helps with defense.

The whole point of melee combat (IMHO) is that there is always a rhythm: Strike, parry, counterstrike, riposte, etc.  You constantly try to break your opponents rhythm in such a way that you can land a blow without leaving yourself open to attack (since its kinda useless to kill your opponent if you are stabbed in the lung doing so). 

Using a weapon in your off-hand helps you use one weapon to cover yourself while attacking with the other one. It really doesn't grant you the ability to land more hits. Of course, having a dagger in your off-hand also helps when you are too close to the opponent and already past the threatening range of a sword, but then you are grappling, not in straight melee.

And let me tell you, at this point in my training, I am more liable to lose a match when I try to TWF than when I use the sword alone. 

So I am really ok with people needing feats/powers in order to do the Drizzt-cuisinart thing, although Two Weapon Defense should come for free to those spending the feat (or whatever) to do TWF.

(but of course, Precocious Apprentice said this a lot better)

And sorry Paws, the boxing analogy does not fly... And as much as it looks cool, wielding two long (and heavy) weapons is not better than wielding a long weapon and a shorter one in your off hand. 


And Finally, about the monsters we are not getting in the 1st edition MM... Clark Peterson already promised those in the Tome of Horrors 4e, and besides... Not having good dragons or frost giant stats for a few months is not going to kill my game.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 10, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> What "experience" led you to this utterly WRONG conclusion?




The new archaeological discoveries displayed in that wonderful documentary _300_, especially with the Immortals being ninjae!

Oh, I could almost say that with a straight face, too.  

Brad


----------



## amethal (May 10, 2008)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> ... Not having good dragons or frost giant stats for a few months is not going to kill my game.



Its not going to kill mine either.

However, as I understand it, those two monsters are different cases.

The metallic dragons (and some good aligned fey, I believe) were left out because the designers thought the space could be more usefully taken up by "monsters". I disagree, because I like having pre made stats for a wide variety of creatures for "world building" purposes, but I can see where they are coming from.

The frost giant was left out so MM1 would feel incomplete, and to legitimise MM2.This annoys me. (And for what its worth, in 3rd edition I have MM1 to 4, and Fiend Folio but I know a fair number of people who only have the three core books.)


----------



## MaelStorm (May 10, 2008)

amethal said:
			
		

> /snip
> The metallic dragons (and some good aligned fey, I believe) were left out because the designers thought the space could be more usefully taken up by "monsters". I disagree, because I like having pre made stats for a wide variety of creatures for "world building" purposes, but I can see where they are coming from.
> 
> The frost giant was left out so MM1 would feel incomplete, and to legitimise MM2.This annoys me. (And for what its worth, in 3rd edition I have MM1 to 4, and Fiend Folio but I know a fair number of people who only have the three core books.)



Yep, I'm on the same page too.  I hate incompleteness. That's also why I hate to wait until PHB II to get the Druid, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Shaman and Bard classes. This is also why I hate Mini boosters too, if you want 20 minions you have to buy 45 boosters, or buy them individually at a bigger price, or use crappy tools.

Aside the incompleteness, which utterly annoys me, I find the game mechanic of 4E is wonderful and I'm happy they did what they did.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> If they have a negative effect, you're using them wrong.  If you can't imagine a scenario where they'd be useful, just skip them.  They're a tool that's being provided, and they're not a requirement.




In other words, they are useless.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> In other words, they are useless.




To you.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> And sorry Paws, the boxing analogy does not fly... And as much as it looks cool, wielding two long (and heavy) weapons is not better than wielding a long weapon and a shorter one in your off hand.




That's not what I said. I said two longswords was better than one longsword. I prefer a shortsword as my second weapon, but I'll take anything over nothing at all. I spent several years working on a single sword style, and believe me, there's a lot you can do with that. I can probably take an average two weapon fighter with a single weapon most of the time. But could I take a good two-weapon fighter? Forget about it. 

And can you use two longswords? I can and I have. I don't prefer it, but I know people who do.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

amethal said:
			
		

> The frost giant was left out so MM1 would feel incomplete, and to legitimise MM2.This annoys me.




I've been playing D&D for about 24 years, and this MM will be the first one without a frost giant in it.


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> What "experience" led you to this utterly WRONG conclusion?




If you were in Dallas, I'd be happy to have this debate in person.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 10, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Ok... I read the first post and that's enough...
> 
> OP.... good riddance...  seriously... leave.  If fourth edition isn't for you don't complain just don't buy it... and get off the 4E board.
> 
> ...




Considering my warning on page 1 and Umbrans warning on page 6, and the utterly stupid nature of this post, you're suspended for 7 days. I really don't know what you were thinking.

Claiming something is 'teh troof' doesn't give you carte blanch to be offensive to other people.

You may email me if (for some strange reason) you don't understand why you've been Suspended.


----------



## FadedC (May 10, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Yep, I'm on the same page too.  I hate incompleteness. That's also why I hate to wait until PHB II to get the Druid, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Shaman and Bard classes. This is also why I hate Mini boosters too, if you want 20 minions you have to buy 45 boosters, or buy them individually at a bigger price, or use crappy tools.
> 
> Aside the incompleteness, which utterly annoys me, I find the game mechanic of 4E is wonderful and I'm happy they did what they did.




Well I can understand the missing classes even if it annoys me. It's not like 3e anymore where non spellcasting classes only need 2-3 pages, and spellcasting classes share powers with each other. Classes are far more complicated now and it's understandable that they not try to balance/present too many at once in the first book.

The frost giant though.....yeah that seems like a bad decision. In practice when I start playing I really wont care, but the frost giant seems like such an iconic monster it just seems wierd not to have him. The delver on the other hand.....


----------



## mmadsen (May 10, 2008)

amethal said:
			
		

> The metallic dragons (and some good aligned fey, I believe) were left out because the designers thought the space could be more usefully taken up by "monsters". I disagree, because I like having pre made stats for a wide variety of creatures for "world building" purposes, but I can see where they are coming from.



I think it's valid to leave out combat stats for creatures you're not likely to fight in favor of including stats for creatures you are likely to fight, but it does give the odd impression that many good-aligned creatures don't exist.


			
				amethal said:
			
		

> The frost giant was left out so MM1 would feel incomplete, and to legitimise MM2.This annoys me. (And for what its worth, in 3rd edition I have MM1 to 4, and Fiend Folio but I know a fair number of people who only have the three core books.)



I think frost giants are far too iconic to leave out.  The game needs hill giants, frost giants, and fire giants.


----------



## AllisterH (May 10, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I think it's valid to leave out combat stats for creatures you're not likely to fight in favor of including stats for creatures you are likely to fight, but it does give the odd impression that many good-aligned creatures don't exist.
> I think frost giants are far too iconic to leave out.  The game needs hill giants, frost giants, and fire giants.




Oh yeah, the MM will really be incomplete since it only has Hill, Fire, Storm and Cloud giants...that one missing giant entry really makes it feel like you can't run a proper giant encounter.

Come on, the only difference in the 30 years of D&D between a Frost giant and the others is it is a reverse Fire giant...


----------



## Mistwell (May 10, 2008)

I'm sorry pawsplay won't be switching, since I've enjoyed some of his posts in the rules forum here. Like, for example, his rules interpretation philosophy. And, that will obviously be missing now, with 4e rules discussions that are to come (as 3.5e discussion slowly withers away, like 2e rules discussion did, and like 3.0 rules discussion did).  

So, that's a shame.


----------



## mmadsen (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> 1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.



If we look to fiction, most opponents should go down with one or two hits.  One hit point seems extreme though, I agree, especially when other characters have dozens.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.



Seriously?  I've never considered the number of weapons in my hands the limiting factor in how many times I could hit someone.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...



There are very, very few monsters that I feel _nees_ to be in the Monster Manual, and I completely agree with the 4E philosophy of providing different kinds of orcs, goblins, etc.

That said, I would put the frost giant on the list of iconic monsters that belong in the Monster Manual.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?



I completely agree with your distaste for free magic -- but I'm not exactly a fan of wizards with crossbows.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.



Seriously?  A lack of gnome illusionists is a deal-breaker?


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.



Everyone's above average!  Yay!  Yeah, I agree; it's silly.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.



I agree, rampant teleportation is way over the top.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.



Yes, there does seem to be too much...zowie.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?



Obviously openness didn't benefit WotC as much as it might've.


----------



## mmadsen (May 10, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, the MM will really be incomplete since it only has Hill, Fire, Storm and Cloud giants...that one missing giant entry really makes it feel like you can't run a proper giant encounter.



The point is that frost giants are iconic; storm and cloud giants aren't.  The complaint isn't about the _volume_ of giants available.


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 10, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> The point is that frost giants are iconic; storm and cloud giants aren't.  The complaint isn't about the _volume_ of giants available.




Norse mythology does have storm giants too, last I checked. And while I'm not a fan of cloud giants personally, aren't they pretty much the Jack and the Beanstalk archetype, with the cloud castles and all that?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's not what I said. I said two longswords was better than one longsword. I prefer a shortsword as my second weapon, but I'll take anything over nothing at all. I spent several years working on a single sword style, and believe me, there's a lot you can do with that. I can probably take an average two weapon fighter with a single weapon most of the time. But could I take a good two-weapon fighter? Forget about it.
> 
> And can you use two longswords? I can and I have. I don't prefer it, but I know people who do.



Just out of curiosity, how many people have you killed with swords?


----------



## Vempyre (May 10, 2008)

just one thing to say :

sigh


----------



## pawsplay (May 10, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, how many people have you killed with swords?




None, but my homey Miyamoto Musashi will back me up on this one.


----------



## heretic888 (May 10, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> None, but my homey Miyamoto Musashi will back me up on this one.




Pawsplay,

The nitojutsu of the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is built around using a katana in one's main hand and a wakizashi in one's off hand. It is hardly the same as wielding two longswords at the same time. Furthermore, much like the so-called "Florentine" style of fencing the entire premise of the school is about using the smaller off-hand weapon for defense and parrying. It is not generally used for getting in "extra attacks".

This is all really besides the point, however. In 3E, if you had any hope at all of actually hitting a foe while two-weapon fighting, you had to have the right weapons and take the right feats to actually pull it off (pretty much like all the so-called "general" combat options in 3E). In 4E, while you seemingly are unable to attempt such attacks without taking the right options, the result is pretty much the same.

Just so I make myself clear, allow me to reiterate. Saying "you have to take X feat and use Y weapon or you take a -6 penalty to your primary weapon and a -10 penalty to your off weapon" and saying "you have to take X feat/power and use Y weapon or you cannot attempt this option" are _functionally equivalent_. The _result_ of both rules is the same in gameplay.

Laterz.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 10, 2008)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Just so I make myself clear, allow me to reiterate. Saying "you have to take X feat and use Y weapon or you take a -6 penalty to your primary weapon and a -10 penalty to your off weapon" and saying "you have to take X feat/power and use Y weapon or you cannot attempt this option" are _functionally equivalent_. The _result_ of both rules is the same in gameplay.



It would however appear that in 4e a power is necessary to attack with two weapons. So either you belong to a class that has that power or you have to multi-class into it. It doesn't seem _exactly_ functionally equivalent to taking a feat.


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (May 10, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> It would however appear that in 4e a power is necessary to attack with two weapons. So either you belong to a class that has that power or you have to multi-class into it. It doesn't seem _exactly_ functionally equivalent to taking a feat.




But multi-classing is accomplished by taking feats. You take a feat, pick a Ranger TWF power, and you can TWF no matter what class you are.


----------



## heretic888 (May 10, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> It would however appear that in 4e a power is necessary to attack with two weapons. So either you belong to a class that has that power or you have to multi-class into it. It doesn't seem _exactly_ functionally equivalent to taking a feat.




Hi Nikosandros,

This is true. However, it brings up an another point.

Of the characters that actually used TWF in 3E, how many had more than one level in Ranger, Rogue, or Swashbuckler?? You could attempt it with a Fighter or Barbarian, but you'd have to keep your Dexterity reasonably high throughout your career, which means your attack power and/or your durability will suffer as a result. 

The amount of feat investment needed to stay competitive with TWF was also costly, especially if you didn't have a source of bonus damage like sneak attack or insightful strike to offset a lack of accuracy. A Barbarian or Paladin putting all his feats in TWF would pretty much be incapable of developing options for anything else.

To me, having a faux "general" option that is only successfully used by 1 or 2 classes +90% of the time and having that same option limited to those classes is pretty much the same thing.

Laterz.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 10, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> But multi-classing is accomplished by taking feats. You take a feat, pick a Ranger TWF power, and you can TWF no matter what class you are.



Yes, but you first you have to take Warrior of the Wild, which you might not want and which precludes multi-classing into another class. For instance, you might want to build a fighter with some rogue powers who is able to TWF.

Lastly, if TWF is an at will power, you can't get it.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 10, 2008)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This is true. However, it brings up an another point. [...]



Yes, your point is valid.

I still think that it would have been nice to provide some greater flexibility for TWF in 4E, even if this flexibility wasn't really present in previous editions.


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (May 10, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Yes, but you first you have to take Warrior of the Wild, which you might not want and which precludes multi-classing into another class. For instance, you might want to build a fighter with some rogue powers who is able to TWF.
> 
> Lastly, if TWF is an at will power, you can't get it.




Wow, you're right. I went and looked back at the article and multi-classing is not very customizable at all. I can see why you have problems with TWF being a power.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 10, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Yes, but you first you have to take Warrior of the Wild, which you might not want and which precludes multi-classing into another class. For instance, you might want to build a fighter with some rogue powers who is able to TWF.
> 
> Lastly, if TWF is an at will power, you can't get it.




Wow, I just noticed that.

That's...really crappy.


----------



## Counterspin (May 10, 2008)

Yes Pawsplay, they're useless to you.  But you can easily ditch them without any  negative effect.  And there are a lot of us who like them.  I don't see how this is a problem.


----------



## heretic888 (May 10, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Yes, your point is valid.
> 
> I still think that it would have been nice to provide some greater flexibility for TWF in 4E, even if this flexibility wasn't really present in previous editions.




Hi Nikosandros,

Dungeons & Dragons is a class-based game. Your class is important to you. Most of the options available to you are determined by your class. In 3E, nearly all of the faux "general" combat options like disarming, tripping, two-weapon fighting, and so on were dependent on class-related features like weapon proficiencies, base attack bonus, and priority of attribute dependency (i.e., a class that benefits from a high Dexterity will get more from TWF than a class that does not). In 4E, they have mostly limited these options to class powers.

Personally, I have no problem with this. Instead of bogging down the general ruleset with faux options that only a fraction of the core classes can use, they have compartmentalized those options as features for the classes that would have ended up using them anyway. I'm still a little annoyed that grappling is a general option, but I can live with it.

In any event, I suspect the upcoming _Martial Power_ book may come with TWF options for Fighters and Rogues. We'll just have to wait and see.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 11, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Yes, but you first you have to take Warrior of the Wild, which you might not want and which precludes multi-classing into another class. For instance, you might want to build a fighter with some rogue powers who is able to TWF.
> 
> Lastly, if TWF is an at will power, you can't get it.




Hi Nikosandros,

Well, that is something of a moot point because if the Stormwarden is any indication, there are TWF encounter and daily powers, as well. It also seems to be keyed to Strength, not Dexterity.

Personally, I'm less concerned with "builds" than I am with "character concepts". If the concept is simply a warrior who fights with two swords, I would use Ranger as a base. The TWF powers are seemingly tied to Strength, so the character could multiclass quite well with a Fighter.

Laterz.


----------



## Baen (May 11, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.



The deal is that hitpoints are not some exact durability anymore, they are a representation of the individuals plot usefulness. All minions are is a monster that goes down with the first legitimate hit on them. However the difference between 3e and 4e in this manner is that this sort of minion CAN actually do damage against the character. It is not a low level creature thrown in as a space blocker and to waste hits on, its a legitimate threat, albeit not so much as other monsters. The non minion monsters are the leaders or specialists of the group, the ones that stand toe to toe with the pcs in combat for a bit before dying, the memorable foes. Now you can certainly throw no minions at all against your pcs, that is your choice, but minions add a lot in the sense that your pcs can feel overwhelmed, yet have the chance for victory. They add a strong storytelling sense to the game, maybe a hollywood esque story but far better then no matter how strong my pc is the little guys are always able to hold their own in combat with me, or might as well not even be there. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.




This has been discussed to death all over the place. My personal take on it is that unless you receive specialized training, you will not be able to two weapon fight effectively. Everyone starts off learning one weapon at a time, simply because the coordination for even one weapon is hard to master. If you have trained exclusively with one weapon style and then decide to pick up a second weapon against an opponent of your level, you are probably going to lose just because of the awkwardness involved. Two weapon fighting is NOT OUT OF D&D. Instead of being able to pick up one and try without any training and fumbling around horribly  as in 3e you simply still fight as if you were fighting with just one weapon, since that is all you have trained to focus on. However if you want to learn how to do it feats and the multiclass system will likely more then make up for it. 




			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e.




This as a policy issue I don't agree with, but I doubt I will be using a frost giant for a while regardless. If necessary I will just make one by switching the fire giant to cold. I haven't been playing as long, so can't say I am as attached, but all you really have to do is wait a few months and it will be out there.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?




Actually it really irritated me in 3rd that my party rest schedule always revolved around the wizard. It just really broke the realism for me that the charachters would charge into the temple, but oops, wizard wasted his spell on a too easy encounter and now they have to retreat and hide out somewhere. Since I tend to dm from a real consequences perspective this led to me having to change a whole lot of things on the fly if i hadn't specifically planned for it, or throw random convenient rest areas into my dungeons. This way all my players will feel like they are a useful member of their class at all times of the day. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.



This is actually the thing that irritated me the most about 4th, considering that my favorite race/class combo has been a gnome illusionist, although I played them less with my players then I did against them (ahhh, gotta love five 5th level gnome illusionists with an hours warning on a 10th level party) However I imagine the gnome will be statted out in the MM as a player race, and  once again it is just a waiting game. Considering that lots of the changes from 3rd edition I have waited years for I don't mind waiting just a few more months (heck, I may actually be able to afford the books then.)


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.



I sort of like this, sort of don't. I like their to be consequences to players decisions. However they are supposed to be heroes, and I can't think of many non min maxed heroes that would have been less then 10 in any stat. Regardless it isn't much of a penalty, when everyone has them. Even though my eladrin doesn't have a +2 to strength, it doesn't mean he has a penalty to it considering he has a +2 in another stat. Those are simply the races strengths, you can't really say any race is penalized for not having a certain strength in any edition. 


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.



I would agree a lot more with this one if they didn't fit so well into a campaign idea I have. Regardless it is not a true teleport, or at least not in my game. It would still follow certain rules considering you are going through the feywild. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.



I personally find it better then 3e's complete lack of zow. Of course this is assuming you are talking about the fighter, since the wizard/cleric/ranger/rogue  has no more or not much more  then before. When I first started playing, I was the fighter in the party. Suffice to say I was bored out of my mind, I stood in place and rolled x amount of d20s and did x*(2d6+y) amount of damage. Compared to our wizard who threw around spectacular fireballs. It came down to the only way your fighter was cool was if your dm described as such or allowed you to provide descriptions. Every other class had cool things already, rogues still backstab, rangers shoot arrows like guided missles, barbarians froth at the mouth. The only class that has really been zowed up is fighters, and I feel that considering how in the modern iconery and such the stuff they do deserves it. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> *The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?




From my understanding the only real thing different is that companies cannot publish the same product for both systems, and that wizards can revoke their ability to produce things for it all. I am personally fine with it simply because it is a step back it is a step towards a free yet sustainable system. Eventually someone would abuse an open gaming license or something to the effect hurt wizard sufficiently that they would have to retract it. The new license seems geared at two things, profits for wizards and quality control. Which is honestly a good thing in my eyes, even if a few products are not going make it to 4e or 3e, it is better then thousands of crappy ones flooding both.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 11, 2008)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In any event, I suspect the upcoming _Martial Power_ book may come with TWF options for Fighters and Rogues. We'll just have to wait and see.



That's certainly a possibility.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 11, 2008)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm less concerned with "builds" than I am with "character concepts". If the concept is simply a warrior who fights with two swords, I would use Ranger as a base. The TWF powers are seemingly tied to Strength, so the character could multiclass quite well with a Fighter.



I agree about character concept. I guess that we'll have to wait for the PHB in order to see how viable different concepts are... it might very well be that using ranger as a base could work.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> It would however appear that in 4e a power is necessary to attack with two weapons. So either you belong to a class that has that power or you have to multi-class into it. It doesn't seem _exactly_ functionally equivalent to taking a feat.



No, it's not _exactly_ the same in that you don't take the same set of feats or whatever to accomplish it. But it's _functionally_ equivalent because you need to take certain feats/powers if you want to do it effectively, regardless of which specific feats/powers they might be.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 11, 2008)

I don't think the issue is "I need a feat to use two weapon fighting" so much as the worry it might be "I need to be a ranger to use two weapon fighting, and I can only multiclass once."


----------



## Nikosandros (May 11, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No, it's not _exactly_ the same in that you don't take the same set of feats or whatever to accomplish it. But it's _functionally_ equivalent because you need to take certain feats/powers if you want to do it effectively, regardless of which specific feats/powers they might be.



But those feats preclude other multi-classing feats.


----------



## Njall (May 11, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.





Uh? I'm not sure what you mean here. An ability score of 8 still gives a -1 penalty. Look at the DDXP characters.
"No penalties" means "No *racial* penalties".
And, just in case you have a problem with the "no racial penalties to ability scores" thing,  in a game where ability scores are used as prerequisites for feats, the fact that your ability score is not lower than average ( esp. if you're using point buy ) actually matters.


----------



## Teemu (May 11, 2008)

I didn't read the whole thread, but there really aren't people who are going to say (with a serious face), "One reason why I don't want to play the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons make-believe world fantasy game is because the Monster Manual doesn't have frost giants." Right...?

Frost. Giants.

There are what, dozens and dozens of different critters in the book. 

The lack of frost giants is a reason why you're going to pass a new edition of an RPG? What if your 3e MM was damaged and the page where frost giants are described was destroyed - you wouldn't abandon the game altogether, right? 

I mean come on...! Frost giants. You got plenty of other giants!


----------



## Jim DelRosso (May 11, 2008)

A couple thoughts on the two-weapon fighting issue:

First, I'd be willing to lay a few bucks on the notion that rogues, at least, will get "attack with two weapons at once" powers. It's in keeping with both their role and their archetype, and R&C included a nice pic of two dual-wielding rogues. (That latter bit is, of course, somewhat iffy... but I refuse to give up hope for my dual-kukri rogue.  ) That being said, I don't think such powers will be necessary for all dual-wielders, though they likely will be if you want to gain benefits from using two weapons of the same type.

In fact, I'm really curious to see how viable a fighter who used a different kind of weapon in each hand would be. Many fighter powers are supposed to be tied to a specific weapon group, so a fighter using a battle ax and a short sword would be able to choose from a wider variety of powers, even if she couldn't attack with both in a round. The main problem would be the loss of AC from eschewing a shield, but if there's any kind of Two-Weapon Defense feat, that could be ameliorated.

With the action economy coning under such scrutiny in 4e's development, and undergoing such changes as a result, I'm not too surprised to see that TWF had been altered as well. I'm hopeful about the new system, and dual-wielders will be some of the first characters I try to make (particularly a Grey Mouser clone ).


----------



## Will (May 11, 2008)

Frost giants? Wow.

I think I've seen frost giants... twice since I started playing in basic D&D?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> But those feats preclude other multi-classing feats.



Yes, you mentioned that. But as said above:



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> To me, having a faux "general" option that is only successfully used by 1 or 2 classes +90% of the time and having that same option limited to those classes is pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> Frost giants? Wow.
> 
> I think I've seen frost giants... twice since I started playing in basic D&D?



I've not once seen (as a player) or used (as a DM) frost giants since I started playing in what, 1988? The lack of a particular monster as a dealbreaker is...interesting, I suppose.


----------



## Baen (May 11, 2008)

I personally wouldn't feel incredibly bad if the only way to gain two weapon fighting was through ranger multiclass. TWF's philosophy has primarily revolved around sacrificing defense or power for more attacks. It seems that this time around, as mentioned further up in the thread, character design is a lot more of a concept then a class then a class followed by a concept. TWF is very much a striker ability, and a defender will likely have little or no use for it. Actually a fighter with their specialization in a single weapon will likely be less effective with them then otherwise. I guess the question is less about who can use TWF then what do people want to use it FOR. If you want a warrior that wanders around the battlefield slicing people up, your not really looking for a defender oriented fighter anyways.


----------



## Zil (May 11, 2008)

Teemu said:
			
		

> I didn't read the whole thread, but there really aren't people who are going to say (with a serious face), "One reason why I don't want to play the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons make-believe world fantasy game is because the Monster Manual doesn't have frost giants." Right...?
> 
> Frost. Giants.
> 
> ...



True, it may seem like a strange reason to avoid an edition of the game, but on the other hand, it sure is a really strange thing to drop.  When I think giants, the first thing I think of are frost giants and fire giants.  After that, hill and stone giants.  This goes back to the old "Against the Giants" series.  They've always been there from 1E through to 3.5.   Not having them in the main monster manual is just weird.  It would be like not having a red dragon in the monster manual.  And perhaps those decisions as to what is in and what is not are indicative of basic problems in the decision making processes at work.  Why give us some kind of forgettable new monster with a sword for an arm and drop a classic monster that just screams D&D to the old timers.  If one of the goals is to move old timers forward to the new edition, you'd think they would keep as many of the iconic trappings as they could in the game.


----------



## pawsplay (May 11, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> I personally wouldn't feel incredibly bad if the only way to gain two weapon fighting was through ranger multiclass.




Until Drizzt came along, two weapon fighting had nothing to do with rangers. Prior to him, a ranger would wield either the blade of Isuldur, some kind of quarterstaff, or a bow. I have a hard time picturing many samurai, many if not most historical fighters, some gladiators, and the majority of duelists during the heydey of the rapier as rangers or multiclass rangers.


----------



## pawsplay (May 11, 2008)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Pawsplay,
> 
> The nitojutsu of the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is built around using a katana in one's main hand and a wakizashi in one's off hand. It is hardly the same as wielding two longswords at the same time. Furthermore, much like the so-called "Florentine" style of fencing the entire premise of the school is about using the smaller off-hand weapon for defense and parrying. It is not generally used for getting in "extra attacks".




Actually, if you will read his Wind chapter, you will hear his opinions on why longsword and shortsword is preferable to two longswords, which I agree with. Furthermore, you never wield a weapon in your second hand if it is purely for defense; you would be better with a shield or some kind of fork. Musashi's style never, ever assigns any movement or technique as being purely defensive. 

In general, in D&D, to hit is king. So it actually makes a lot of sense for a fighter in D&D with a rapier and dagger to use his two weapon defense and only make one attack a lot of the time, particularly if he has rogue levels and uses Improved Feint. But attacking with both is still an option. To me, that's pretty much how it should be.

I am less concerned with having two attacks as the concept of having two weapons should cause you to win more often against someone with one weapon, one-handed weapon. It is true, fighters are often worse off with two weapons than one. But in general, I think that's because they have a specialization in one-handed style; they don't fight badly with two weapons, they simply don't have the advantages of a specialist. I always encourage newbies to learn one weapon first, then two. but it's not because they can't wield two, it's because it becomes a crutch. Newbies with two weapons are simply less safe, as well, and depending on that second weapon to be there can lead to some bad fencing habits. But in general, someone with a few weeks experience is going to be better with two weapons than with one. Some people just can't do two weapons without special training, but that's not most people; some people can't do two-handed weapons, either, and we don't slap a on -6 penalty to use one of those. 

Using two weapons as an advantage over one weapon should be an option for any character with proficiency with those weapons, not simply those with special powers. Using a sword and axe is nothing at all like being able to shoot an energy bolt from your fingertips or vault over someone's head in combat. What's next, making extra languages a Power of the bard class?


----------



## pawsplay (May 11, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> Now you can certainly throw no minions at all against your pcs, that is your choice, but minions add a lot in the sense that your pcs can feel overwhelmed, yet have the chance for victory. They add a strong storytelling sense to the game, maybe a hollywood esque story but far better then no matter how strong my pc is the little guys are always able to hold their own in combat with me, or might as well not even be there.




I don't have a problem with the minion concept in general, I simply thinking assigning 1 hp to a minion is a bad rule for D&D.



> This way all my players will feel like they are a useful member of their class at all times of the day.




Wouldn't making wizards half-decent with a crossbow accomplish the same thing?



> I personally find it better then 3e's complete lack of zow. Of course this is assuming you are talking about the fighter, since the wizard/cleric/ranger/rogue  has no more or not much more  then before. When I first started playing, I was the fighter in the party. Suffice to say I was bored out of my mind, I stood in place and rolled x amount of d20s and did x*(2d6+y) amount of damage.




I don't think it does suffice to say. I have never seen fighters as boring. In fact, to me, they are kind of an advanced class that takes a fair amount of strategy to get the most out of. I do not, at all, think of a fighter as a guy who stands there and slugs the bad guy. At the very least, there is always the melee versus ranged thing.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2008)

Again, as someone who has hashed this out WAY back pre-3E on rec.games.frp.dnd, I totally disagree with pawsplay analysis of TWF and its effectiveness...

The idea that TWF is superior needs to be squashed because historically this sure as hell wasn't true.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 11, 2008)

I'm a 4E skeptic myself, but I'm holding out until I have the books before I make the decision to switch or not.  My players are far less likely to switch than I am, anyway...so it's not like I need to decide today, anyway.

*1.  "1 hp minions."  * Yeah, these bother me too.  Not a deal-breaker, because I can always just decide not to use them (at least, I hope so.)

*2.  "No second attacks with a second weapon." *   Call me crazy, but I actually like this.  I've always thought that a second weapon should give you options, not extra attacks...options like two different types of damage, two different ranges, etc.  That, and creatures with more than one two arms become much less game-breaking (thri-kreen rangers, I'm looking at you.)

*3.  Missing monsters in the MM.*  I agree completely.  In effect, it feels like they are trying to get us to subscribe to textbook editions.  I'm not at all thrilled about that.

*4.  Infinite wizard magic.* Truth be told, I am so tired of Vancian magic, that just about anything else would be better.  This was a huge selling point for me.

*5.  No gnome illusionists. *  In more than 15 years of gaming, I have never had a single player roll up a gnome...or an illusionist, for that matter.  So this will probably impact me very little.  That said, it still would have been nice to have the option.

*6.  No penalties.*  I thought about it, and I agree.  I would much rather have bonus/penalty mechanics than bonus/no bonus mechanics.

*7.  Teleporting PCs.*  I agree.  Yes, I know they are going to nerf the crap out of it, and yes I know it will probably end up being more like "moving really quick" instead of at-will blinking or Potter-style apparation, but the mechanics aren't what I dislike about it.  The flavor is wrong.  So right now, I am leaning toward banning it just on principle.

*8. Too much ZOWIE.* I laughed aloud when I read this.  And I can see what you mean by it.  But the thing is, I happen to _like_ zowie.

*9.  Open Gaming issues. *  I was disappointed to hear it, as well.  And I worry about what will happen to Paizo now, because I really like their stuff.  But I don't think this will affect whether or not I ever play 4E; it will just impact whether or not people are still playing 4E in another five years.

Some of my own strikes against 4E:

*A.  Lame PC races.*  I don't like tieflings and dragonborn.  I've explained this already in another thread, but the gist of it is this: I don't like to blur the line between the good guys and the bad guys.  Dragons and Outsiders are clearly the "bad guys" in my games, and I want to keep them that way.

*B.  Favorite classes missing. *  As with the MM, I don't want to subscribe to buying the newest PHB every year just to get the classes that I like.  The lack of popular classes (the druid, barbarian, and monk in particular) is the main reason why my players are opposed to 4E.

*C.  Marking. *  I've run a couple of little test games (I call them "micro-games," since they are little more than situational combat sessions) with the 4E Lite rules, and I can already tell that marking is going to be more trouble than it is worth.  I've used everything from loops of color-coded wire to poker chips, and nothing works to my satisfaction.  There is just no way to make it easy.  If I go to 4E, I'm going to hand-wave the crap out of this...or ignore it altogether.


----------



## pawsplay (May 11, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Again, as someone who has hashed this out WAY back pre-3E on rec.games.frp.dnd, I totally disagree with pawsplay analysis of TWF and its effectiveness...
> 
> The idea that TWF is superior needs to be squashed because historically this sure as hell wasn't true.




I've never hashed it out on rec.games.frp.dnd, but I have more than fifteen years of boffer combat experience, some familiarity with SCA rattan combat, and I've received a couple of escrima tutorials. I can cite Miyamoto Musashi or point out that most dueling manuals suggested rapier and dagger or rapier and buckler. But if you want to vaguely cite some discussion on Usenet back in the 90s, without linkage, I guess to each their own.

EDIT: And I have no idea what you mean about historically this sure as hell wasn't true, unless by that you mean, "Was pretty much true."

EDIT EDIT: Five minutes of googling came up with this:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

13.  Fighting with a sword and shield was the typical method of Medieval foot-combat.

False. Despite their ubiquity in popular media's depictions of Medieval combat, and their close association with knights and medieval warriors, by the 14th century large shields were actually uncommon and all but disappeared from battles and single combats. This decline continued as the decades wore on. Rather than a single-handed short sword with large shield, soldiers, knights and men-at-arms were equipped typically with double-handed weapons (whether polearms, hafted weapons, or double-hand swords), or with two weapon combinations (swords with maces, axes, daggers, etc.). Large shields survived as specialized tools mostly for sieges and judicial combats but were not primary equipment. Smaller bucklers and other hand shields were by far more common than larger shields and typically served as a principal means of training.


----------



## Psion (May 11, 2008)

Teemu said:
			
		

> I didn't read the whole thread, but there really aren't people who are going to say (with a serious face), "One reason why I don't want to play the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons make-believe world fantasy game is because the Monster Manual doesn't have frost giants." Right...?
> 
> Frost. Giants.
> 
> ...




I think you have missed the point.

One creature is generally not a big deal, even if you are a group for which the creature is a staple of the D&D experience.

Frost Giant was brought up as an example cited in a podcast of a creature that would be "saved for later" because it is traditionally core and the designers felt that it was an example of such a creature that would help compel the existing audience to think of supplemental books as core.

But it's just an example. In all likelihood, it's probably far from the only such creature.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I've never hashed it out on rec.games.frp.dnd, but I have more than fifteen years of boffer combat experience, some familiarity with SCA rattan combat, and I've received a couple of escrima tutorials. I can cite Miyamoto Musashi or point out that most dueling manuals suggested rapier and dagger or rapier and buckler. But if you want to vaguely cite some discussion on Usenet back in the 90s, without linkage, I guess to each their own.
> 
> EDIT: And I have no idea what you mean about historically this sure as hell wasn't true, unless by that you mean, "Was pretty much true."



Please remember that D&D combat is completely abstract and in no way realistic, so what your opinion of real life may be is irrelevant. Attack rolls in D&D are supposed to represent a variety of thrusts and feints, not just a single swing (check your PHB), so additional weapon = additional attack does not automatically follow. We're all very impressed with your credentials, I'm sure, but this discussion is heading toward flame territory, so it's probably best to just nip it in the bud.


----------



## pawsplay (May 11, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Please remember that D&D combat is completely abstract and in no way realistic, so what your opinion of real life may be is irrelevant. Attack rolls in D&D are supposed to represent a variety of thrusts and feints, not just a single swing (check your PHB), so additional weapon = additional attack does not automatically follow. We're all very impressed with your credentials, I'm sure, but this discussion is heading toward flame territory, so it's probably best to just nip it in the bud.




I'm not out to flame anybody, but if people want to come into a thread I started and spout misinformation, they had better be prepared to back up their positions with some kind of citation, reasonable argument, etc. Apart from the problems of gegraphy, I could get 90% of the readers of this thread presenting a credible two weapon style with boffer weapons in an afternoon. I know this because I've done it, dozens of times.

And as I've said at least a half dozen times in this thread already, I am not married to the "two weapons = two rolls" mechanic. I'm just saying two weapon fighting should constitute something more than not having a free hand.


----------



## hong (May 11, 2008)

Boffer combat isn't.


----------



## Baen (May 11, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Until Drizzt came along, two weapon fighting had nothing to do with rangers. Prior to him, a ranger would wield either the blade of Isuldur, some kind of quarterstaff, or a bow. I have a hard time picturing many samurai, many if not most historical fighters, some gladiators, and the majority of duelists during the heydey of the rapier as rangers or multiclass rangers.




Actually this is precisely what I in my last post and others in previous posts have been talking about. Classes in 4e seem far less attached to any particular charachter so much as they are a package of abilities. Sure they have their fluff which goes on well with the D&D Archetype, but the fact that they are role based means that they are more telling for the role, then a specific class. For instance, Aragorn the Ranger would likely be a fighter with nature skills in both 2nd and 3rd, while Legolas an elven warrior would be the definition of one. Now I know D&D isn't LOTR, but the truth is that their aren't really that many heroic characters defined as rangers. Their is a distinct difference between what you call yourself, and what you play. A pure samurai would likely be a fighter, however Musashi would likely be a ranger, especially given how he was not so much a Samurai lord as he was a wandering Ronin. Also given that samurai gave high importance to the bow, more traditional samurai that followed his school of the sword would likely be rangers as well. 



> I don't have a problem with the minion concept in general, I simply thinking assigning 1 hp to a minion is a bad rule for D&D.




I just wonder what you would do in place? Minions are meant to be quickly killed foes, not memorable unless in vast numbers. They are designed to be killed fast, therefore why not give them 1hp? Where do you draw the line? If you give them hp for their level they are no longer really minions, even 1hp per level doesn't really mean anything except that no one will see an orc below 4th.  Minions should pose a threat, capable of doing damage, but should be just as easily killed. 3e didn't really do that too much, if a monster could be killed easily without expending significant mage resources, he really couldn't do that much to the pcs anyways. 





> Wouldn't making wizards half-decent with a crossbow accomplish the same thing?




Not really, since it doesn't fit the image of any wizard I have ever heard of. I don't think I have ever read a fantasy novel where the wizard went, oops, no more spells for the day. I have heard them being knocked out from exhaustion maybe, but never pull out a crossbow. That is purely a D&D thing, and one done simply because the system was limited that wizards NEEDED to do it, not because it made any sense along thematic lines. Actually, in fantasy if a wizard was out of magic they tend to get their hands on a sword and wade into combat. 



> I don't think it does suffice to say. I have never seen fighters as boring. In fact, to me, they are kind of an advanced class that takes a fair amount of strategy to get the most out of. I do not, at all, think of a fighter as a guy who stands there and slugs the bad guy. At the very least, there is always the melee versus ranged thing.




I agree, in that they can be played very strategically. However they had nothing really unique they could do without adding on prestige classes galore. Regardless of what feats you took, you tended to just stand there and spam basic attacks over and over again. Not that it was incredibly different from others, just that it was the only thing they could do. Now of course if you have a good descriptive dm, I didn't have one as a player although try to be now that I am one, its different. 


Not really wanting to quote anymore, the deal is that twf will be in 4e, and will likely be a nice advantage considering it is one of the main class features of the Ranger, a heavy damage dealer. As previously mentioned, take away the name ranger and their mechanics can be interpreted in multiple ways for several character concepts. TWF is in no way shape or form gone from 4e.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 11, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Until Drizzt came along, two weapon fighting had nothing to do with rangers. Prior to him, a ranger would wield either the blade of Isuldur, some kind of quarterstaff, or a bow. I have a hard time picturing many samurai, many if not most historical fighters, some gladiators, and the majority of duelists during the heydey of the rapier as rangers or multiclass rangers.



Like the Warlord class, I expect that the name of the class "Ranger" is sort of a misnomer, determined by tradition if nothing else.  We've seen no indication that Rangers have anything to do with Nature other than their skill list (which might be accounted for by the fact that some Rangers are actually _rangers_, and so there's that option, I do not think that it is meant to define the role of the class as it used to).  They are a Martial class, after all, neither Primal nor Divine.
It would seem that Rangers as Strikers fill two Striker combat roles--ranged and melee.  (Note that this is different from the Rogue, which is ranged* and melee*, the star indicating that they specialize in opportunism instead of straight combat.)
If the Ranger decides they want to be a meleer, that's their schtick, and they have the time and will to cultivate a potentially deadlier two-weapon fighting style.  Meanwhile, Fighters don't, Warlords don't, Clerics don't, and Paladins don't, all of them focusing on training the powers associated with their Role (none of which would be benefited with an extra weapon).  Rogues wouldn't bother focusing on learning how to fight with two weapons because they are more concerned with getting in that one carefully-placed backstab than actually dueling face-to-face.

In other words, forget everything you preconceived about what the Ranger class is.  They are now Strikers.  Melee Rangers are not merely rangers who melee, but any and all persons who want to do straight, non-centrally-opportunistic damage in a melee situation.  Thus they have have the capability to fight with two weapons unlike every other class/Role.

That's my theory, and it's hard to substantiate because we haven't seen many Ranger abilities.  Seems right though.

Of course, this idea might just make people mad that Roles are so defined, and that's a legitimate complaint.


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 11, 2008)

A wizard pulling out a crossbow after running out of magic was perhaps the most vile thing in any past edition.

Well, other than what happened when Wizards didn't need their crossbows anymore and became one-man-parties.


----------



## JesterOC (May 11, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?





That one made me laugh out loud.
I think that sentence will be spoken about 10,000 times less often than the old 1E,2E and 3E reaction spoken by so many new wizard players ....

"What!?!?  I get How many spells?!?! Thats it... for the whole day!?!?!"

JesterOC


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 11, 2008)

too many oversights in the corebooks and badly edited tables and power entries... thats the only things i fear right now... 

(reason: orc minion stats, half-elf pregen, multiclass feat table, commander's strike)


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 11, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I've never hashed it out on rec.games.frp.dnd, but I have more than fifteen years of boffer combat experience, some familiarity with SCA rattan combat, and I've received a couple of escrima tutorials. I can cite Miyamoto Musashi or point out that most dueling manuals suggested rapier and dagger or rapier and buckler. But if you want to vaguely cite some discussion on Usenet back in the 90s, without linkage, I guess to each their own.




When I read your first post that talked about experience, I had a hunch it was about boffer combat. twf is easer done with lighter weapons (although i still manage to suck at it somehow).  I dont have the knowledge or experience to debate if twf was historically true or not, but i do know some maneuvers with boffer combat do not apply to real fighting due to the nature of how light boffer weapons are, and how blade orientation is almost never considered (in the group i attend at least)


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 11, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> too many oversights in the corebooks and badly edited tables and power entries... thats the only things i fear right now...
> 
> (reason: orc minion stats, half-elf pregen, multiclass feat table, commander's strike)




These are far more legitimate fears than anything presented in this thread, imo =/


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 11, 2008)

ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> These are far more legitimate fears than anything presented in this thread, imo =/



Agreed.  Methinks they need to recruit like 10x as many playtesters-for-free (like in a video game Beta) to minimize the chances of this happening.
I'd personally be in favor of putting it all online and Patching the rules now and then, but I'm sure this would antagonize a lot of people who are more relaxed when there are absolute/fixed rules in their games.  And of course, then there'd be less of a chance of selling obviously flawed books.  Not really a profit in it, when the gamers control the games themselves and mess with the rules how they like.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2008)

Reason why I find the Frost Giant issue so weird is that sure, its iconic, but frankly, like most D&D monsters, it blow chunks.

Seriously, is there ANY difference between running an encounter with kobolds--->hobgoblins other than HP and attack bonuses? So exactly what makes a gnoll for example, iconic?

Same thing applies to the giants..Yeah, yeah, against the giants is a classic module but I've always founf in practice fire, frost giants to be interchangeable simlarly, frost and cloud.

I rather have had previous MMs have creatures with distinct attack forms rather than wolf, dire wolf and the worg ALL GETTING ENTRIES.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 11, 2008)

If Ettins are in there, I don't even want stats for frost giants.  Ettins for the win.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 11, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Seriously, is there ANY difference between running an encounter with kobolds--->hobgoblins other than HP and attack bonuses? So exactly what makes a gnoll for example, iconic?




Orc are tactically different because they have a killer charge range, and non-minions have a bloodied minor action to use a healing surge.
Kobolds can shift a ton, making them harder to keep in melee or control their position.  They have an easier time hitting you when they gang up.
Gnolls do extra damage when attacking in packs.
Hobgoblins can shake off negative effects easier than others.
Goblins slip away from you if you swing at them and miss.

This doesn't talk into account other themed powers of leaders and soldiers and such.


----------



## D'karr (May 11, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Orc are tactically different because they have a killer charge range, and non-minions have a bloodied minor action to use a healing surge.
> Kobolds can shift a ton, making them harder to keep in melee or control their position.  They have an easier time hitting you when they gang up.
> Gnolls do extra damage when attacking in packs.
> Hobgoblins can shake off negative effects easier than others.
> ...




I agree.  This seems to be an edition where they made a conscious effort to have the tactics of the creature match the theme for the creature.  Each creature does seem like it is different, specially because they fight differently.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2008)

Ok,  admittedly, this edition seems to actually give different play experiences based on the monster you choose...

Heh...well we do get a Giants preview on Monday so maybe this edition we'll actually get different play experiences with giants.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 11, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Seriously, is there ANY difference between running an encounter with kobolds--->hobgoblins other than HP and attack bonuses? So exactly what makes a gnoll for example, iconic?.




Fluff.  Traps.  In and out of game memes.

Also, one major difference is that kobolds are _pure awesome made flesh_, whereas hobgoblins are old, boring, nondescript, and generic.


----------



## Primal (May 11, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> He won't. He will stay and observe the threads in the 4th edition forums. Then, he will buy the 4th edition rulebooks. He will be playing and enjoying them months later, and he will be embarassed to have started this thread. Then, he'll participate in other discussions about what sorts of campaign might be fun to play, what classes might need tweaking, if it's a good idea to advance the campaign in a higher tier and so on.
> The longer one rants against a new edition on a message board dedicated to it, the more you can be sure that the one who "dislikes" it is in approval of it.




Hmmm.... please don't generalize. I have "ranted" a lot against 4E, but I have also honestly admitted that I like some stuff in 4E (e.g. the Skill Challenges). I don't doubt that *most* D&D fans will "go with the flow" in the end, but I have enough 3E/PF material to sustain my campaigns until 5E comes out (or Pathfinder RPG 2nd Edition . Therefore, I can promise you that my group is not switching to 4E -- not now and not in the future, either.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Therefore, I can promise you that my group is not switching to 4E -- not now and not in the future, either.



Can you make that promise on behalf of all of the other players in your group? What would you do if everyone else (or even just a majority) wanted to just _try_ 4E?


----------



## med stud (May 11, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> When I read your first post that talked about experience, I had a hunch it was about boffer combat. twf is easer done with lighter weapons (although i still manage to suck at it somehow).  I dont have the knowledge or experience to debate if twf was historically true or not, but i do know some maneuvers with boffer combat do not apply to real fighting due to the nature of how light boffer weapons are, and how blade orientation is almost never considered (in the group i attend at least)



Yes, that's it. Boffer combat is a skill in it's own, it has little to do with combat with heavier weapons. You have far too much mobility with the "blade".

An important thing to consider with two weapon combat is that much of the attacking with weapons is about range. To maximize range you generally keep one shoulder closer to the opponent. To switch that alignment doesn't take long time, but it's time enough for the opponent to backstep and avoid your second attack. I'm not talking about an elaborate dodge here, just a regular backstep. If the two weapon guy switches dominant arms in an attack sequence he is also in a great risk to expose himself to a stab from the one he is attacking.

Generally speaking, few people went into a duel with one empty hand; you almost always had a buckler or dagger in the off hand. The main role of that weapon wasn't to attack with it as often as you attacked with the main weapon, the main role was to provide an effective defense.

About fighting with two long blades: There are two examples from history about fighting with two long blades of equal length. One of them, the Musashi one, was practised by a guy who could make a broken toothbrush into a lethal weapon. There are countless fighting styles that include a long blade and a short blade or just one long blade.


----------



## DandD (May 11, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... please don't generalize. I have "ranted" a lot against 4E, but I have also honestly admitted that I like some stuff in 4E (e.g. the Skill Challenges). I don't doubt that *most* D&D fans will "go with the flow" in the end, but I have enough 3E/PF material to sustain my campaigns until 5E comes out (or Pathfinder RPG 2nd Edition . Therefore, I can promise you that my group is not switching to 4E -- not now and not in the future, either.



Yes, yes, sure, tell yourself whatever you like, but if you're still hanging out on a forum dedicated to a particular part of the hobby and talk and talk and talk about it for all the time, you're drawn to it, and you will finally succumb to it. It's not like there are tons of other websites dedicated for the actual rules. Heck, you can easily go to the general gaming forum of ENWorld. But if you're telling yourself that you won't change, but still hang around the part of the message boards that you despise, you're clearly in denial. That, or you're somehow a masochist, who likes to waste his time and his nerves in ranting.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 11, 2008)

We're getting a bit arrogant here.

People talk about what they don't like all the time.  I can't walk in these forums without tripping over the same people loudly declaring their hate for 3.x for the upteenth time.  But I don't think that means they have some secret dark pleasure in their soul that declares adoration for the ruleset.

This is about pen and paper games.  Not BDSM.  I don't think anyone here has to go into a little dungeon, excuse the possible pun, to play a setting they publically claim no love for.


----------



## Wormwood (May 12, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> I agree.  This seems to be an edition where they made a conscious effort to have the tactics of the creature match the theme for the creature.  Each creature does seem like it is different, specially because they fight differently.



Agreed---a definite upgrade.

When I ran Oakhurst, one of the comments I got from my players was, "These Kobolds really *play* like Kobolds should"


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 12, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I hate it when somebody else steals my schtick. So PLEASE DO NOT STEAL MY SCHTICK.



The relevance of your schtick is directly proportional to your postcount

HAW HAW


----------



## hong (May 12, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> The relevance of your schtick is directly proportional to your postcount
> 
> HAW HAW



 Indeed.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 12, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> At what, -10 to hit or something? And it was impossible in Basic D&D, and probably OD&D as well.





			
				Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Nope. -4 to hit with the secondary weapon and -2 to hit with the primary one. The reaction adjustment from dexterity reduces this penalty.



Very similar rules also exist for two weapon combat in Basic D&D.  I think they're in the Master's Set and the Rules Cyclopedia.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 12, 2008)

WheresMyD20 said:
			
		

> Very similar rules also exist for two weapon combat in Basic D&D.  I think they're in the Master's Set and the Rules Cyclopedia.



Yes, the rule is found on page 19 of the Master book and page 110 of the RC. The secondary attack is at -4 and there is no penalty on the primary attack. Dexterity does not reduce the penalty.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 12, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Wouldn't making wizards half-decent with a crossbow accomplish the same thing?




Possibly, except then what you really have is "slightly better commoner with a crossbow who can fire a couple of spells per day" rather than "a wizard that can blast spells and might occasionally have to use a crossbow."

Dunno 'bout anyone else, but I know which one I prefer...

Edit:  Oh.  Yes.  And I LOVED Kill Bill.  I wish MORE games would emulate it.


----------



## pawsplay (May 12, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> A pure samurai would likely be a fighter, however Musashi would likely be a ranger, especially given how he was not so much a Samurai lord as he was a wandering Ronin.




See, that's the place where I draw the line. If Musashi is not a fighter, nobody is.



> I just wonder what you would do in place?




Probably the same thing I've been doing... using lots of humanoid opponents about four or five levels below the PCs as filler. Around 8th or 9th level, I stop using hordes of orcs and other humanoids as significant opponents, because they aren't enough orcs in the world of that level to challenge heroes of that calibre.



> Not really, since it doesn't fit the image of any wizard I have ever heard of. I don't think I have ever read a fantasy novel where the wizard went, oops, no more spells for the day.




Perhaps you ought to check out the books of a guy named Jack Vance. He's pretty good. In those stories, "I have the Excellent Prismatic Spray," is a threat meaning I have one (1) prepared spell that will kill you dead. Most magicians struggle to pepare more than a handful of spells, and magicians generally go armed with rapiers.



> I have heard them being knocked out from exhaustion maybe, but never pull out a crossbow.




That's mainly because of D&D's punitive view of weapon proficiency for wizards. Gandalf did just fine with a longsword, and the Grey Mouser was handy with rapier, staff, and dagger.



> Not really wanting to quote anymore, the deal is that twf will be in 4e, and will likely be a nice advantage considering it is one of the main class features of the Ranger, a heavy damage dealer. As previously mentioned, take away the name ranger and their mechanics can be interpreted in multiple ways for several character concepts. TWF is in no way shape or form gone from 4e.




It is, however, diminished and ghettoized.


----------



## pawsplay (May 12, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> When I read your first post that talked about experience, I had a hunch it was about boffer combat. twf is easer done with lighter weapons (although i still manage to suck at it somehow).  I dont have the knowledge or experience to debate if twf was historically true or not, but i do know some maneuvers with boffer combat do not apply to real fighting due to the nature of how light boffer weapons are, and how blade orientation is almost never considered (in the group i attend at least)




I am familiar with the issues. However, I was trained originally on flat blades. Further, Amtgard weapons are durable, and hence, close to historical weights, unlike most other boffer sports. I have handled IFGS and Nero weapons and know the difference... most Amtgard weapons are not considered safe in other boffer sports because of their weight. When I first started, many years ago, boffer weapons were often _heavier_ than their real world counterparts, sometimes 3-4 lbs just for a 36" blade, because of the amount of duct tape and high density foam involved. Nowadays, I think the standard Amtgard weapon is probably just under historical weights, maybe 1 1/1 lbs for a short sword, 2 to 2 1/2 pounds for a longer blade. 

As I noted above, I have also fought with SCA rattan weapons. They are usually heavier than real world weapons of their length. As the SCA uses a different range of targets than Amtgard, and requires a solid hit, it requires a different style. I learned early on that a number of slashes would never count as a hit in SCA because of the lack of power. 

Also as I noted above, I have had some escrima lessons. Escrima is weapons training. I have never spared with steel knives, rubber knives, or hard sticks, although I have spared with people who have. Escrima weapons and techniques cannot be impugned for unrealistic weights or lack of power. 

I have handled steel weapons, and although I have never sparred with them, I can certainly perform credible forms with them.


----------



## pawsplay (May 12, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Yes, the rule is found on page 19 of the Master book and page 110 of the RC. The secondary attack is at -4 and there is no penalty on the primary attack. Dexterity does not reduce the penalty.




You learn something new every day. There is such an optional rule. I never owned a copy of the RC or the Master set when I was younger. I now have a digital copy of the RC.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> See, that's the place where I draw the line. If Musashi is not a fighter, nobody is.



Why a fighter though? You seem very caught up on the names of the classes. I would consider Aragorn a Fighter by the D&D definition as well. Musashi did far more wandering and training then other samurai of his era, maybe not a natural woodsman but spent far more time then others of the warrior caste outside of cities. Even thematically he fits the ranger best. Besides, no one introduces their character in D&D by a Class1/Class2/Class3. The classes themselves are not the roleplay definition of the character. They are simply the definition for their skills and how they work in combat. The class system in 4e is more about the mechanics then the true fluff involved. It has always been that way really. The goal is always to take a character concept in mind and turn that into something to play at the game table. In most respects 4e seems to have the potential to be far better about that then in 3rd edition. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Probably the same thing I've been doing... using lots of humanoid opponents about four or five levels below the PCs as filler. Around 8th or 9th level, I stop using hordes of orcs and other humanoids as significant opponents, because they aren't enough orcs in the world of that level to challenge heroes of that calibre.



Same as everyone else then. My question is this then, how many rounds does it take for one of your pcs to kill a single opponent four levels below them? An how much of a threat are those characters to your pcs? The new minion rules give them the potential to do level appropriate damage while still dying easy, a threat if mobbed by them since they can actually hit, but one easily dealt with. However the hookup over the minions is rather pointless. You can still do the same thing you are doing now. Actually it is far easier to delevel foes in this edition, so you can even mix a group of orcs with far lower level versions to fill things up. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Perhaps you ought to check out the books of a guy named Jack Vance. He's pretty good. In those stories, "I have the Excellent Prismatic Spray," is a threat meaning I have one (1) prepared spell that will kill you dead. Most magicians struggle to pepare more than a handful of spells, and magicians generally go armed with rapiers.



The deal is that the books that the vancian system is based off of are the ONLY example of such a system. Even in this case they don't rely on crossbows. Making them better at the sword would only invalidate the fighter. So what then would you suggest?



> That's mainly because of D&D's punitive view of weapon proficiency for wizards. Gandalf did just fine with a longsword, and the Grey Mouser was handy with rapier, staff, and dagger.



True, however Gandalf was at lowest level 17 fighting level 2 orcs. I would personally put him in the epic tier. The Mouser was a multiclass rogue/wizard and therefore doesn't apply. Even when a wizard does get in combat in fantasy, they are in some way enhanced by their magic. Do you really think Gandalf could fight that well hand to hand as old as he was? He wasn't neglecting magic for the sake of hand to hand, he was using magic efficiently to boost his own capabilities at hand to hand.  A while back they were talking about the wizard having some melee powers, attacks enhanced by their magic.

I still don't see though how you see two weapon fighting as completely diminished. What is really so different now? The same requirements are there to use it effectively. No class cannot use it. Being able to use it(especially naturally like the ranger) will grant a Huge advantage most likely in damage output (considering that is the rangers job.)

EDIT: Actually, didn't they in a way make a wizard better in melee in this edition? Now all BAB scale equally, so it will not be impossible for a wizard to hit in melee. So sure they made it so a wizard can always cast some spell. However how does that in any way go against traditional fantasy? It seems to me at least that the new wizard is a better representation of a traditional wizard then in any other edition. They won't be able to throw down meteor showers all day, but they won't be left completely defenseless in every encounter after the second fight of the day.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> Why a fighter though?




Are you being cute, or what? If the name of the class to which Musashi belongs is ranger and not fighter, then the classes have been badly named and should be corrected.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

No, the classes are named for D&D Archetypes, not after singular character concepts. However the names of a class mean nothing when trying to actually create such character classes. By your logic, Fighter should be a Fighter, Paladin a Fighter, Ranger a Fighter, Rogue a fighter, and in some cases Cleric a Fighter. The names are but the package of traditional D&D abilities they contain.

Regardless I would like to hear good reasons why the things you have mentioned are so bad or so detached from D&D that you can't stand it?


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> No, the classes are named for D&D Archetypes, not after singular character concepts. However the names of a class mean nothing when trying to actually create such character classes. By your logic, Fighter should be a Fighter, Paladin a Fighter, Ranger a Fighter, Rogue a fighter, and in some cases Cleric a Fighter. The names are but the package of traditional D&D abilities they contain.




I don't recall saying anything that would imply that. Perhaps you can elaborate.


----------



## hong (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Are you being cute, or what? If the name of the class to which Musashi belongs is ranger and not fighter, then the classes have been badly named and should be corrected.



 The name of the class that Dr*z'zt belongs to is ranger, and Dr*z'zt has been around for nearly 20 years (curse him). The name of the class that Legolas -- who pranced around with 2 shortswords in between surfing down stairs and climbing up mumakil legs -- belongs to is unknown, but looks a lot like ranger. The idea that TWF <--> ranger seems too stupid to die, unfortunately.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

What I am saying is that their is ONE character in all of Fantasy that is traditionally attributed to as a Ranger. Paladin's are practically unheard of. You are implying that because of just Musashi is not referred to as a ranger by legend, that even if it is the best class fit it is wrong, since the NAME is wrong. The problem is that a Ranger is just a Fighter attached to nature, a Paladin one with divine inspiration. They are all warriors who have slightly different combat styles or motivations. Even if we go back to the origin of the ranger, Aragorn, he wasn't incredibly attune with nature. He had good survival skills, but wasn't a tree hugger. Nor were any semi-historical characters that could be considered such (Robin Hood for one.) The names are meaningless except as a representation of the abilities attributed to them in previous additions.

EDIT: To clarify, fantasy not inspired by D&D


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that their is ONE character in all of Fantasy that is traditionally attributed to as a Ranger. Paladin's are practically unheard of. You are implying that because of just Musashis is not referred to by a ranger by legend, that even if it is the best class fit it is wrong, since the NAME is wrong.




Well, he sure isn't a Wizard, is he?


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The name of the class that Dr*z'zt belongs to is ranger, and Dr*z'zt has been around for nearly 20 years (curse him). The name of the class that Legolas -- who pranced around with 2 shortswords in between surfing down stairs and climbing up mumakil legs -- belongs to is unknown, but looks a lot like ranger. The idea that TWF <--> ranger seems too stupid to die, unfortunately.




Well, I always thought of Legolas as the 18 Dex elven fighter with AC of -1 I once played in AD&D, but now that I think about it, he did a lot of tracking. Of course.... so did Gimli.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Well, he sure isn't a Wizard, is he?




Does that point actually mean anything? I never stated that he could be modeled by ANY class.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> Does that point actually mean anything? I never stated that he could be modeled by ANY class.




No, but you have argued that he should be modelled by a class named after something he is not. 

I play GURPS. In GURPS, if I turn to a page that says Ranger of the North, or something like that, I find a package written for a character who is, in fact, a Ranger of the North. If I look in Fantasy Hero, by Hero Games, and I find a package deal for a Ranger, or a Kung Fu Master, or whatever, I see the concept supported by appropriate abilities.

Why is D&D, a class-based game, exempt from the basic logic that a class archetype should be named for what it is, and a character concept based on that archetype should most comfortably fit within that class? If I am forced to choose a class called Ranger in order to build one of the most famous _fighters_ in history, something has gone awry. It is easier to rationalize than if the class were, say, Wizard, but it's still just as wrong. It's a class straightjacket that serves no purpose; it improves neither the Fighter class nor the Ranger class. It exists purely to artifically create niche protection while at the same time protecting The Drow's herd of sacred cows. 

What makes it especially painful is that Drizzt's original AD&D stats made him a special NPC with levels of fighter. Just as Conan the Barbarian is recognized as an archetypal barbarian, but is actually just as much thief and fighter in background and abilities, Drizzt is the uber-ranger achetype, yet his swordfighting skills and distinctive style come from his background as a Drow fencer. 

So in other words, there are approximately _zero_ rangers in all of history, myth, fantasy fiction, and even D&D novels that are renowned primarily as expects in using two swords, whereas there are numerous examples of historical fighters, such as gladiators, many samurai, and medieval knights, that used two weapons.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> No, but you have argued that he should be modelled by a class named after something he is not.
> 
> I play GURPS. In GURPS, if I turn to a page that says Ranger of the North, or something like that, I find a package written for a character who is, in fact, a Ranger of the North. If I look in Fantasy Hero, by Hero Games, and I find a package deal for a Ranger, or a Kung Fu Master, or whatever, I see the concept supported by appropriate abilities.
> 
> ...




The problem is that simply, this isn't GURPS. We are not talking about looking through a book, seeing a ranger, and making a ranger. We are talking about taking a character concept, looking through the book, and finding one that matches him the best. As you said above, the classes are simply Archetypes. However they are Archetypes of D&D fantasy, not of real fantasy (or life for that matter.) When I create a character, I think of a concept then look for a class that works best for it. It is sad that you cannot create a character outside of a simple naming convention. My characters almost never refer to themselves as rangers, paladins, or fighters. 
Now of course your complaint seems to largely lie on rangers having twf, and not fighters. In that case you would have to back to Basic, or ignore D&D entirely. TWF is identified with Rangers from a D&D standpoint, has been that way for 2.x editions and is likely going to stay that way. That is a D&D complaint, not a 4th edition one.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> The problem is that simply, this isn't GURPS. We are not talking about looking through a book, seeing a ranger, and making a ranger.




We're not? Because I thought that was basically class-based character creation, in a nutshell. If you don't have that, what do you even have? Is it even D&D any more?



> TWF is identified with Rangers from a D&D standpoint, has been that way for 2.x editions and is likely going to stay that way. That is a D&D complaint, not a 4th edition one.




Considering how many things have been completely altered, like succubi going over to the devil side, gnomes turning into some kind of reclusive fey and high elves changing their name to something hard to pronounce and learning to teleport, I think revisiting TWF would be fair game. Is/was/will be is not a convincing design argument for 4e. I am supposed to just accept a bad design decision and like it, because the designers didn't have a  taste for sacred beef the day the day they looked at that?


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

I guess to make it more clear:
Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Barbarian are but Subsets of Fighter/Warrior
Druid and to some extent Paladin are subsets of the Cleric
Enchanters, Necomancers, Illusionists, Sorcerors, and Psions are all subsets of the Wizard
Ninja, assassin, swashbuckler, and Bard are subsets of the Rogue.

If you want generic fantasy, here is where you go to. The names mean just as little as they do in 3rd and 4th edition. The non basic classes just evolved from them to allow for abilities not strictly defined within those archetypes (animal companions for instance) to exist. These classes have evolved over time to what they are now. However still, when you create a character he is NOT a Ranger. He is a character, with a Name (John for instance) who has a certain set of abilities and a story attached to him describing who he is.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Considering how many things have been completely altered, like succubi going over to the devil side, gnomes turning into some kind of reclusive fey and high elves changing their name to something hard to pronounce and learning to teleport, I think revisiting TWF would be fair game. Is/was/will be is not a convincing design argument for 4e. I am supposed to just accept a bad design decision and like it, because the designers didn't have a  taste for sacred beef the day the day they looked at that?



So your saying that you won't pick 4th because they didn't do enough? Well I can agree with that argument, their are more things that could be changed. However how is that an argument for any edition over fourth? If every one has that same problem, why go back to 3rd for instance? It has been a bad game decision since 2nd edition, if it is enough to turn you away from D&D then GURPS is probably fine for you, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 13, 2008)

I agree that the naming conventions can be annoying. That said, I tend to ignore flavor if it stands in the way of mechanics I like.

In 3.5e, if I want to play a street brawler I play monk/swordsage for the throws, the unarmed fighting bonuses, the unarmored style-etc. The class called "fighter" might fit the flavor better but mechanically it can't compare. So I strip out the Asian flavor from the monk, avoid the supernatural powers of the swordsage, and try to remember that my character doesn't know that he is a monk 2/swordsage 5, he just thinks of himself as a warrior.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> So your saying that you won't pick 4th because they didn't do enough?




Sounds pretty compelling to me. Throw in about three times as many changes that I would prefer to do without, and that's pretty much the end of it.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

Hmmm, I would say that the changes they put in are finally in the right direction to truly mimicking fantasy outside of Dragnolance. But if you find the flaws of 3rd edition are more in line with your personal inclinations then the flaws of 4th, I won't argue with you. If 3rd's flaws are too much, then I hope GURPS is more to your liking. I individually don't see anything wrong with the changes you mentioned in this post, all they do is make it easier for D&D to be a story rather then a mechanics jumble. But then I like DMing grand epic stories, so I am a bit biased


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I would say that the changes they put in are finally in the right direction to truly mimicking fantasy outside of Dragnolance.




Whereas my point of view is that 4e has finally taken D&D in the direction of being the RPG of the D&D poster. If said poster is especially bombastic, gratuitous, and unartistic. I really feel like 4e has abandoned many of the best D&D aesthetics, and left mainstream fantasy behind at the train station.



> But if you find the flaws of 3rd edition are more in line with your personal inclinations then the flaws of 4th, I won't argue with you. If 3rd's flaws are too much, then I hope GURPS is more to your liking. I individually don't see anything wrong with the changes you mentioned in this post, all they do is make it easier for D&D to be a story rather then a mechanics jumble. But then I like DMing grand epic stories, so I am a bit biased




3e is more in line with my inclinations for playing D&D. 4e, to me, is hardly D&D at all.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Whereas my point of view is that 4e has finally taken D&D in the direction of being the RPG of the D&D poster. If said poster is especially bombastic, gratuitous, and unartistic. I really feel like 4e has abandoned many of the best D&D aesthetics, and left mainstream fantasy behind at the train station.




As I have previously said, mainstream fantasy never completely limits their spell casters (except in the case of Vance.) Wizards can always do wizard things as long as they don't knock themselves out from using a lot more power then they should. The powers system allows for more cinematic combat which is common in fantasy. The minions fill the role of the often encountered guards which are a danger to the characters (can damage them) but are easy to take out. Each class has far more leeway in design, so each class can fill more character choices without having to multiclass 10 times. The monsters actually fight very different, they are not all the same essential creature with different fluff and scaled to level. Players can actually use tactics beyond that of rogue flanking that do not rely on a mage. Fluff and restrictions have been lifted so people are not railroaded into LG Paladins or Wizards who can't stand up in combat. Where every single class is useful  90% of the time, and no choice is horribly wrong compared to another. Where your characters can actually do what they want in combat (as in have a decent chance of throwing someone off a ledge, jump over a table, etc.) Where your character is only good at one skill which has nothing to do with his back story anyways. 

I simply dont see how 4th is not better for storytelling. 3rd is better if you want a videogame esque rpg where you gather classes and gain cool abilities from them through powergaming, but 4th seems to beat out on fantasy/roleplay. 




> 3e is more in line with my inclinations for playing D&D. 4e, to me, is hardly D&D at all.



Well then what is D&D to you?


----------



## Kishin (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> The problem is that simply, this isn't GURPS.




If I was a man of faith, I'd express my gratitude for this to my chosen deity every night in prayer.




			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's mainly because of D&D's punitive view of weapon proficiency for wizards. Gandalf did just fine with a longsword, and the Grey Mouser was handy with rapier, staff, and dagger.




Gandalf was an -angel-, and the Mouser himself is only a dabbler in magic.

Magic users who also whump arse in melee combat are the exception rather than the rule in D&D and most fantasy that doesn't feature Mary Sues or people from the kingdom of Valdemar or Mary Sues from the kingdom of Valdemar.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Whereas my point of view is that 4e has finally taken D&D in the direction of being the RPG of the D&D poster. If said poster is especially bombastic, gratuitous, and unartistic.




You can pick your bonus condescension points up at our nearest distribution outlet.

These sort of things are great ways to render your entire point moot.

Also, are we really going to argue that boffer weapons and the SCA even remotely depict realistic combat?


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

Now I should once again clarify. I very much enjoyed 3rd edition. However I am likely different then most. I came to D&D fantasy books. In particular Wheel of Time. My first real introduction to pencil and paper RPGs was the Wheel of Time RPG that came out. From there I moved on to 3rd edition as my first. Throughout my entire experience, I have had a very big focus on story, on the world, if not entirely on roleplaying (may seem like a contradiction, but I like the plot to be good but the gameplay dynamic. Extensive roleplaying tends to be very constricting and takes time.) However I did always feel limited in 3rd, simply because of my player's impact on the game. It was almost impossible for them to decide to push someone off a cliff, or shove them out of the way without me arbitrarily deciding it happened. They always had to have cleric, even though the idea of a Priest walking around whacking things didn't make sense to the player or in my campaigns (I didn't have enough players to let the cleric character just ignore melee and roleplay as a complete priest.) The mage had to choose whether to be combat focused for the day, challenge focused, or some mix. We often had to stop at the silliest points so our mage could rest and be useful again. Most of my players couldn't be the character they wanted to be until several levels in, and even then they were subpar. It was also hard to create memorable encounters without throwing really tough enemies, throwing spellcasters around, or being really creative with terrain and traps.

All of these issues and more have been solved with 4th. Essentially, the ceiling on creativity has been lifted for both me and my players.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Magic users who also whump arse in melee combat are the exception rather than the rule in D&D and most fantasy that doesn't feature Mary Sues or people from the kingdom of Valdemar or Mary Sues from the kingdom of Valdemar.




Every time this comes up, I can come up with more wizards who fight than ones who don't.

Wizards who fight: Gandalf, Grey Mouser, Galen (from Dragonslayer), Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Belgarion, Richard Cypher, Rod Gallowglass, Elminster.
Wizards who don't: Merlin, Miracle Max, Raistilin.




> Also, are we really going to argue that boffer weapons and the SCA even remotely depict realistic combat?




Remotely, sure. And it can certainly demonstrate how useful it is to have two sticks to your opponent's one. But what does it matter? Historical combat systems already depict two weapons combat. I don't have to prove it's existence, or anything. I've made my case that two single-handed weapons are usually better than one, and I have little more to say about that.


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Every time this comes up, I can come up with more wizards who fight than ones who don't.
> 
> Wizards who fight: Gandalf, Grey Mouser, Galen (from Dragonslayer), Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Belgarion, Richard Cypher, Rod Gallowglass, Elminster.
> Wizards who don't: Merlin, Miracle Max, Raistilin.



I am sort of surprised you don't mention Rand Al' Thor in the top crowd, yet do mention Harry Potter? But I do agree, and their are actually several more. For instance the Protagonist of the Book entitled Wizard is one, Anasûrimbor Kellhus from the Prince of Nothing series is another. I actually have a hard time coming up with a wizard that does not fight with a sword at some point (actually, several interpretations of merlin have him as a warrior as well.) Their are a few from the last mentioned series, and Zed from the Sword of Truth fits I believe (can't remember, it has been a while, but Aggie does.) So yes, the majority of fantasy seems to have wizards that also use swords. The problem is that a large amount of these characters are completely overpowered to the point where they don't really work as anything put an npc even in a heroic adventure. How can you write a campaign for a party of Anasûrimbor Kellhus types and not have them just win all the time? Rand Al' Thor? He is already epic as of book 4 or so.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> Well then what is D&D to you?




A world of medieval chaos, warfare, and poverty. Dragons and ogres lurking in caves. Rogues and delvers in search of treasure. Vampires, robots, aliens, and gods. Magic missile and sleep. Loot. Chainmail armor. Wresting magical weapons from ancient tombs or fearsome villains. Creative ambushes. The perils of darkness, thirst, and starvation. Fighters, clerics, magic-users, and thieves. Elves, dwarves, and halflings. Roadside taverns. Peasants. Pack mules.

And a lot of that is in 4e, too, but the exact mix that is most appealing varies from person to person. To me, it is very important that weaponry bear some basic resemblance to high medieval arms and armor. It is also central to my D&D experience that PCs are decidedly mortal. Magic is present, but not omnipresent, and decidedly limited. I've also grown accustomed to commonalities in the D&D mythology; red and gold dragons, frost giants, carrion crawlers, owl bears, and so forth. 

To me, 4e marks
- A transition from simulation and improvisation toward playability and predictability
- A movement away from medieval verisimillitude toward the towns in Final Fantasy
- Movement away from the Tolkien/Moorcock/Leiber/Vance mishmash and toward Action Figure Land, Magic: The Gathering, or whatever you want to call it. Away from fantastic themes and toward a generic aesthetic.
- Away from deadliness and toward zowie, 90s style action RPGs.
- Away from a modular fantasy world and toward set design.
- Away from options that have slowly evolved over several editions and a retreat into zealous niche protection.
- Away from coherent game design and toward publication deadlines.
- Away from an imagined world and toward a resolution-oriented game design.

Where it succeeds, to me 4e seems like kiddie stuff, genre wise. And where it fails, to me, seem like design mistakes plenty of people could point out and correct.  While some praise 4e's emphasis on tactics, to me it seems like 4e has pared away general options and areas for for improvisation and given us menus of powers. I once imagined what would happen if you used something like DDM or Star Wars minis as an RPG and simply impoved anything that wasn't combat; 4e almost reminds me of that.

I don't want "powers." I want a battered longsword, a spellbook, and a skittish mule. Call me a grognard or nostalgic or what have you. I stopped playing D&D around 1987 and didn't start up again until 2000, apart from some pickup games here and there. I've played Talislanta and Rolemaster and Runequest and Warhammer Fantasy Role-playing and Palladium and MERP and even Swordbearer. It's not that I'm not open to new things. I'm simply very picky up game designs. I can judge a game based on A), it's design merits, and B) it's appeal to me personally. I have plenty of nits to pick on both counts with 4e. 

I have complete respect for the 4e design team, and obviously they know their stuff, but if they were trapped in an elevator with me for an hour you can bet I would have a few things to say about these designs. 

I don't want to be told Ranger is just "a build." I don't accept that fantasy superheroics means it's therefore permissible for rogues to jump over people's heads and stab them in the back. I balk at "encounter" based recharges, a concept I have opposed for more than a decade now except for actual story-based game designs. 

I've played GURPS and Hero and Silver Age Sentinels and four editions of Gamma World, and I know what's out there. 

When I look at what's happened to 4e, I just reject it. It's not bitterness or naievete or resistance to change. It's a perspective I've gained through experience, breadth, creativity, and reading. It's not that I can't imagine anything outside 3.5, it's that I can imagine so much other than 4e. 3e was what brought me back into the fold. Despite its weaknesses, it's a good design, and it fundamentally feels like D&D to me without me putting too much work into it. 

Just to run my most recent D&D campaign in 4e, I would have to tear it down to its chassis and rebuild its engine. Through grand coincidence, nearly every change to a race or monster I've heard about what require a retcon in my game. PCs have a "fifteen minute work day" because that's how people realistically work in the field when they have limited flight time or what have you. And sometimes they get pushed back to the trenches and have to resort to backup weapons and crossbows and flasks of fire and occasionally running. Virtually every single-classed character would turn into a multiclassed character in 4e, despite 4e's basic assumption that people will single-class. The 4e team was not kidding when they said you would want to start a new campaign.

But the current campaign will end soon. That's the nature of it. I'm thinking about my next campaign. Will 4e help me run the games I want to run? Will I be able to get the performance out of the game engine I want? Do the paradigms that shape my campaign style work in 4e? 

Star Wars Saga is already a tough pill to me, because of the per-encounter Force powers. Because I know, in truth, powers don't work that way, they are being simulated that way for meta-game reasons. It bothers me. It bothers me knowing that other games have vitality points, or simply make powers difficult to use effortlessly. Or that I have half-written notes for a Star Wars conversion for Hero Fifth Edition. Or that it takes minimal conversion to run Star Wars in GURPS, although I'm still not sure if that's a good idea. 

I don't want mind-boggling detail, and in fact I reject unnecessary attention to minutiae as a distraction from the game itself. Simulation naturally takes an intuitive sense. And story is something that requires a lot of interpretation, because RPGs do not have plots. 

When I need to make an on-the-fly ruling, it does not help me to know what "powers" someone has. They are as specific and unhelpful as non-powered, generic combat options and skill checks. To build action and stories, I need tools that are versatile and that give me a satisfying underpinning of virtual reality.

To me, it is helpful to know how many wounds an orc minion can _really_ take in case it comes up as something more than an exercising in dramatic mook slaughter. If I know how much damage an orc minion does to another orc minion, I can use that orc minion to do _anything that makes sense_. To me, that is the underpinning of all RPGs, the freedom to do anything that can be conceived. And 4e apparently doesn't feel it's important to know how tough, REALLY, an orc minion it is. That's a big disconnect from my values.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Baen said:
			
		

> I am sort of surprised you don't mention Rand Al' Thor in the top crowd, yet do mention Harry Potter? But I do agree, and their are actually several more. For instance the Protagonist of the Book entitled Wizard is one, Anasûrimbor Kellhus from the Prince of Nothing series is another. I actually have a hard time coming up with a wizard that does not fight with a sword at some point (actually, several interpretations of merlin have him as a warrior as well.) Their are a few from the last mentioned series, and Zed from the Sword of Truth fits I believe (can't remember, it has been a while, but Aggie does.) So yes, the majority of fantasy seems to have wizards that also use swords. The problem is that a large amount of these characters are completely overpowered to the point where they don't really work as anything put an npc even in a heroic adventure. How can you write a campaign for a party of Anasûrimbor Kellhus types and not have them just win all the time? Rand Al' Thor? He is already epic as of book 4 or so.




I've seen stats for Batman and Superman. Hope springs eternal for me.


----------



## Lanefan (May 13, 2008)

Well, reading all this has taught me one thing I'm quite relieved to learn: I'm not the only one who thinks Drizz't was the worst thing to ever happen to the Ranger class and that it still has not recovered from his gawd-awful influence.  To me, Aragorn is and should remain the archetypal Ranger.

That said, I've also always looked at Rangers - at least in 1e - as a class with a rather serious choice to make: to go "heavy" or "light".  A heavy Ranger essentially becomes a front-line tank similar to a Fighter but with a different non-combat skill set.  A light Ranger is better at tracking, scouting, etc., but fights as an archer and leaves the front-line work to others.  3e as written took that choice away to a great extent by forcing Rangers to burn a feat (that they could ill-afford) on heavy armour use.

Flavour-and-fluff-wise, the only D+D class or class type I can see as reasonably wanting to learn TWF is a Rogue or Assassin using two _small_ weapons (daggers, sais, etc.) or a weapon and a spiked buckler, mainly because shields are big and bulky and get in the way when trying to sneak through small dark spaces.  Otherwise, personally my tastes in Fighters runs to lots of armour, a weapon and shield, or a weapon so big it needs two hands to hold. 

As for what Wizards do when out of spells - at low levels they might as well dive in and join the fight, as their fighting is almost as good as anyone else's anyway and Mage Armour isn't bad for temporary protection.  At mid-to-higher levels the chances are good they've picked up one or more items useful in combat on a repeatable basis (either damage-dealing or movement/action hampering) to augment their spells, and thus they don't need to fight...as much.  That, and it's a simple fact of life (that 4e seems hell-bent on ignoring) that not everybody is going to be able to "do something" 100% of the time.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (May 13, 2008)

One other quick note: unlike some here, I've played against and DM'ed Frost Giants on numerous occasions...probably because both I and our other usual DM like to use Norse settings and situations in our games, and opponents just don't get any more Norse than a Frostie. 

Lanefan


----------



## Baen (May 13, 2008)

I can actually agree with you on quite a few points, but there are a few I just don't see


> - A transition from simulation and improvisation toward playability and predictability
> - Movement away from the Tolkien/Moorcock/Leiber/Vance mishmash and toward Action Figure Land, Magic: The Gathering, or whatever you want to call it. Away from fantastic themes and toward a generic aesthetic.
> - Away from a modular fantasy world and toward set design.
> - Away from coherent game design and toward publication deadlines.
> - Away from an imagined world and toward a resolution-oriented game design.



Yes, 4th has moved things more towards a cinematic design, although I wouldn't say quite final fantasy esque. The truth is though that it allows for a lot more built in improvisation then any edition before it. Skill challenges for example, are one of the most amazing things I have seen for out of combat scenarios. I can also see to an extent the move from simulation(although the monsters in 4th seem a lot more real to me then in 3rd.) to playability, but not in any way to predictability. The players will have a lot more options at hand then in 3rd, and with the increased importance of terrain I imagine encounters will be a lot more interesting and less mundane then they were in 3rd (not that they were boring, just that every fight with one monster was pretty much the same as the previous time. Terrain didn't do much to effect anyone but dragons or the occasional tactically placed funnel.) 

I can't speak for the others, but regardless of the steady move away from a Tolkien theme it seems we will finally be able to truly model the grandeur and majesty of LOTR from the books. On coherent game design, 3rd was far more rushed then 4th, and they have spent a far longer time going over and checking things then they did for it as well. I really can't see 3.x as a coherent system by any definition.

All the other points I quoted are completely separate from an edition. Regardless of the fluff in the books (dwarfs being the slaves of giants) their is NO reason to play them that way. 4th edition in no way is set campaign, or is limiting on the imagination. I actually see it as the exact opposite.

Also from my understanding 4e supports on the spot ruling a lot more then 3rd did, but then that is from the designers mouth. 

On versatility, I will point once again to skill challenges. It is also a lot easier to make new encounters because of the way they constructed the monsters this time around. They are also SIGNIFICANTLY easier to modify and change. 

I can sort of understand your problem with minions, and with powers as well. I do not mean to project anything on you that is basely false, but this is the best inkling I can gather from your posts. Your problem with 4th edition seems to stem from a design viewpoint. 4th edition is not designed to just be a slash and go rpg. It's design seems to go back to the roots of heroic fantasy, and be based around storytelling and roleplaying. Once again the skill changes. Monsters that fight in ways that makes sense. However the key things are the powers, the minions, and the hp system. HP is now in very little way representative of how many hits a player can really take. They are a representation of an individuals importance to the plot, the story line. This is why solo monsters are so strong, and minions take one hit to kill. Solo monsters are culminations of adventures, minions are just fodder. This is not saying you can't have a fun encounter with minions, the DDXP stuff was almost entirely minions and no one noticed, and most people had a lot of fun. On how much they can take really, that is left entirely up to the dm now. Hitpoints, now connected with the plot, allows the controller of the plot even more freedom with them. On powers, as a person who has practiced combat you would know. Everyone has certain moves that they tend to fall on, since they work. Combat tends to turn into patters, fighters stick with what works. That is to large extent what these powers are about. Their are standard moves you can pull off easily (at wills) things that only come up with a good opportunity (encounter) and things that you rarely take advantage of (dailies.) Now I think of D&D as sort of an interactive story. When I think of a fourth edition encounter I see it less as a video game type brawl where everyone chooses their moves in a metagame fashion then an intense battle where the players get to dictate to a certain extent what happens in the story's cinematic fight scenes. Chop through some orc minions, land a huge blow on the boss. When you think of it as a story, it makes a lot of sense, at least to me. 

The rest of your points are stuff I honestly can't argue with, we have simple differences of opinion. The only reason I am arguing is I want to first make sure I am not missing something, and make neither of us have misconceptions about the limitations of the new system. This is not an insult or anything, both of us have our biases. I am what most would call a 4e fanboi, hardcorz. I have been blinded by quite a few things on 4th. You have a far more in-depth experience with D&D and other tabletop rpgs then I do, since this edition is taking an entirely new direction (it really is ) they have changed a lot of things you liked. I guess I just want to isolate what is really different, what doesn't make sense, and whether the game is good. Lots of it comes down to opinion, which is fine by me, but whatever truth whether good or bad we can garnish from it is good.


----------



## hong (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Every time this comes up, I can come up with more wizards who fight than ones who don't.
> 
> Wizards who fight: Gandalf, Grey Mouser, Galen (from Dragonslayer), Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Belgarion, Richard Cypher, Rod Gallowglass, Elminster.




You forgot Musashi.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 13, 2008)

Fighter may be a misnomer, but any class name is going to grab the imagination in ways that probably don't all apply to a given character.  A Rogue that always does exactly and only what and how a Rogue is supposed to do is cookie-cutter, predictable and boring.  A lot of people play this way and don't seem to mind...if you don't mind playing a stereotype, you probably shouldn't mind your class name.
Musashi by 4E's definition is a Ranger, and from the looks of it much more of a 4E Ranger than a 3E Fighter that take twf feats.

Just gots to learn to take the titles of the classes with a grain of salt.

I have to live with Warlord, after all....


----------



## AllisterH (May 13, 2008)

The funny thing is the minion concept is the first time D&D has EVER modelled satisfactorily the classic LotR scene where Aragorn takes on a horde...

You can't get more Tolkein than that and yet D&D has always previously had a problem modelling this...


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 13, 2008)

Just to add my 2cp...

I like the minion rules.  I don't think I want to go into a fight against nothing but 50 minions, but I do like the idea and how it would work when the big bad sends his final wave of grunts against the PCs in hopes of getting a couple of spells off before entering the fray himself...

Or my having the PCs have to fight their way through the grunts to get to the Big Bad before he completes the ritual...

Or to model that big fight at the castle gates where in 3.X you would get bogged down just to give the PCs a challenge while now you can have the gates actually be guarded by more than the main bodyguard (who actually has levels) which is whom the fight is actually all about.

Frost Giants - There are more than enough giants in the first book and the Frost is likely to be easily modeled (from the Fire Giant).  I'm sure they have some new stuff that they think warrants a prime release (if they are correct remains to be seen) so something had to go.  Frostie isn't the first critter I think of when I think of D&D Monsters; I doubt it'd even be in the top ten.

I've fought more far, far more Fire Giants in my time gaming than I have Frost Giants.

TWF - I hope those outside of the ranger class can pick this up easily (without multiclassing).  Using 3.X terms: Having a workable Fighter built Martial Artist is higher on my priority list (like how WotC's Star Wars martial arts feats were set up).  I'll be sad if the Ranger is the only way to get since I'd be afraid it would limit ideas.  It doesn't sound it would be AS limited as if 3.X rangers only got TWF, but this remains to be seen.


----------



## Cirex (May 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The funny thing is the minion concept is the first time D&D has EVER modelled satisfactorily the classic LotR scene where Aragorn takes on a horde...
> 
> You can't get more Tolkein than that and yet D&D has always previously had a problem modelling this...




The interesting part is the high attack bonus from minions. That makes them dangerous, since they won't be requiring natural 20s like 3.5 "minions", low level creatures being one-shot by higher level characters.


----------



## BryonD (May 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The funny thing is the minion concept is the first time D&D has EVER modelled satisfactorily the classic LotR scene where Aragorn takes on a horde...
> 
> You can't get more Tolkein than that and yet D&D has always previously had a problem modelling this...



Didn't AD&D have a rule that fighters got 1 attack PER LEVEL when fighting zero levels?
I clearly recall it, but it may have been an option tucked back in the DMG somewhere.

FWIW, I haven't tried to run massive hordes of mooks as a regular thing, but I can think of at least three events that it happened in 3E in my game and the model worked really well for me.....


----------



## Dausuul (May 13, 2008)

Half the things you list as negatives are, to me, positives:



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> 1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.




I consider 1 hp minions to be a brilliant innovation.  Now I can actually pit the party against twenty zombies without having to track hit points for every single freakin' zombie.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.




Neutral on this.  Two-weapon fighting is a difficult thing.  It makes sense to me that you can't do it effectively unless you're trained.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e.




Okay, I agree, this is annoying.  I don't give a crap about metallic dragons, but dang it, I want my frost giants!



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?




I am one hundred percent down with wizards as infinite energy machines.  I have hated Vancian casting since the days of BECMI.  "I can't cast any more fireballs today.  Why not?  Uh, I forgot how to do it.  I have to go read my spellbook again to remind me."

Ugh.  3E at least came up with slightly better fluff--"preparing" instead of "memorizing"--but it was still lame.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.




Gnome anything is a waste of space as far as I'm concerned.  Although I might change my opinion depending on how the new gnomes turn out.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.




Eh, whatever.  I don't consider this a benefit, but I also don't consider it a problem.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.




Mildly annoying, true.  A lot will depend on whether they can use this ability to go through walls.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.




It's a stylistic choice, and even though it doesn't mesh with my literary tastes, I'm starting to think it's a better choice for an RPG.  In my experience, games involving casters past 6th level or so inevitably develop a high ZOWIE factor anyhow, except that all the ZOWIE is under the control of one or two characters.  At least 4E spreads it around a bit.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?




This does sadden me a bit.  But it's not the end of the world.


----------



## AllisterH (May 13, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Didn't AD&D have a rule that fighters got 1 attack PER LEVEL when fighting zero levels?
> I clearly recall it, but it may have been an option tucked back in the DMG somewhere.
> 
> FWIW, I haven't tried to run massive hordes of mooks as a regular thing, but I can think of at least three events that it happened in 3E in my game and the model worked really well for me.....




Yep..There was such a rule in the 1E PHB, but I don't think it transitioned to the 2E PHB. 

The problem with using 0-level critters is that they couldn't actually pose a threat to the character.....Minions are meant to be mowed down like wheat but at the same time, there has to be "the appearance of danger" to the hero in question. For example, we knew the Bride was about to decimate the crazy 88s, but she at least still appeared to work for it...she just made it look easy

The mooks in question should also at least require the hero to expend some effort just to show how much of a buttkicker they are...

Which is why I love the 4E minion concept..


----------



## Shazman (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> While I like the idea of streamlining, and I enjoy Star Wars Saga pretty well, I think today I am a confirmed non-switcher. 1 hp orcs are just the final straw. However, there are plenty of other things that make me say, "What do I get in return for tolerating this?" The short list:
> 
> *1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.
> *No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.
> ...




Those are some good ones.
How about:
1) Holding core classes and races for ransom.  You shouldn't have to wait and pay extra to play a half-orc barbarian or a gnome druid.
2) Everyone gets spells (powers) that are perfectly balanced so no one's feelings get hurt.  Why even have classes at this point?
3) No real multi-classing.
4) Overemphasis on combat roles, and less emphasis on customization.  I want to play an interesting half-orc paladin, who protects the weak, not divine defender 1 who aggros the monsters away from the wizard.
5) First level characters are superheroes that can fight small armies from the beginning.  Sorry, you should have to earn this kind of power, not have it served to you on a silver platter.
6) Rules are different for PC's and villians/monsters.  What's wrong with some versimilitude?
7) Blowing up the Forgotten Realms and being unapologetic and condescending about it when fans complained.  
8) Horrid, insulting marketing that focused on tearing down third edition instead of focusing on 4E's own merits.  We don't need to hear for the hundredth time that you are going to save us from the horrible game you gave us.
9) Flavor changes that only exist for the sake of change.  Why fix something that isn't broken?
10) Zero effort at compatablility with earlier editions.

I could go on, but these are the top ones.


----------



## AllisterH (May 13, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> 6) Rules are different for PC's and villians/monsters.  What's wrong with some versimilitude?
> .




I'll let others dissect the other points but this is the one I would like to focus on. 3E is the only edition that has had PCs built along the same lines as the NPCS and at first, I thought "this is great..makes sense since it makes for a more believable world".

The problem with this is that this is a game and it is not fair to the DM (who supposed to enjoy the game as well) to have to build/run these characters...

Even something as simple as the concept of minions and solos are great examples of WOTC realizing the needs of the DM are distinct from the needs of the players.

I applaud WOTC for realizing this


----------



## Wormwood (May 13, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> I could go on, but these are the top ones.



With all due respect, your list could be restated as: 4e shouldn't be different than 3e. 

Which is a valid complaint, of course. Just not one shared by anyone who had _problems _ with 3e.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> A world of medieval chaos, warfare, and poverty...




This post says a lot more about your dislikes than the original, paws.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Goobermunch (May 13, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> This is patently untrue. Paizo's Game Mastery modules were being released, as were Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics. Ptolus from Malhavoc Press was still going strong. Necromancer Games released City of Brass, and White Wolf had put out Monte Cook's 3.5 World of Darkness. Kenzer Co. still, I believe, had some 3.5 Kingdoms of Kalamar books, and were certainly still selling them. You mentioned Green Ronin already. Mongoose was still releasing 3.5-based books, particularly under their Flaming Cobra imprint, and Paradigm Concepts was also putting out new Arcanis products. And that's just off the top of my head.
> 
> And, by the way, judging the Open Gaming movement by the success of 3.5 OGL material is completely fallacious. The fact that the Open Gaming movement grew beyond 3.5 and allowed whole new games that deviated from the base 3.5 system - such as True20, M&M, RuneQuest, etc. - is the biggest indicator there is of the Open Gaming movement's success.




So then you're saying that there's no problem with WotC's departure from the OGL market, right?

Because if the OG movement has been successful, then there's no problem with WotC moving to the GSL, since WotC is no longer necessary to drive that market.  Since the GSL permits companies to produce products under both the GSL and the OGL (but not the same product under both), it's a net win for everyone.  WotC has created an entirely new market and source for games, by creating the OGL and helping it flourish during the 3.5 era.  Now that the market is established, it is further helping the market by withdrawing from it, so those products won't be overshadowed by its new release.

Right, that's what everyone's been saying?  Because if the OG movement is as successful as you claim, then no one should care if WotC has decided to move away from it.  In fact, we should all be singing their praises for creating it and setting it free.  But the fact is that the overwhelming response to the GSL has been "OMG!! WotC is killing OGL."  Even after WotC clarified that the restrictions of the GSL were product line by product line, rather than company by company, people still are outraged that WotC is moving to another license.

That tells me one of two things is going on.  First, the OGL is not at all successful.  Second, it's moderately successful, but its participants want to be able to take advantage of WotC's most recent work.


--G


----------



## Vael (May 13, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> Those are some good ones.
> How about:
> 1) Holding core classes and races for ransom.  You shouldn't have to wait and pay extra to play a half-orc barbarian or a gnome druid.




I'll admit to being disappointed that my favourite 3.5 classes (the Druid and Sorcerer) aren't in the first PHB, but I hardly consider it "holding them ransom". Look, if I really want to play one immediately, I'll homebrew. Meanwhile, I get to try the Warlord, the Dragonborn and I don't have to wait even longer for a game that I'm eager to try.



> 2) Everyone gets spells (powers) that are perfectly balanced so no one's feelings get hurt.  Why even have classes at this point?




Until Tome of Battle came out, I never wanted to play a melee class, because they bored me and felt like a waste when compared to what high level casters can pull off. Improving balance should be a good thing, and powers make all classes more interesting to play in combat.



> 3) No real multi-classing.




Real? What does that mean? I'll admit, the two-classes only rule seems overly restrictive, but 4e's feat-driven system seems to offer flexibility in the amount you want to immerse yourself in your second class and makes a multiclassed character viable in combat.



> 4) Overemphasis on combat roles, and less emphasis on customization.  I want to play an interesting half-orc paladin, who protects the weak, not divine defender 1 who aggros the monsters away from the wizard.




I don't see these as mutually exclusive. A 3.5 Half-Orc paladin wasn't interesting, it was gimped by horrible stat adjustments so it could barely protect itself, let alone the weak. And between feat and power selection, I find it hard to believe that 4e PCs are less customizable than their 3.5 brethern.



> 5) First level characters are superheroes that can fight small armies from the beginning.  Sorry, you should have to earn this kind of power, not have it served to you on a silver platter.




Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to playing a wizard that isn't going to run in fear from a common housecat.



> 6) Rules are different for PC's and villians/monsters.  What's wrong with some versimilitude?




I do not understand this. Is this like truthiness?



> 8) Horrid, insulting marketing that focused on tearing down third edition instead of focusing on 4E's own merits.  We don't need to hear for the hundredth time that you are going to save us from the horrible game you gave us.




Where you see "3.5 sucks", I see "this is how 4e is better".



> 9) Flavor changes that only exist for the sake of change.  Why fix something that isn't broken?




Most of the flavour changes I've seen seem very well reasoned, hardly capricious. That implies that maybe it was broken, or at least improveable.



> 10) Zero effort at compatablility with earlier editions.




Meh. Attempts at compatability were doomed to fail, unless what you really wanted was 3.75. And I see no point in playing 3.75.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 13, 2008)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> That tells me one of two things is going on.  First, the OGL is not at all successful.  Second, it's moderately successful, but its participants want to be able to take advantage of WotC's most recent work.




I think we're more likely dealing with your second conclusion rather than the first.  I think the OGL has been successful, but it would be a helluva lot more successful if it were based on the most recent iteration of DnD.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I'll let others dissect the other points but this is the one I would like to focus on. 3E is the only edition that has had PCs built along the same lines as the NPCS and at first, I thought "this is great..makes sense since it makes for a more believable world".




In every edition of D&D up until 4th, orcs had more than one hit point 87.5% of the time. So 4e has made orc minions less PC-like than every prior edition, including OD&D and Basic D&D. In prior editions, PCs and monsters weren't precisely the same. I'm fine with that as a design decision. 

You are incorrect about NPCs, however. Prior to 3e, the definition of an NPC was "someone who uses the PC creation rules but isn't a monster." Brigands were not technically NPCs but monsters. But an NPC fighter had ability scores, 1d8 or 1d10 hit dice (depending on version), proficiencies, gear, class based saving throws, etc. Up until 3e, an NPC fighter and a PC fighter were indistinguishable, and groups of NPCs were part of many wandering monster tables.


----------



## Lacyon (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You are incorrect about NPCs, however. Prior to 3e, the definition of an NPC was "someone who uses the PC creation rules but isn't a monster." Brigands were not technically NPCs but monsters. But an NPC fighter had ability scores, 1d8 or 1d10 hit dice (depending on version), proficiencies, gear, class based saving throws, etc. Up until 3e, an NPC fighter and a PC fighter were indistinguishable, and groups of NPCs were part of many wandering monster tables.




...

If that's all you want NPC to mean, 4E's still got it.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Didn't AD&D have a rule that fighters got 1 attack PER LEVEL when fighting zero levels?




In Basic D&D, I believe AD&D, and especially in the Gold Box computer games, you get one attack per level when attacking anything with 1 HD or lower. That excluded hobgoblins (1+1) but included kobolds, goblins, orcs, brigands, etc.


----------



## Zil (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> In Basic D&D, I believe AD&D, and especially in the Gold Box computer games, you get one attack per level when attacking anything with 1 HD or lower. That excluded hobgoblins (1+1) but included kobolds, goblins, orcs, brigands, etc.



Yes, those rules were definitely in AD&D (1E).  I still get a chuckle out of the time one player started a fight with the large group of rebelling orc slaves in the dungeons of the Hill Giant Chief.  The instigating player was counting on his 8 or 9  attacks per round to deal with the angered orcs (when he slew their negotiator).  But he underestimated exactly what 400 angry orcs could do even though they were all mostly 1HD.  The rest of the players were in a state of shock when all hell broke loose and they had to abandon parts of the fort as being too dangerous (due to orc snipers).  Anyway, I guess the 4E minions could also achieve the same thing, bit it just wouldn't ring as true somehow.

I always thought of the 3E whirlwind attack and the cleave/great cleave feats as being the 3E analogies of this old rule.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 13, 2008)

Actually, it's LESS than 1 hd.  So you don't get it against orcs, but kobolds, goblins, etc are fair game.


----------



## Lacyon (May 13, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Actually, it's LESS than 1 hd.  So you don't get it against orcs, but kobolds, goblins, etc are fair game.




In AD&D, it's less than 1HD.

In OD&D, it's 1 HD or less.


----------



## Primal (May 14, 2008)

Vael said:
			
		

> I'll admit to being disappointed that my favourite 3.5 classes (the Druid and Sorcerer) aren't in the first PHB, but I hardly consider it "holding them ransom". Look, if I really want to play one immediately, I'll homebrew. Meanwhile, I get to try the Warlord, the Dragonborn and I don't have to wait even longer for a game that I'm eager to try.




One of the reasons I'm quite concerned about 4E is that it seems that a lot of people are going/are required to homebrew character concepts, which implies to me that 4E is mechanically and thematically a step backwards. I don't want to homebrew/houserule stuff in my first campaign to make some concepts work -- I hated doing it in AD&D, and I certainly never had to do it in 3E. 



> Until Tome of Battle came out, I never wanted to play a melee class, because they bored me and felt like a waste when compared to what high level casters can pull off. Improving balance should be a good thing, and powers make all classes more interesting to play in combat.




Again, to you. My group voted against using ToB and Bo9S, because to us they felt a bit "over the top" and ridiculous. As I've said before, monk has also always been a "banned" core class in my group.   



> I don't see these as mutually exclusive. A 3.5 Half-Orc paladin wasn't interesting, it was gimped by horrible stat adjustments so it could barely protect itself, let alone the weak. And between feat and power selection, I find it hard to believe that 4e PCs are less customizable than their 3.5 brethern.




I think there's a very good reason why there won't be any official conversion guide from 3E to 4E, and that is because the character concepts and roles limit your options -- there won't be any "suboptimal" choices to make in 4E anymore. 

For example, I don't believe that I could convert my elven Cleric/Divine Templar who is specialized in Longbow and has taken all the archery-related feats. Sure, I could create a character that has *some* similarities, but he should probably be a Cleric with some 

You should also take a look at the options presented to each class -- for example, I can't really see a rogue using anything else but a dagger in melee, unless he multiclasses. And how many powers are available to you at each level? 3-8, if I recall correctly. Sure, there are a lot of Feats in the game, but I don't think they allow you a lot of customization -- I rather suspect that they are there to "enhance" your powers and your "effectiveness" in your role. 



> Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to playing a wizard that isn't going to run in fear from a common housecat.




I have played them in 3E (in fact, I've never ran in fear from a common housecat).

I can understand why the designers (and a lot of gamers, apparently) feel that everyone should always have "cool stuff to do" in combat, but I'm not convinced that their method is the best way to accomplish that. IMO some sort of "power points" for all the classes would have been a lot better way to do it, since I'm not a hard-core fan of Vancian spellcasting (and Psionics already work that way). 

Now it feels that everyone should just use their best At-Will power all the time, *or* the attack which targets your enemies' weakest Defense. And it seems that all the classes will get powers/exploits against each defense and most of them also seem to do the same amount of damage (and use the same attack modifier, to boot) -- which results in combat becoming a series of attacks that cause almost identical amounts of damage with just a different flavour.



> Where you see "3.5 sucks", I see "this is how 4e is better".




Uh, shouldn't that be "where you see '4E sucks'..."? 



> Most of the flavour changes I've seen seem very well reasoned, hardly capricious. That implies that maybe it was broken, or at least improveable.




It's a whole new game, not just a new edition of D&D. Note that this is once again a matter of personal taste -- I see a lot of "fluff" becoming too "simplified" and thematically very restricting. Not to mention that it's easier to create a whole new setting for 4E than try to come up with reasons for all those changes, say, in Cosmology and monster "fluff" for example (e.g. fomorians who have mysteriously evolved into kings of Feywild, although my previous campaigns have featured them as mutated, brutish and primitive cave-dwelling giants). And yes, my players *care* about consistency in the setting and the "fluff", so I can't just handwave it away.



> Meh. Attempts at compatability were doomed to fail, unless what you really wanted was 3.75. And I see no point in playing 3.75.




Which is what Paizo is doing with the Pathfinder RPG, and in my opinion succeeding pretty well considering their target demographics and design goals.

I personally see no point in "change for change's sake", but I understand what you are saying. And I agree to a certain point -- I think the update from 3E to 3.5 was too insignificant to justify new set of core books and I wouldn't pay for 3.51. Besides, barring Haste and some other "troublesome" spells, in my opinion 3.5 created more problems than actually solved them. However, I personally don't like how far thematically and mechanically 4E is moving from 3E, and like I said above, I don't see it fitting my group's style or taste.


----------



## hong (May 14, 2008)

Oh no, elven cleric archers got nerfed.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 14, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Uh, shouldn't that be "where you see '4E sucks'..."?



No, he was referring to the claim that 4E marketing has consisted largely of talking about how much 3.X sucks. Which is erroneous, of course.


----------



## Nellisir (May 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I've not once seen (as a player) or used (as a DM) frost giants since I started playing in what, 1988? The lack of a particular monster as a dealbreaker is...interesting, I suppose.




I've never used or seen used storm giants, fire giants, dopplegangers, bulettes, werebears, wereboars, pit fiends, chuul, any beholder variant, aboleth, achaierai, aquatic elves, arrowhawks, stone giants, giant bees, or yrthak -- to name a few -- and I've been playing since '86.  Personally, I've never or almost never used halfling, mind flayers, or orcs - and if it's true for me, it must be true for everyone, right?

I haven't read most of this thread, but someone made a telling comment earlier: the amount of houseruling that most  many people are going to have to engage in is depressing.  For better or worse, most people populate their campaign worlds out of the (first/initial) Monster Manual; it's not unreasonable to expect that book to have the "traditional" D&D monsters, particularly intelligent, society-building ones (frost giant vs carrion crawler, for instance).

And as far as gnomes...I've never had a problem finding a "niche" for them, nor have many other people.  The fact that all the designers and developers at WotC supposedly couldn't think of a way to distinguish them from dwarves and halflings...well, I would've expected alot more from a group of people that make their living on their imagination.  Or it's an excuse to mask a quasi-official abandonment of occasional subtle details in favor of a fantasy world painted entirely in primary colors.  I like bold fantasy as much (or more) than the next person, but it seems to me like WotC has officially shifted from "this is a wood elf/this is a mountain dwarf" to "this is an Elf/this is a Dwarf".  No more shading, no more subtlies - unless we houserule them back in -- or until the "shading" power source is introduced in PH3.


----------



## Kishin (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Every time this comes up, I can come up with more wizards who fight than ones who don't.
> 
> Wizards who fight: Gandalf, Grey Mouser, Galen (from Dragonslayer), Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Belgarion, Richard Cypher, Rod Gallowglass, Elminster.
> Wizards who don't: Merlin, Miracle Max, Raistilin.




Again, the Mouser is not a wizard. Gandalf is a divine being. Belgarion is a Mary Sue. So is Richard Cypher. In fact, Richard Cypher is probably the President of the Mary Sue club. Rand Al'thor is more Sorcerer than Wizard by 3E and 4E standard, since his power is instinctual rather than trained, but I'd suppose it's agreeable though again, fairly Mary Sue.

Wizards that don't fight: Saruman, Elric off the drugs/pre Stormbringer. (Standard Elric is admittedly a fighting wizard). Sephrenia from Eddings' Elenium/Tamuli. Polgara. Belgarath. Quick Ben Delat. Khelben Blackstaff.  The standard Wizard types in the Dark Glory War series.
Mordenkainen. 

We could go on and on in both categories. You did a very, very limited count of wizards who do not fight.



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> Again, to you. My group voted against using ToB and Bo9S, because to us they felt a bit "over the top" and ridiculous. As I've said before, monk has also always been a "banned" core class in my group.




I'm guessing you didn't play too many high level campaigns, wherein your fighters are destined to be wholly outpaced by your casters.


----------



## Primal (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Oh no, elven cleric archers got nerfed.




You never played them? Hong, I'm surprised!


----------



## SteveC (May 14, 2008)

I really feel the need to post this, as a big OGL fan. 

Anyone who is really excited about 4E should thank their lucky stars that we had an OGL. Without it, 4E would not be the game it is. Why: simple. No OGL, no Mike Mearls working at WotC. Before 3E and the OGL Mike was just a regular guy with no industry connections. His D20/OGL work brought him to the attention of WotC and that's why we have a lot of the game we have today, be that for good or ill.

Here's the thing: right now, there is the next Mike Mearls out there, possibly reading ENWorld right now. Without a real OGL, they may very likely not work on D&D products, and might instead develop their own Heartbreaker of a game. Heck, that game might even be better then 4E. The point is, they'll never get the exposure, and we'll likely never get the benefits of their talents.

The OGL brought us a lot of talent, and made a lot of great companies what they are today. It also gave us a lot of great games that either never would have seen the light of day or else would have used some strange proprietary game engine that would have made them utterly useless to the majority of gamers.

It also gave us its share of clunkers, but I still enjoy talking about the Foundation, and chuckle at the thought of all of those Fast Forward games (especially when they're confused with Fantasy Flight), so on balance I'll take it.

--Steve


----------



## Wolfspider (May 14, 2008)

Thank you, SteveC, for that eloquent post.  It reflects many of my feelings.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 14, 2008)

Kinda boils down to whether or not you appreciate balance, doesn't it.  3.x mechanics were terribly unbalanced, even more so than 2E because of the massive range of options presented.
The ruckus over the Paladin mark is an example of how important balance seems to have become to the gaming society in general.
I've always played with flexible, intelligent DMs that believe in maintaining balance while accepting or rejecting rules they don't think make sense.  None of us could stand how riddled with mechanical holes 3.x was, and now 4E actually looks like a viable system for character-character interactions.  A rule or two will have to be examined and changed, but not to the extent that we'll just give up D&D in disgust as before.
So WotC has reason to market 4E as more mechanically sound than 3E, because it's more obviously true than simply "4E is totally the awesomest thing ever."


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Again, the Mouser is not a wizard. Gandalf is a divine being. Belgarion is a Mary Sue. So is Richard Cypher. In fact, Richard Cypher is probably the President of the Mary Sue club. Rand Al'thor is more Sorcerer than Wizard by 3E and 4E standard, since his power is instinctual rather than trained, but I'd suppose it's agreeable though again, fairly Mary Sue.
> 
> Wizards that don't fight: Saruman, Elric off the drugs/pre Stormbringer. (Standard Elric is admittedly a fighting wizard). Sephrenia from Eddings' Elenium/Tamuli. Polgara. Belgarath. Quick Ben Delat. Khelben Blackstaff.  The standard Wizard types in the Dark Glory War series.
> Mordenkainen.




So I guess the Grey Mouser is no true Scotsman.


----------



## pemerton (May 14, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> it's a simple fact of life (that 4e seems hell-bent on ignoring) that not everybody is going to be able to "do something" 100% of the time.



But in most games, most players get to play the game most of the time. If I wanted to be bored and have nothing fun to do, I'd go to the office, not the gaming table.


			
				Shazman said:
			
		

> 5) First level characters are superheroes that can fight small armies from the beginning.  Sorry, you should have to earn this kind of power, not have it served to you on a silver platter.



Why do I have to earn the right to enjoy myself playing a game? That's right, I don't, I just start my game at 4th level. Or alternatively, rewrite my game so 1st level (which seems like the first level one might begin a character at) isn't a save-or-die gamble.

I also gather (from playtesters of 4e) that first level heroes can't fight small armies from the beginning.


----------



## Kishin (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> So I guess the Grey Mouser is no true Scotsman.




Are you seriously going to argue that the Mouser is better represented as a primary Wizard with a smattering of rogue levels (in 3.5E) or in the case of the new 4E rules, a Wizard who took the multiclassing feats for the Rogue class?

Because if you're going to insist on an archetypal Rogue as being a 'wizard', then we have nothing further to discuss.


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Are you seriously going to argue that the Mouser is better represented as a primary Wizard with a smattering of rogue levels (in 3.5E) or in the case of the new 4E rules, a Wizard who took the multiclassing feats for the Rogue class?
> 
> Because if you're going to insist on an archetypal Rogue as being a 'wizard', then we have nothing further to discuss.




You are putting words into my mouth. You are insisting that calling him a "wizard" means he is primarily of the Wizard class, which is not true. The archetypal wizard is some part of all characters who are wizards, and the Grey Mouser happens to be one. 

It appears to me that the majority of wizards in fiction would be multiclass characters in 4e. That's fine, but it weakens the argument that the Wizard is somehow archetypal, rather than a deliberate synthesis by the D&D writers. There is no reason why a wizard has to be a poor combatant, and many reasons, drawn from the media, why they should not be. There are good reasons why a magician should not be all magic, all the time. 

You are sidestepping my point, which remains: of the characters who use arcane magic in fiction, most are competent, even heroic at nonmagical combat.


----------



## hong (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You are putting words into my mouth. You are insisting that calling him a "wizard" means he is primarily of the Wizard class, which is not true. The archetypal wizard is some part of all characters who are wizards, and the Grey Mouser happens to be one.
> 
> It appears to me that the majority of wizards in fiction would be multiclass characters in 4e. That's fine, but it weakens the argument that the Wizard is somehow archetypal, rather than a deliberate synthesis by the D&D writers. There is no reason why a wizard has to be a poor combatant, and many reasons, drawn from the media, why they should not be. There are good reasons why a magician should not be all magic, all the time.




You still forgot Musashi.


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You still forgot Musashi.




I never forget Musashi. He is dear to my heart.

I can already imagine his build. He casts fireball, but it's reflavored as him setting his bokken on fire and running about like mad in a circle. His "teleport" is actually his cunning ability to hide under bridges. Magic missile is his deadly sword throw. Really, there's no reason to get hung up on the name of the class. Clearly a wizard.


----------



## hong (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I never forget Musashi. He is dear to my heart.
> 
> I can already imagine his build. He casts fireball, but it's reflavored as him setting his bokken on fire and running about like mad in a circle. His "teleport" is actually his cunning ability to hide under bridges. Magic missile is his deadly sword throw. Really, there's no reason to get hung up on the name of the class. Clearly a wizard.



 No, you still forgot that Musashi can be a fighter while multiclassed to ranger for dual-wielding, just as the Grey Mouser can be a rogue while multiclassed to wizard for spellcasting.


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, you still forgot that Musashi can be a fighter while multiclassed to ranger for dual-wielding, just as the Grey Mouser can be a rogue while multiclassed to wizard for spellcasting.




Well, of course he can. ... And?


----------



## hong (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Well, of course he can. ... And?



 Well, I guess that just about wraps it up for Musashi, dual-wielding and stuff.


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, I guess that just about wraps it up for Musashi, dual-wielding and stuff.




I believe it way MY point that Musashi could not be a pure fighter. You'll have to get your own.


----------



## hong (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I believe it way MY point that Musashi could not be a pure fighter.




And this is important because...?


----------



## D'karr (May 14, 2008)

After reading through the pile I don't see one thing that is a dealbreaker for me.

I'm running Keep on the Shadowfell on Saturday and greatly looking forward to it.  More fun for me!!!!


----------



## Lanefan (May 14, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I've never used or seen used storm giants, fire giants, dopplegangers, bulettes, werebears, wereboars, pit fiends, chuul, any beholder variant, aboleth, achaierai, aquatic elves, arrowhawks, stone giants, giant bees, or yrthak -- to name a few -- and I've been playing since '86.  Personally, I've never or almost never used halfling, mind flayers, or orcs - and if it's true for me, it must be true for everyone, right?



We-ell, about half your list are things I've used...even including the legendary Yrthak...so I'm afraid I can't back you up much here. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (May 14, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But in most games, most players get to play the game most of the time. If I wanted to be bored and have nothing fun to do, I'd go to the office, not the gaming table.



Then stop thinking of it in comparison to a boardgame and try thinking of it in terms of a play or movie, where not every actor is on stage/screen all the time.  Or think of it in comparison to a hockey team, where the players go off the ice sometimes for a breather.  In either case the non-active people know they'll be active soon enough when the situation is right for them to do their bit, butuntil then they just have to wait.


> Why do I have to earn the right to enjoy myself playing a game? That's right, I don't, I just start my game at 4th level. Or alternatively, rewrite my game so 1st level (which seems like the first level one might begin a character at) isn't a save-or-die gamble.



Ah...now I see a bit of where the difference of opinion comes from: you don't like losing/killing characters, where I see it - from either side of the screen - as part of the game.  Again to use the sports analogy, the first few levels are like training camp, where you run out a bunch of prospects and see who's any good.  Those who don't measure up (in this case, indicated by dying) are replaced with other prospects, and the cycle continues.  At some point, you realize you've got a decent party and the attrition rate declines sharply.

Lanefan


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 14, 2008)

> Ah...now I see a bit of where the difference of opinion comes from: you don't like losing/killing characters, where I see it - from either side of the screen - as part of the game.  Again to use the sports analogy, the first few levels are like training camp, where you run out a bunch of prospects and see who's any good.  Those who don't measure up (in this case, indicated by dying) are replaced with other prospects, and the cycle continues.  At some point, you realize you've got a decent party and the attrition rate declines sharply.



Why bother to do it this way?  Sounds like arguing for trial-and-error-that-might-be-an-error-or-might-be-a-quirk-of-fate vs. an educated guess, considering the extreme randomness of real PC death in pre-4E.  Kobolds with light crossbows...brilliant.


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And this is important because...?




Because to me, conceptually, Musashi is about as pure fighter as you'll ever see. I don't agree with giving TWF to rangers, which they have by only the flimsiest entitlement.


----------



## hong (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Because to me, conceptually, Musashi is about as pure fighter as you'll ever see.




You forgot the Gray Mouser.


----------



## Kishin (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You are sidestepping my point, which remains: of the characters who use arcane magic in fiction, most are competent, even heroic at nonmagical combat.




You missed the part where I listed a fair number of counterexamples who weren't?



			
				hong said:
			
		

> You forgot the Gray Mouser.




Have my babies, Hong.


----------



## pemerton (May 14, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Then stop thinking of it in comparison to a boardgame and try thinking of it in terms of a play or movie, where not every actor is on stage/screen all the time.



I have trouble seeing the playing of a game as analogous to engaging in a performance like that. I quite often speak at public forums and have to sit and wait my turn - but (i) I'm listening to the other speakers, and (ii) I'm attending to the public reaction and (iii) it's work (not paid work, but vocational activity nevertheless) and not recreation.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Or think of it in comparison to a hockey team, where the players go off the ice sometimes for a breather.



But I don't need a breather after rolling my dice - I'm not that much of an unfit gamer!



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> In either case the non-active people know they'll be active soon enough when the situation is right for them to do their bit, butuntil then they just have to wait.



I can see where you're going with your analogies, but they just don't really work for me. It's just more fun to participate than spectate.

For me it's different from taking turns in a wargame or card game (for example), because there you can kibbitz with all those who are likewise not playing, and there is no issue of disrupting immersion. But playing an RPG like that is a little bit different - often you're the only spectator, and your kibbitzing with your fellow players therefore just gets in the way of their play.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Ah...now I see a bit of where the difference of opinion comes from: you don't like losing/killing characters, where I see it - from either side of the screen - as part of the game.  Again to use the sports analogy, the first few levels are like training camp, where you run out a bunch of prospects and see who's any good.  Those who don't measure up (in this case, indicated by dying) are replaced with other prospects, and the cycle continues.  At some point, you realize you've got a decent party and the attrition rate declines sharply.



I guess I just don't see the need to train for a particular game when I could just start playing the game. Even Gygax, in the 1st ed DMG, suggested that experienced players will probably not want to start at 1st level. WoTC simply seem to have realised that there's no especially good reason why new players should either - there's nothing "sacred" about mid-to-high level play that you shouldn't learn how to do it, and get the benefits of it, without earning it by serving your time at "training camp".

By analogy - there's no rule (that I know of) that says you have to spend 6 months playing ludo before you're allowed to learn to play backgammon. And at least ludo has the excuse that it's fun for children - 1st level is actually hard to play well for an inexperienced player, unless s/he throws her- or himself on the mercy of the GM.


----------



## Nellisir (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Wizards who fight: Gandalf, Grey Mouser, Galen (from Dragonslayer), Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Belgarion, Richard Cypher, Rod Gallowglass, Elminster.
> Wizards who don't: Merlin, Miracle Max, Raistilin.




:blink:  Rod Gallowglass?  You mean the psionicist (telekinetic?) with the metal horse and the spaceship that lands on the lost colony planet of psionic people and pretends to be a wizard?  That's...weak.

Most wizards in fiction don't have the sheer power a mid to high level D&D wizard does.  Having some role in combat is one way (there are others) to balance the scales a little bit.

Anyways, here's another wizard that doesn't fight: Arisilde Damal. I could probably come up with more, but 90% of my books are now packed away in anticipation of moving.


----------



## SteveC (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You forgot the Gray Mouser.



The Mouser is an interesting challenge for 4E: on the surface he is the textbook example for wizard multiclassing: he's a dabbler.

The problem is that he's really a fighter, ranger and a rogue in 4E terms: he fights both solo and against groups, uses two weapons (he's the two-weapon iconic as far as I am concerned) and also a consummate rogue. We won't know how difficult it is to make him in 4E until the books actually come out, so, well, you know the drill...

In 3.0 I played a Mouser clone (he is a fun archetype, what can I say...), and he was pretty much a fighter-rogue with some use magic device and a dash of knowledge arcana. It was interesting to see how simple something could be that had been very difficult to do in earlier editions. I am hoping this trend continues. We'll see.

--Steve


----------



## Will (May 14, 2008)

The Gray Mouser is described almost precisely as a rogue (with maybe a dip into fighter or ranger) who has maybe a level or two of wizard; he trained to be a wizard but left early on to pursue his life of crime.

I mean, if you needed 'literary examples of multiclassing,' that's almost a perfect case.


----------



## SteveC (May 14, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> The Gray Mouser is described almost precisely as a rogue (with maybe a dip into fighter or ranger) who has maybe a level or two of wizard; he trained to be a wizard but left early on to pursue his life of crime.
> 
> I mean, if you needed 'literary examples of multiclassing,' that's almost a perfect case.



...except for the fact that he's one of the greatest sword fighters in the world. I reread the novels a few years back (still liked the early ones, but they go down hill in my opinion), and he is constantly described as being this amazing swordsman, both against solo opponents and against groups. That's where I have a problem. Now I know Mearls is a fan of the books, so I strongly believe you'll be able to make a rogue character who can fit that role, but you'll definitely need a ranger multiclass for the two-weapon fighting. 

And that reminds me: with ranger multiclassing comes training in the nature skill, which doesn't fit the Mouser at all. He is definitely a cityboy. Fafhrd on the other hand...

--Steve


----------



## Lacyon (May 14, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> ...except for the fact that he's one of the greatest sword fighters in the world.




A 10th-level rogue in a world of 1st-level commoners (or even 5th-level _fighters_) is the greatest swordsman in the world. It's all about establishing your baseline.


----------



## Elphilm (May 14, 2008)

I think that in 4E terms the Gray Mouser would be a Rogue with the Ritual Casting feat. He does not need to have Wizard levels or the Arcane Initiate feat, because in Nehwon all magic is basically what 4E calls Rituals - spells take time to cast, and no one lobs around _magic missiles_ or _fireballs_.

Fafhrd, on the other hand, I could see as a Ranger with the Sneak of Shadows feat.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 14, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Again, the Mouser is not a wizard. Gandalf is a divine being. Belgarion is a Mary Sue. So is Richard Cypher. In fact, Richard Cypher is probably the President of the Mary Sue club. Rand Al'thor is more Sorcerer than Wizard by 3E and 4E standard, since his power is instinctual rather than trained, but I'd suppose it's agreeable though again, fairly Mary Sue.
> 
> Wizards that don't fight: Saruman, Elric off the drugs/pre Stormbringer. (Standard Elric is admittedly a fighting wizard). Sephrenia from Eddings' Elenium/Tamuli. Polgara. Belgarath. Quick Ben Delat. Khelben Blackstaff.  The standard Wizard types in the Dark Glory War series.
> Mordenkainen.



Tom-Tom, One Eye (and Silent?). Thulsa Doom/Thoth-Amon etc. Ged. Rincewind. Most wizards in Dying Earth. Circe, Morgan le Fay. Dallben. Most of the Wizards Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser ever meet. Others too obscure to mention.

Doctor Strange, Willow and TV version Harry Dresden (only because I havent read the books) who are perfectly capable of throwing a punch or shooting a crossbow, but you don't tend to see them running around with swords or taking on anything tougher than some mook with a sharp spork without magic. (Admitadly, Doctor Doom, Giles and Morgan do run around with such weapons, but whatever.)

(I'm tempted to say Vaarsuvius, but I'm pretty sure V doesn't count)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 14, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I've never used or seen used storm giants, fire giants, dopplegangers, bulettes, werebears, wereboars, pit fiends, chuul, any beholder variant, aboleth, achaierai, aquatic elves, arrowhawks, stone giants, giant bees, or yrthak -- to name a few -- and I've been playing since '86.  Personally, I've never or almost never used halfling, mind flayers, or orcs - and if it's true for me, it must be true for everyone, right?



You missed my point entirely. I understand how you can prefer to have certain monsters in the first MM. But the term "dealbreaker" means that this one thing, by itself, is enough to cause you not to play 4E. I said it's "interesting" that the lack of a specific monster in the first MM could cause someone to not play 4E at all, because I lacked a better word.


----------



## Nellisir (May 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> You missed my point entirely. I understand how you can prefer to have certain monsters in the first MM. But the term "dealbreaker" means that this one thing, by itself, is enough to cause you not to play 4E. I said it's "interesting" that the lack of a specific monster in the first MM could cause someone to not play 4E at all, because I lacked a better word.




Nope, got that point - and I bet, alone, the lack of frost giants wouldn't be a dealbreaker.  But whether or not you use frost giants is also irrelevant to your point, and the OP's opinion.  He's talking about his game, not yours.  Leaving orcs out of the first Monster Manual wouldn't bother me, but I bet it'd bother alot of other people.  Might even be a dealbreaker for some of them.


----------



## Imp (May 14, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> A 10th-level rogue in a world of 1st-level commoners (or even 5th-level _fighters_) is the greatest swordsman in the world. It's all about establishing your baseline.



The other baseline in the books is Fafhrd, who the Mouser crosses swords with on several occasions.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 15, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> And that reminds me: with ranger multiclassing comes training in the nature skill, which doesn't fit the Mouser at all. He is definitely a cityboy. Fafhrd on the other hand...



Cant Ranger's pick Dungeoneering as their bonus skill instead of Nature?  That would seem to fit fine.


----------



## hong (May 15, 2008)

A Cant Ranger sounds intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 15, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Tom-Tom, One Eye (and Silent?). Thulsa Doom/Thoth-Amon etc. Ged. Rincewind. Most wizards in Dying Earth. Circe, Morgan le Fay. Dallben. Most of the Wizards Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser ever meet. Others too obscure to mention.
> Doctor Strange, Willow and TV version Harry Dresden (only because I havent read the books) who are perfectly capable of throwing a punch or shooting a crossbow, but you don't tend to see them running around with swords or taking on anything tougher than some mook with a sharp spork without magic. (Admitadly, Doctor Doom, Giles and Morgan do run around with such weapons, but whatever.)
> (I'm tempted to say Vaarsuvius, but I'm pretty sure V doesn't count)



I gots to say it takes cajones to list Rincewind and Dallben as examples. =)
I worry that why people still seem to think that casters are now worse weapon-users when they're obviously better in a comparative sense than pre-4.0.  Hopefully not.
Anyway, opportunity attacks are based on melee attacks unless you have a spell specifically designed to be usable for opportunity attacks; there aren't many.  Maybe most of these warlocks/wizards may not have Magic Missile as a power and instead utilize their fists for situational combat situations.  Maybe most of these characters don't live in a world saturated with magic.  Maybe even if it's over the top--and by anime standards, it isn't, and that's all the vogue right now you know--it still makes a heck of a lot more basic sense than the Vancian system.


----------

