Just finished reading over the preview of the next "new" race to be a part of the PHB3. The Githzerai.
Due to my hatred of the sci-fi peg of psionics in the round hole of fantasy dnd, I never was much of a fan of the Gith. They were like Drow. Fun to fight as antagonists but I had zero interest in every making one into a hero.
They do have an interesting backstory though. Enslaved until they fought their way to freedom. It's a story that's pretty cliche but it still holds power and speaks to me in a way. Probably because I, like most everyone, love a good underdog. On the downside the whole githzerai/githyanki split is too close the whole elves/drow split. You can use the cliche WotC, but please, give it a new twist.
As for their powers, well, I like them. In general they reflect the new slant on psionics quite nicely and are definitely very useful (unlike the Dragonborn's lame breath "weapon"). If anything they might be a little too good. Getting a free shift of up to 3 squares is a super boon when using a second wind. Not only do you get HP back, but you also get to put some space between yourself and who or whatever was whaling on you. Iron Mind is also a tad strong, giving a short lived +2 bonus to all defenses. Compare that to the wizard's Shield utility spell. Both are Encounter powers and Shield gives a +4 bonus to defenses but the Iron Mind doesn't take up a power slot. Also, Iron Mind can be boosted to +4 and give damage resist with a couple of Epic Tier feats.
The Paragon path isn't bad but not especially gripping either. Much like any Paragon path I suppose. A couple of bonuses and a fancy title. Meh.
Their racial feats are nice. Again much like any feat they give some bonuses but their nothing to get excited about. My favorite is probably Iron Resolve of Zerthadlun because it gives the player a potentially difficult choice. Do you hold on to that last psionic power point for a +2 to saving throws, or spend it and hope you don't roll an 8 or 9 on your next save? I love that kind of decision and find that it's sorely missing in 4E.
A comment by Robert J. Schwalb, in regards to the racial feats got me to thinking. He said that, "Githzerai feats reinforce and expand the race's existing themes and mechanics." I can't argue with that, although I might quibble over the "expand" portion. The thing that occurred to me is that this is the big difference in feats in 4E as compared to 3.5.
In 3.5 feats were arguably the thing that defined one's character. Four fighters could be wildly different from one another based solely on the feats selected. In 4E feats have been relegated to small boosts to existing powers. One method was wildly liberating while the other almost forces feat selection to min/max. A number of 4E feats might sound good, or make for interesting character development, but if they don't synergize with your powers they're kinda wasted.
Anyways, back on track, I liked the Githzerai overll. I probably won't ever play a Gith character, but they're at least somewhat interesting now. Some nice powers. A few interesting feats. Good backstory. Really, what more could I ask for from any race?
Showing posts with label feats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feats. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Promises. Promises.
I got a look at the Crwth's Insider copy of the Martial Powers Book playtest article.
For starters, I've gotta say that I love WotC's use of these playtest articles to get feedback from the players (ie. customers) before putting it all in ink. Assuming its not just a phony PR stunt.
As for the actual material, well... it's heartening. I mean, at long last they seem to be following up on the pre-release promises of having a warrior's choice in weapon mean something. (But why only for martial characters? Can't an arcane or divine or primal character specialize in a weapon too? Wouldn't that be more in line with the 'every class is equal and indistinguishable' thing 4E has going on?)
The feat bonuses and effects are all pretty much more of the same old formula. Add a bonus to this, do that in such and such a situation. Still, it's something that will differentiate a fighter who uses an axe from a fighter who prefers a spear and shield.
Most importantly, to me anyways, is that it offers up a lot of promise. I mean, all of my unfounded and harsh criticism aside (3.5 forever!) it's looking like 4E will be a really fun game.
In about three years.
In the meantime...
For starters, I've gotta say that I love WotC's use of these playtest articles to get feedback from the players (ie. customers) before putting it all in ink. Assuming its not just a phony PR stunt.
As for the actual material, well... it's heartening. I mean, at long last they seem to be following up on the pre-release promises of having a warrior's choice in weapon mean something. (But why only for martial characters? Can't an arcane or divine or primal character specialize in a weapon too? Wouldn't that be more in line with the 'every class is equal and indistinguishable' thing 4E has going on?)
The feat bonuses and effects are all pretty much more of the same old formula. Add a bonus to this, do that in such and such a situation. Still, it's something that will differentiate a fighter who uses an axe from a fighter who prefers a spear and shield.
Most importantly, to me anyways, is that it offers up a lot of promise. I mean, all of my unfounded and harsh criticism aside (3.5 forever!) it's looking like 4E will be a really fun game.
In about three years.
In the meantime...
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Powers, feats, and innate abilities
I read the latest Design & Development article a few days ago. It was interesting to hear about the design decisions that went into the feats of 4e, and how they compare to those that appeared in 3rd edition. But for fear of beating a dead centaur, I'm going to open up old wounds and mix metaphors.
In recent posts, we've talked about how the powers have made the various classes feel the same, since everyone has them. In 3rd edition, you had your spellcasters (and as mentioned before, they were varied enough to easily feel different); you had your Fighter, who dominated the feat selection throughout their progression, giving them a definite martial feel; and the remaining classes had their numerous class skills -- Barbarian with rage and DR, Rogue with a dozen skills and sneak attack, Monk with all sorts of goodness, Ranger with different paths, and the Bard... yeah.
And everyone felt unique. Every character played differently. And, it has to be said, multiclassing let you stir that up even more. The new feats, though, have pretty much taken the place of class-specific abilities. Sure, you don't get them automatically, but you get to choose them often enough, and they're very narrowly focused that you can label most of them as class- or race-specific. This came up when I last levelled up my Cleric - I think there were four feats that I could choose from, for which I qualified.
And speaking of multiclassing, as I have before, I've gone all hypocritical and multiclassed my Cleric, going with a bit of warlord just to powergame the healing aspect a bit. But is this going to make me feel any different from any other Cleric? Make me feel anything like a Warlord?
The Des&Dev article breaks down most of the 4e feats into four categories: static improvements to stats, situational improvements to stats, racial power mods, or class feature mods.
The first two are generally available to everyone, and thus don't help to differentiate anyone; the racial power modifications are minor, as all racial powers are; the last group, which focuses on each class's meager differences, is the only group that really makes an effort to "customize" the characters, to decorate them once they leave the cookie cutter. But does this little bit of icing help, or are they, in the end, equally indigestable, all tasting the same and making a mess on the table?
In recent posts, we've talked about how the powers have made the various classes feel the same, since everyone has them. In 3rd edition, you had your spellcasters (and as mentioned before, they were varied enough to easily feel different); you had your Fighter, who dominated the feat selection throughout their progression, giving them a definite martial feel; and the remaining classes had their numerous class skills -- Barbarian with rage and DR, Rogue with a dozen skills and sneak attack, Monk with all sorts of goodness, Ranger with different paths, and the Bard... yeah.
And everyone felt unique. Every character played differently. And, it has to be said, multiclassing let you stir that up even more. The new feats, though, have pretty much taken the place of class-specific abilities. Sure, you don't get them automatically, but you get to choose them often enough, and they're very narrowly focused that you can label most of them as class- or race-specific. This came up when I last levelled up my Cleric - I think there were four feats that I could choose from, for which I qualified.
And speaking of multiclassing, as I have before, I've gone all hypocritical and multiclassed my Cleric, going with a bit of warlord just to powergame the healing aspect a bit. But is this going to make me feel any different from any other Cleric? Make me feel anything like a Warlord?
The Des&Dev article breaks down most of the 4e feats into four categories: static improvements to stats, situational improvements to stats, racial power mods, or class feature mods.
The first two are generally available to everyone, and thus don't help to differentiate anyone; the racial power modifications are minor, as all racial powers are; the last group, which focuses on each class's meager differences, is the only group that really makes an effort to "customize" the characters, to decorate them once they leave the cookie cutter. But does this little bit of icing help, or are they, in the end, equally indigestable, all tasting the same and making a mess on the table?
Friday, January 9, 2009
Save vs Negativity Failed
Long time, no blog.
My lack of posting isn’t from a dearth of material to look at. There’s plenty for me to go over (at least when I get the chance to read through Crwth’s digital Dragon magazines) so I’m sure I could pick up a topic or two if I took the time to read it all. The holidays make for a handy scapegoat in the gap in writing but in all honesty I had plenty of time to make up a post.
Case in point. I’ve had the following saved on my computer since late November or early December. I could have posted it at just about any time but hesitated for one big reason. I’m tired of being so negative all the time.
Honestly. I want to like 4e because at it’s core it’s still DnD, it’s still the game that I’ve loved since I rolled up my first dwarven ranger in 1984.
I want to find and focus on the gems of the game. Things like the monsters and encounters. The design of those two areas is greatly improved. I like the rules on disease, poison, and traps. Those rules have been improved over 3.5 by leaps and bounds. I like the emphasis on terrain. The skill system is another tweak that I really approve of. I’ve even grown to like the roles. There are lots of other things that I like that I aren’t coming to mind at the moment, so suffice to say that overall 4E is a good game.
Actually, more accurately, I still have a lot of fun when playing DnD. Is that fun a result of the rule set? No. Absolutely not. Definitely and emphatically no.
The fun comes from our DM ‘s ability to spin a tale and run the game with a nice pace. It’s fun because of my friends. It’s fun because of the off track tangents that inevitably veer us away from the game. It’s fun because of the mom jokes and the pop culture references and Simpsons quotes.
If anything, there’s just one small trifling detail that holds my weekly gaming back in terms of pure enjoyment.
The classes.
I hate them.
Seriously. They bore me. To tears.
I’ve been trying to leave this poor dead horse alone but the classes are all just so cookie cutter. The names of the powers and abilities are all different but the core of their effects are all the same. Some classes lean more heavily on one type of power but everyone seems to have a the same generic options. The extra feats don’t add any spice to the mix. It’s just more salt in an already salty soup. Spellcasters are so dumbed down they are beyond the point of banality.
Even the release of some new classes has done nothing for me. The Swordmage in the FRPG is interesting but barely different from the sword wielding wizard I’m currently playing. The sneak peek at the upcoming Barbarian was ho hum. Do I dare hold out hope for the PHB2?
Sure, there’s no more mindlessly hacking away with sword or axe. Instead we mindlessly flail away with “Holy Smites”, “Twin Strikes”, and “Scorching Blasts”. Whee.
Sure, there’s no more accidentally nerfing your character by multiclassing or missing out on a pre-requisite for a feat. Instead there is no multiclassing, and if you miss a feat, take it next level. Or “retrain”.
Leveling up used to be the penultimate in excitement as all new paths and options opened up. Now it’s just a matter of changing some numbers on the character sheet. The only reason I even bother with bugging our DM about leveling up is for the running joke.
The bottom line is it’s still nice to get out of the house and do some gaming with my friends. It’s just that I’d be just as happy if we were to play d20 Modern or VtM or just about any other RPG out there. The only thing that currently keeps me with DnD is the familiarity factor. That and the high fantasy setting of battling monsters with sword and spell. Other than that avenue of escapism, 4th edition has nothing to hold my interest.
My lack of posting isn’t from a dearth of material to look at. There’s plenty for me to go over (at least when I get the chance to read through Crwth’s digital Dragon magazines) so I’m sure I could pick up a topic or two if I took the time to read it all. The holidays make for a handy scapegoat in the gap in writing but in all honesty I had plenty of time to make up a post.
Case in point. I’ve had the following saved on my computer since late November or early December. I could have posted it at just about any time but hesitated for one big reason. I’m tired of being so negative all the time.
Honestly. I want to like 4e because at it’s core it’s still DnD, it’s still the game that I’ve loved since I rolled up my first dwarven ranger in 1984.
I want to find and focus on the gems of the game. Things like the monsters and encounters. The design of those two areas is greatly improved. I like the rules on disease, poison, and traps. Those rules have been improved over 3.5 by leaps and bounds. I like the emphasis on terrain. The skill system is another tweak that I really approve of. I’ve even grown to like the roles. There are lots of other things that I like that I aren’t coming to mind at the moment, so suffice to say that overall 4E is a good game.
Actually, more accurately, I still have a lot of fun when playing DnD. Is that fun a result of the rule set? No. Absolutely not. Definitely and emphatically no.
The fun comes from our DM ‘s ability to spin a tale and run the game with a nice pace. It’s fun because of my friends. It’s fun because of the off track tangents that inevitably veer us away from the game. It’s fun because of the mom jokes and the pop culture references and Simpsons quotes.
If anything, there’s just one small trifling detail that holds my weekly gaming back in terms of pure enjoyment.
The classes.
I hate them.
Seriously. They bore me. To tears.
I’ve been trying to leave this poor dead horse alone but the classes are all just so cookie cutter. The names of the powers and abilities are all different but the core of their effects are all the same. Some classes lean more heavily on one type of power but everyone seems to have a the same generic options. The extra feats don’t add any spice to the mix. It’s just more salt in an already salty soup. Spellcasters are so dumbed down they are beyond the point of banality.
Even the release of some new classes has done nothing for me. The Swordmage in the FRPG is interesting but barely different from the sword wielding wizard I’m currently playing. The sneak peek at the upcoming Barbarian was ho hum. Do I dare hold out hope for the PHB2?
Sure, there’s no more mindlessly hacking away with sword or axe. Instead we mindlessly flail away with “Holy Smites”, “Twin Strikes”, and “Scorching Blasts”. Whee.
Sure, there’s no more accidentally nerfing your character by multiclassing or missing out on a pre-requisite for a feat. Instead there is no multiclassing, and if you miss a feat, take it next level. Or “retrain”.
Leveling up used to be the penultimate in excitement as all new paths and options opened up. Now it’s just a matter of changing some numbers on the character sheet. The only reason I even bother with bugging our DM about leveling up is for the running joke.
The bottom line is it’s still nice to get out of the house and do some gaming with my friends. It’s just that I’d be just as happy if we were to play d20 Modern or VtM or just about any other RPG out there. The only thing that currently keeps me with DnD is the familiarity factor. That and the high fantasy setting of battling monsters with sword and spell. Other than that avenue of escapism, 4th edition has nothing to hold my interest.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A not-so-brief summary (after 3 levels)
Having just hit 3rd level I figured it was time to sum up the things that I love and the things that I hate with 4e.
The Good:
Everything to do with Encounter design. I just love this. Everything from the mixing and matching of monsters, to their roles (as an aid for the DM only), to the use of terrain. It’s all just good shit. I mean it. WotC knocked this one out of the park.
The skills system. I was lukewarm on the untrained vs trained thing at first, but I’ve really grown to love it. It’s simple, elegant, and best of all dumping ranks in doesn’t outgrow the curve of the DCs, making what should be an incredibly difficult show of skill (ie, tumbling around a dozen ninja warriors without getting hit) into a can’t be failed exercise in boredom (ie. that DC 15 never goes up).
Racial abilities. They add a nice little kicker to choosing a specific race. Great idea.My only knock against them is that they just don’t go quite far enough. I’m putting this under a good thing, with the presumption that future books will push this great idea to the heights it deserves.
The monsters. Another homerun for WotC. From the foundation of their design being for one encounter (ie. no more abilities/spells that won’t be used during a fight) to the stat block layout, it’s all much improved. A special favorite of mine is the use of signature powers for every monster. The kobold’s free shift and the goblin’s shift after a miss etc... Just awesome.
Races. Love the new races. The Dragonborn are a perfect addition, and the split of the elves into Eladrin and Elf is beautiful. The Tiefling... well, three out of four is pretty damn good. And the re-tooling of the other core races are all very nicely done.
The Bad:
The multiclassing (or lack thereof). Part of the fun in DnD is mixing and matching existing classes to whip up my own perfectly tailored “class”. Was it powergaming and unbalancing? Sure. Was it potentially nerfing yourself if you took the wrong class or feat? You betcha! But it was fun and challenging and I loved it. (The added perception that they nerfed multi-classing solely to justify the creation of future books, as in “don’t make up your own class, buy this book which has a bunch of new classes that almost fit your concept instead”, well, that kinda pisses me off.)
Spellcasting is just boring. It’s all just different powers now and that, in some vague way, robs me a little. Okay, my wizard can drop “Scorching Bursts” every round, but whoop-dee-doo. It’s dulls-ville.
Action points. It took me a while but I’ve decided that I hate the way they implemented these. When they first appeared in the 3.5 Eberron world, I thought they were quite cool. A nice little 1d6 boost to any roll to change defeat into success strikes me as “heroic”, which was the intent. In 4e getting to do an extra action in a round might be heroic, if you fighter uses it to make an extra attack and topples two ogres at the same time. More often than not the result of the Action Point is pretty mundane. A healing surge gets burnt, or a bad guy gets hit for an extra 5 damage. Yawn. Worse yet, I’ve used an Action Point for the extra move to get away from danger. Yeah. That’s “heroic”.
The magic items. I know they felt that players were far too dependant on magic items. But so what if they are? At least it gave us something to aspire and save up for. Something to quest for even. Now they’re just lame.
Retraining. WotC should take this concept and shove it up their ass. I hate it. 'Nuff said.
The “yeah buts”:
The assortment of powers. I like them overall, and the fact that every class gets them is both a good and bad thing. It makes every class unique in way, which is good, but it also (in an admittedly weird way that I have trouble defining) makes every class feel the same. I wish I could elaborate on this but it’s just my subjective feeling.
The feats will surely fill many a book (while emptying many a wallet) and every character gets a shitload of them, which is good. I suppose. But I’ve yet to see anything that I want to aim towards. They’re just so watered down now. A piddly bonus to a pair of skils, or the ability to wear armor and such are just... blah. Where are the Whirlwind Attack type feats that required levels of planning and then provided an exciting in game payoff?
The overall streamlining of the game. This came really close to being up with the good, but for one thing. There are times where I get the feeling that “time wasters” of the past (ie. confirming critical hits etc...) have simply shifted to new time wasters. This could be simply because our play group hasn’t gotten a complete grasp on the rules and powers but everyone’s action starts with opening the PHB to check on the details of our char’s powers. I’d rather be rolling dice thanks.
The Good:
Everything to do with Encounter design. I just love this. Everything from the mixing and matching of monsters, to their roles (as an aid for the DM only), to the use of terrain. It’s all just good shit. I mean it. WotC knocked this one out of the park.
The skills system. I was lukewarm on the untrained vs trained thing at first, but I’ve really grown to love it. It’s simple, elegant, and best of all dumping ranks in doesn’t outgrow the curve of the DCs, making what should be an incredibly difficult show of skill (ie, tumbling around a dozen ninja warriors without getting hit) into a can’t be failed exercise in boredom (ie. that DC 15 never goes up).
Racial abilities. They add a nice little kicker to choosing a specific race. Great idea.My only knock against them is that they just don’t go quite far enough. I’m putting this under a good thing, with the presumption that future books will push this great idea to the heights it deserves.
The monsters. Another homerun for WotC. From the foundation of their design being for one encounter (ie. no more abilities/spells that won’t be used during a fight) to the stat block layout, it’s all much improved. A special favorite of mine is the use of signature powers for every monster. The kobold’s free shift and the goblin’s shift after a miss etc... Just awesome.
Races. Love the new races. The Dragonborn are a perfect addition, and the split of the elves into Eladrin and Elf is beautiful. The Tiefling... well, three out of four is pretty damn good. And the re-tooling of the other core races are all very nicely done.
The Bad:
The multiclassing (or lack thereof). Part of the fun in DnD is mixing and matching existing classes to whip up my own perfectly tailored “class”. Was it powergaming and unbalancing? Sure. Was it potentially nerfing yourself if you took the wrong class or feat? You betcha! But it was fun and challenging and I loved it. (The added perception that they nerfed multi-classing solely to justify the creation of future books, as in “don’t make up your own class, buy this book which has a bunch of new classes that almost fit your concept instead”, well, that kinda pisses me off.)
Spellcasting is just boring. It’s all just different powers now and that, in some vague way, robs me a little. Okay, my wizard can drop “Scorching Bursts” every round, but whoop-dee-doo. It’s dulls-ville.
Action points. It took me a while but I’ve decided that I hate the way they implemented these. When they first appeared in the 3.5 Eberron world, I thought they were quite cool. A nice little 1d6 boost to any roll to change defeat into success strikes me as “heroic”, which was the intent. In 4e getting to do an extra action in a round might be heroic, if you fighter uses it to make an extra attack and topples two ogres at the same time. More often than not the result of the Action Point is pretty mundane. A healing surge gets burnt, or a bad guy gets hit for an extra 5 damage. Yawn. Worse yet, I’ve used an Action Point for the extra move to get away from danger. Yeah. That’s “heroic”.
The magic items. I know they felt that players were far too dependant on magic items. But so what if they are? At least it gave us something to aspire and save up for. Something to quest for even. Now they’re just lame.
Retraining. WotC should take this concept and shove it up their ass. I hate it. 'Nuff said.
The “yeah buts”:
The assortment of powers. I like them overall, and the fact that every class gets them is both a good and bad thing. It makes every class unique in way, which is good, but it also (in an admittedly weird way that I have trouble defining) makes every class feel the same. I wish I could elaborate on this but it’s just my subjective feeling.
The feats will surely fill many a book (while emptying many a wallet) and every character gets a shitload of them, which is good. I suppose. But I’ve yet to see anything that I want to aim towards. They’re just so watered down now. A piddly bonus to a pair of skils, or the ability to wear armor and such are just... blah. Where are the Whirlwind Attack type feats that required levels of planning and then provided an exciting in game payoff?
The overall streamlining of the game. This came really close to being up with the good, but for one thing. There are times where I get the feeling that “time wasters” of the past (ie. confirming critical hits etc...) have simply shifted to new time wasters. This could be simply because our play group hasn’t gotten a complete grasp on the rules and powers but everyone’s action starts with opening the PHB to check on the details of our char’s powers. I’d rather be rolling dice thanks.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A rant on class
I seem to have touched on something based on the comments on my last post, so I’m gonna use it to pad my post count.
For starters, I’ll be the first to admit that my opinions are colored by the 3.5 past. I will not however apologize for that.
When I got a new car I did the same thing. The new one has more horsepower and a better air conditioner, but the old one had a better dashboard layout and cornered better. Comparing old to new and apples to oranges is just human nature. Still, point taken Adam,.
As for being patient and giving WoTC time to put out more material, well, I’ll concede that one too. I have no doubts that over the next few years we’ll be swamped with numerous offerings (or depending on how you look at it, schemes to pry our cash from our hands and pad their corporate bottom line). I’m also sure that the upcoming FRCS and certainly the PHB2 will be chock full of new powers (whether martial or arcane or divine). That’s all well and good. In the meantime while I wait for the main entrée I’ll make due with the bland soup of the day.
My bottom line point is that 4e classes all “feel” the same to me. No one has anything that really makes them stand out anymore. I’ve yet to see anyone in our party do something that made me do a double take. There has been no “oh wow, that was cool” moment.
The rogue has a ‘piercing strike’ that does some extra damage coupled with a move. The paladin has some kind of ‘smite’ thing. The cleric a ‘radiant strike’. My wizard the ‘scorching blast’. At first they were each on their own an intteresting effect to see in combat. Done every other round they lose their edge and become just another attack.
In 3.5 every class, every character, felt unique. They had their special flavors, their quirks, their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe it’s just me but I thought that was a beautiful thing.
Each class had it’s role in 3.5, only they were subtle and unspoken. They weren’t slapped down in stone and used like chains to lock us into a certain playstyle. It was understood that sorcerers and wizards stayed in the back while the fighters and paladins stood up front. Clerics and bards laid out the buffs and healing. Rangers and rogues crept around the edges and got in their damage when an opportunity opened up.
However, if you wanted to push a class into a different role, it was possible. A few feats or some multiclassing and my sorcerer could wear a chainshirt and step up to melee with the best of them. For sure it cost me a level of spellcasting and that arcane failute check bit me a few times, but that was part of the fun. I could get creative and experiment and revel in the failures.
True. The old multiclassing rules opened up some abuses. But when did “powergaming” become a bad word? If I want to take a level of fighter for the free weapon and armor proficiencies, or start as a rogue at 1st level solely for the skill ranks, well… where’s the harm? Who am I hurting? Some chump who’s playing the game in Yakima? No. I’m just having some fun. Last time I checked that’s the whole point of any game.
As another example the 3.5 ranger fought with two weapons or mastered the bow and could track. That was his thing, his role. For sure any other 3.5 class could do that with the proper feat selections. Same goes in 4e where a feat or two will do it. The difference was that in 3.5 feats were a precious commodity. Did your paladin really want to ‘waste’ a feat to track? Not bloody likely.
In 4e however nothing is off limits. Wanna learn to raise the dead? Spend some of the plethora of feats and learn the ritual. For all intents and purposes class no longer matters. In their mad quest to make every class equal to every other at every level (no more fighters outshining the wizard at low levels, only to have the tables turned in the high levels) they've given us vanilla throughout. Might as well just have "Adventurer type A" and "Adventurer type B" and get it over with.
Strategy seems to be a thing of the past as well. Sure, positioning your mini on the grid is more vital than ever, but past that there’s very little to think about. It’s a simple case of MMO style button mashing. Pick your at-will and your target and role a d20. No longer do you need to worry about meting out those special abilities or spells for a crucial moment. Fire away my friends! Plenty more where that came from!
Personally, I liked the angst over every decision. Especially when it came to spellcasting. I loved the whole “do I cast this or save it?”, or “do I try a spell that has a Will save because that giant seemed to slough off my Fort save based spell last round?” Those were the tactics and strategy that I really enjoyed. And when I ran out of spells, I loved to have my sorcerer grab her sickle and jump into melee. Puny hitpoints be damned! She wore that magic mithral chainshirt for a reason dammit!
That’s a thing of the past it seems. Now my dragonborn wizard is going to take the feats needed to wear chainmail only because there’s nothing else to spend them on. He’ll continue to grab his bastard sword and hack away at the bad guys despite having scorching blasts at his beck and call. He’ll keep on breaking out of his role because that’s the way I play. That’s called fun.
Ps. Despite my tone, I really am having fun with my new character. It is still DnD after all.
Pps. I am going to try out the multiclassing feats, just to try them. I’m also keeping an open mind. I can’t stress this enough. My opinions six months from now might be a total 180 from today.
For starters, I’ll be the first to admit that my opinions are colored by the 3.5 past. I will not however apologize for that.
When I got a new car I did the same thing. The new one has more horsepower and a better air conditioner, but the old one had a better dashboard layout and cornered better. Comparing old to new and apples to oranges is just human nature. Still, point taken Adam,.
As for being patient and giving WoTC time to put out more material, well, I’ll concede that one too. I have no doubts that over the next few years we’ll be swamped with numerous offerings (or depending on how you look at it, schemes to pry our cash from our hands and pad their corporate bottom line). I’m also sure that the upcoming FRCS and certainly the PHB2 will be chock full of new powers (whether martial or arcane or divine). That’s all well and good. In the meantime while I wait for the main entrée I’ll make due with the bland soup of the day.
My bottom line point is that 4e classes all “feel” the same to me. No one has anything that really makes them stand out anymore. I’ve yet to see anyone in our party do something that made me do a double take. There has been no “oh wow, that was cool” moment.
The rogue has a ‘piercing strike’ that does some extra damage coupled with a move. The paladin has some kind of ‘smite’ thing. The cleric a ‘radiant strike’. My wizard the ‘scorching blast’. At first they were each on their own an intteresting effect to see in combat. Done every other round they lose their edge and become just another attack.
In 3.5 every class, every character, felt unique. They had their special flavors, their quirks, their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe it’s just me but I thought that was a beautiful thing.
Each class had it’s role in 3.5, only they were subtle and unspoken. They weren’t slapped down in stone and used like chains to lock us into a certain playstyle. It was understood that sorcerers and wizards stayed in the back while the fighters and paladins stood up front. Clerics and bards laid out the buffs and healing. Rangers and rogues crept around the edges and got in their damage when an opportunity opened up.
However, if you wanted to push a class into a different role, it was possible. A few feats or some multiclassing and my sorcerer could wear a chainshirt and step up to melee with the best of them. For sure it cost me a level of spellcasting and that arcane failute check bit me a few times, but that was part of the fun. I could get creative and experiment and revel in the failures.
True. The old multiclassing rules opened up some abuses. But when did “powergaming” become a bad word? If I want to take a level of fighter for the free weapon and armor proficiencies, or start as a rogue at 1st level solely for the skill ranks, well… where’s the harm? Who am I hurting? Some chump who’s playing the game in Yakima? No. I’m just having some fun. Last time I checked that’s the whole point of any game.
As another example the 3.5 ranger fought with two weapons or mastered the bow and could track. That was his thing, his role. For sure any other 3.5 class could do that with the proper feat selections. Same goes in 4e where a feat or two will do it. The difference was that in 3.5 feats were a precious commodity. Did your paladin really want to ‘waste’ a feat to track? Not bloody likely.
In 4e however nothing is off limits. Wanna learn to raise the dead? Spend some of the plethora of feats and learn the ritual. For all intents and purposes class no longer matters. In their mad quest to make every class equal to every other at every level (no more fighters outshining the wizard at low levels, only to have the tables turned in the high levels) they've given us vanilla throughout. Might as well just have "Adventurer type A" and "Adventurer type B" and get it over with.
Strategy seems to be a thing of the past as well. Sure, positioning your mini on the grid is more vital than ever, but past that there’s very little to think about. It’s a simple case of MMO style button mashing. Pick your at-will and your target and role a d20. No longer do you need to worry about meting out those special abilities or spells for a crucial moment. Fire away my friends! Plenty more where that came from!
Personally, I liked the angst over every decision. Especially when it came to spellcasting. I loved the whole “do I cast this or save it?”, or “do I try a spell that has a Will save because that giant seemed to slough off my Fort save based spell last round?” Those were the tactics and strategy that I really enjoyed. And when I ran out of spells, I loved to have my sorcerer grab her sickle and jump into melee. Puny hitpoints be damned! She wore that magic mithral chainshirt for a reason dammit!
That’s a thing of the past it seems. Now my dragonborn wizard is going to take the feats needed to wear chainmail only because there’s nothing else to spend them on. He’ll continue to grab his bastard sword and hack away at the bad guys despite having scorching blasts at his beck and call. He’ll keep on breaking out of his role because that’s the way I play. That’s called fun.
Ps. Despite my tone, I really am having fun with my new character. It is still DnD after all.
Pps. I am going to try out the multiclassing feats, just to try them. I’m also keeping an open mind. I can’t stress this enough. My opinions six months from now might be a total 180 from today.
Monday, June 16, 2008
PHB - Skills and Feats
I think I've mentioned this before, but I really like the way that some of the skills have been consolidated. Acrobatics and Athletics, Perception and Stealth, these have grouped together many skills that used to go hand-in-hand anyway.
No more ranks - this threw me for a loop. You now pick which skills you're trained in, and that's it - you have training in it, and the only regular increases come from the 1/2-level bonus. Since many people picked the same skills every level-up anyway, this makes things easier, but gets rid of the fun some people had with dabbling here and there in many skills. The loss of synergy bonuses is a consequence of the loss of ranks, but I think the idea of synergy now comes into play during the skill encounters, which can often require various skills working together to get around the obstacle, whether a physical trap or a diplomatic meeting of minds.
I like that Detect Magic is now a skill check, instead of a spell that takes up space. The knowledge checks for various creature types and environments are a continuation of them in the 3.5 rules, which made the esoteric skills of that version useful, and help provide additional usefulness to the reduced skill set.
Unfortunately, two sessions into the first module hasn't had too many skill checks, and no skill encounters yet. It's quite a combat-heavy start, which is good for getting to know the combat system, but I'd like some variation!
The feats are a bit disappointing, coming from a 3rd edition background. They're very light, which makes sense if you consider how many skills you get as you advance. But when you're used to feats defining your character, these piddly things hardly seem worthwhile.
In 3rd edition, you could plan ahead for the feats you wanted/needed, always wishing you had room for one more. I found it difficult to pick something while planning a few levels of my cleric, because they all feel so powerless. The proficiency paths are a good use for the feats, if you need them (as a cleric does if they want armor), but so many of the feats are class- or race-specific, and even then feel like a waste of a choice, even when you're struggling to find anything at all.
The only feats that were interesting at all were the ones for Divinity, which basically give an extra use to your Channel Divinity ability. This reeks of the Dungeons & Dragons Online system where a cleric's turn undead uses could be used for other purposes (short-term regeneration, removal of negative conditions, etc.) Not that I don't like this alternate use of this occasionally-used ability, but it's yet another thing that feels stolen into 4e instead of innovated.
Many of the feats seem at first glance to require outrageous ability scores as a prerequisite, but considering the number of increases that are gained through the levels, it's not really so bad. Those who want to stray from the stereotypical can still have wizards with melee-boosting feats if they so choose.
The multiclass feats, which really sum up the multiclassing ability of 4th edition, take up all of two pages. I'm still not sure about this system, much preferring the openness of 3rd edition, but I suppose I should try walking a character through a multiclassing scenario to see what the end result is like - to see if the character really feels anything like a multiclassed character, or just a character that has no focus in either of the two classes.
No more ranks - this threw me for a loop. You now pick which skills you're trained in, and that's it - you have training in it, and the only regular increases come from the 1/2-level bonus. Since many people picked the same skills every level-up anyway, this makes things easier, but gets rid of the fun some people had with dabbling here and there in many skills. The loss of synergy bonuses is a consequence of the loss of ranks, but I think the idea of synergy now comes into play during the skill encounters, which can often require various skills working together to get around the obstacle, whether a physical trap or a diplomatic meeting of minds.
I like that Detect Magic is now a skill check, instead of a spell that takes up space. The knowledge checks for various creature types and environments are a continuation of them in the 3.5 rules, which made the esoteric skills of that version useful, and help provide additional usefulness to the reduced skill set.
Unfortunately, two sessions into the first module hasn't had too many skill checks, and no skill encounters yet. It's quite a combat-heavy start, which is good for getting to know the combat system, but I'd like some variation!
The feats are a bit disappointing, coming from a 3rd edition background. They're very light, which makes sense if you consider how many skills you get as you advance. But when you're used to feats defining your character, these piddly things hardly seem worthwhile.
In 3rd edition, you could plan ahead for the feats you wanted/needed, always wishing you had room for one more. I found it difficult to pick something while planning a few levels of my cleric, because they all feel so powerless. The proficiency paths are a good use for the feats, if you need them (as a cleric does if they want armor), but so many of the feats are class- or race-specific, and even then feel like a waste of a choice, even when you're struggling to find anything at all.
The only feats that were interesting at all were the ones for Divinity, which basically give an extra use to your Channel Divinity ability. This reeks of the Dungeons & Dragons Online system where a cleric's turn undead uses could be used for other purposes (short-term regeneration, removal of negative conditions, etc.) Not that I don't like this alternate use of this occasionally-used ability, but it's yet another thing that feels stolen into 4e instead of innovated.
Many of the feats seem at first glance to require outrageous ability scores as a prerequisite, but considering the number of increases that are gained through the levels, it's not really so bad. Those who want to stray from the stereotypical can still have wizards with melee-boosting feats if they so choose.
The multiclass feats, which really sum up the multiclassing ability of 4th edition, take up all of two pages. I'm still not sure about this system, much preferring the openness of 3rd edition, but I suppose I should try walking a character through a multiclassing scenario to see what the end result is like - to see if the character really feels anything like a multiclassed character, or just a character that has no focus in either of the two classes.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Forget guesswork. It's finally game time!
After nearly six long months without any DnD, our group finally got together to kick off the 4e version of the game. Here then, are my first impressions.
First off, character creation is very much a step by step follow the recipe kind of process. The only thing that really slowed me down was finding where everything was on the character sheet. After that it was just following along and plugging in the numbers and picking powers. The latter was a little disappointing in terms of the sparse selection.
I understand that it's just the first book and that next years PHB2 will have many more powers to pick from, but for now I found that there was very little to get excited about among the powers. For my wizard it was pretty much a choice between a 1d6 + Int mod close burst versus a 1d8 + Wis mod range 5 blast. Certainly nothing to make him stand out amongst the other first level wizards in his graduating class.
"I majored in Scorching Blast while my buddy Dave majored in Magic Missile." Ho hum.
Feats are another disappointment. For me, feats were the defining element of 3rd edition. Feat selection alone could differentiate every fighter from every other fighter. In 4e that's gone, or at best very underdeveloped. Sure, my wizard gets a billion feats thanks to one coming every other level, but there's very little to pick from. Armor and weapon proficiencies will be nice. An extra trained skill or two might come in handy. I might even dabble in a Warlock pact. Otherwise nothing to really look forward to. Again, this will no doubt be expanded upon in further releases but for now it gets a Boo-urns.
On the other hand, skills seem much better now. At first getting a one time +5 for being "trained" seemed, well, stupid. But I now see the real beauty in the design. It keeps those set DCs from becoming obsoleted by ranks. No longer can I put 20 ranks into Tumble to move through the battlefield without ever drawing an Attack of Opportunity. So huzzah to the new skill system.
(Side note: why the hell did they have to change the term "Attack of Opportunity" to "Opportunity Attacks"? Did they think that we're all so stupid that we might mix up the rules of 3rd and 4th editions because they share a common term? Attack of Opportunity (or AoO) rolls off the tongue and has a cooler acronym. "Opportunity Attack" falls from the lips like a brick and just sucks.)
Weapons and armor selection are just as sparse. Only six types of armor? Not much in the weapon lists to choose from either. It was all very simplistic too (once I got past the terms like "versatile" and "high crit" and the new range deal). Not a knock that, but not really a plus either. The inclusion of the "adventurer's pack" in equipment was a nice touch, especially since I buy the same routine items for every character. The simplification of encumberance was a sweet deal too. So I'll call this area a draw, mostly because it continues to give me the feeling that WotC held back about 35% of their material solely to fill other books that are soon to be released.
The game itself felt like a beloved pair of old boots. We ran through two seperate combats with an "extended rest" in between and while they took as long as any 3rd edition encounter (possibly longer) that was just because we're still getting familiar with our powers etc... In the long run, I see combats being considerably faster after the learning curve is climbed. Mainly thanks to no more saving throws in response to attacks/spells. While I still felt a little powerless (and robbed of my hand in fate) when that caster fired that gob of acid at me, I can appreciate how much easier it must be on our DM Crwth to be freed from rolling saves for all the various monsters.
Tactically it played out quite nicely. The extra slides some of the baddies had made the battlefield much more fluid, which was fun. It made picking my spots for dropping those burst spells that much trickier. Small compensation for having only two to pick from but whatever. My 3rd edition sorceror didn't have much to pick from at 1st level either. Also the question of when to use that precious Daily power kept things interesting. I thought both of my fellow players used theirs too early in the day, but then I followed suit and wasted mine as well.
I'm still mixed on Action Points. I don't think they really add any value to game play, in that it would still be fun without them. The extra action is nice and since they recharge after two "milestones" (why not call them encounters?) I can spend them whenever I want to without worry or regret.
The module "Keep on the Shadowfell" has been good so far. While we only just barely dipped our toes the encounters were varied and interesting. Also there seem to be two or three seperate storylines that we can follow, and it'll be interesting to see if any of the threads converge or cross as we go along. I'm definitely looking forward to exploring Winterhaven more as it seems to be nicely fleshed out with some interesting NPCs.
All in all, while 4e was disappointing in some areas it also provided some surprising goodness. Enough goodness that my 3.5 books will stay tucked away and continue to gather dust. For now.
First off, character creation is very much a step by step follow the recipe kind of process. The only thing that really slowed me down was finding where everything was on the character sheet. After that it was just following along and plugging in the numbers and picking powers. The latter was a little disappointing in terms of the sparse selection.
I understand that it's just the first book and that next years PHB2 will have many more powers to pick from, but for now I found that there was very little to get excited about among the powers. For my wizard it was pretty much a choice between a 1d6 + Int mod close burst versus a 1d8 + Wis mod range 5 blast. Certainly nothing to make him stand out amongst the other first level wizards in his graduating class.
"I majored in Scorching Blast while my buddy Dave majored in Magic Missile." Ho hum.
Feats are another disappointment. For me, feats were the defining element of 3rd edition. Feat selection alone could differentiate every fighter from every other fighter. In 4e that's gone, or at best very underdeveloped. Sure, my wizard gets a billion feats thanks to one coming every other level, but there's very little to pick from. Armor and weapon proficiencies will be nice. An extra trained skill or two might come in handy. I might even dabble in a Warlock pact. Otherwise nothing to really look forward to. Again, this will no doubt be expanded upon in further releases but for now it gets a Boo-urns.
On the other hand, skills seem much better now. At first getting a one time +5 for being "trained" seemed, well, stupid. But I now see the real beauty in the design. It keeps those set DCs from becoming obsoleted by ranks. No longer can I put 20 ranks into Tumble to move through the battlefield without ever drawing an Attack of Opportunity. So huzzah to the new skill system.
(Side note: why the hell did they have to change the term "Attack of Opportunity" to "Opportunity Attacks"? Did they think that we're all so stupid that we might mix up the rules of 3rd and 4th editions because they share a common term? Attack of Opportunity (or AoO) rolls off the tongue and has a cooler acronym. "Opportunity Attack" falls from the lips like a brick and just sucks.)
Weapons and armor selection are just as sparse. Only six types of armor? Not much in the weapon lists to choose from either. It was all very simplistic too (once I got past the terms like "versatile" and "high crit" and the new range deal). Not a knock that, but not really a plus either. The inclusion of the "adventurer's pack" in equipment was a nice touch, especially since I buy the same routine items for every character. The simplification of encumberance was a sweet deal too. So I'll call this area a draw, mostly because it continues to give me the feeling that WotC held back about 35% of their material solely to fill other books that are soon to be released.
The game itself felt like a beloved pair of old boots. We ran through two seperate combats with an "extended rest" in between and while they took as long as any 3rd edition encounter (possibly longer) that was just because we're still getting familiar with our powers etc... In the long run, I see combats being considerably faster after the learning curve is climbed. Mainly thanks to no more saving throws in response to attacks/spells. While I still felt a little powerless (and robbed of my hand in fate) when that caster fired that gob of acid at me, I can appreciate how much easier it must be on our DM Crwth to be freed from rolling saves for all the various monsters.
Tactically it played out quite nicely. The extra slides some of the baddies had made the battlefield much more fluid, which was fun. It made picking my spots for dropping those burst spells that much trickier. Small compensation for having only two to pick from but whatever. My 3rd edition sorceror didn't have much to pick from at 1st level either. Also the question of when to use that precious Daily power kept things interesting. I thought both of my fellow players used theirs too early in the day, but then I followed suit and wasted mine as well.
I'm still mixed on Action Points. I don't think they really add any value to game play, in that it would still be fun without them. The extra action is nice and since they recharge after two "milestones" (why not call them encounters?) I can spend them whenever I want to without worry or regret.
The module "Keep on the Shadowfell" has been good so far. While we only just barely dipped our toes the encounters were varied and interesting. Also there seem to be two or three seperate storylines that we can follow, and it'll be interesting to see if any of the threads converge or cross as we go along. I'm definitely looking forward to exploring Winterhaven more as it seems to be nicely fleshed out with some interesting NPCs.
All in all, while 4e was disappointing in some areas it also provided some surprising goodness. Enough goodness that my 3.5 books will stay tucked away and continue to gather dust. For now.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Multiclassing and prestige classes
I know it's a month late -- my defense is that they're overwhelming me with all of these Excerpts. But after reading the entries on Multiclassing and Paragon Paths, I'm more than a little disappointed.
I know that one of the tenets of 4e D&D was to make things simpler, and classes were certainly something that could overwhelm the newcomer. With the near-dozen classes in the 3.5 Player's Handbook and fifteen prestige classes in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, players already had quite a few choices with single-classing or multiclassing.
Then add in all of the accessory books, which, whether a book on magic, evil or monsters, seemed to provide at least one more class or prestige class to the list. With so many (too many?) choices available, it became daunting to try and decide what the next hero of the world would look like.
Of course, there's nothing saying that you had to look through them all, that you had to stray from the starter classes, or even consider multiclassing (or prestige classes). In fact, I'd say that the idea of customizing your character to that extent (whether for power-gaming purposes or that perfect character theme) was the purview of advanced players who could handle an overwhelming amount of choice, and who relished piecing together that obscure combination that exemplified their character vision.
I think 4e has gone too far with simplifying these choices. The multiclassing article basically reduces the idea down to a few feats that give you another class's abilities. And instead of prestige classes, which had a minimum level at which you could start down that path (unlike a true multiclass), we now have the paragon path, which always starts at 11th level.
So, instead of being able to customize your character's training and destiny level-to-level, you're restricted to being different from the fighter down the block only once you've survived a third of your adventuring career. Yes, sure, your feats still allow you to be unique, so now you're the fighter who uses a longsword instead of that guy beside you with the axe. Fighter, meet fighter.
"This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3E system," the Multiclassing post says. I'll say. So much for my human monk/fighter/sword of righteousness/forsaker/initiate of Pistis Sophia gestalt NPC that I never got to use. It will be interesting to see what future class-related releases are produced, either by Wizards or the fanbase, because I don't think the long-time players will stand to be throttled in this way.
I know that one of the tenets of 4e D&D was to make things simpler, and classes were certainly something that could overwhelm the newcomer. With the near-dozen classes in the 3.5 Player's Handbook and fifteen prestige classes in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, players already had quite a few choices with single-classing or multiclassing.
Then add in all of the accessory books, which, whether a book on magic, evil or monsters, seemed to provide at least one more class or prestige class to the list. With so many (too many?) choices available, it became daunting to try and decide what the next hero of the world would look like.
Of course, there's nothing saying that you had to look through them all, that you had to stray from the starter classes, or even consider multiclassing (or prestige classes). In fact, I'd say that the idea of customizing your character to that extent (whether for power-gaming purposes or that perfect character theme) was the purview of advanced players who could handle an overwhelming amount of choice, and who relished piecing together that obscure combination that exemplified their character vision.
I think 4e has gone too far with simplifying these choices. The multiclassing article basically reduces the idea down to a few feats that give you another class's abilities. And instead of prestige classes, which had a minimum level at which you could start down that path (unlike a true multiclass), we now have the paragon path, which always starts at 11th level.
So, instead of being able to customize your character's training and destiny level-to-level, you're restricted to being different from the fighter down the block only once you've survived a third of your adventuring career. Yes, sure, your feats still allow you to be unique, so now you're the fighter who uses a longsword instead of that guy beside you with the axe. Fighter, meet fighter.
"This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3E system," the Multiclassing post says. I'll say. So much for my human monk/fighter/sword of righteousness/forsaker/initiate of Pistis Sophia gestalt NPC that I never got to use. It will be interesting to see what future class-related releases are produced, either by Wizards or the fanbase, because I don't think the long-time players will stand to be throttled in this way.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Retrain this
Retraining. A quaint idea. Started in some MMO I think. Worked well when some new module or update added a "must have" skill or whatever. Great idea in those circumstances. Saves paying players a lot of frustration.
It even fit with 3.5 DnD when it was introduced in the later stages of the game. At that point the optional source books were coming fast and furious. Every time I turned around there was a new book with new classes and feats.
Oh the feats!
I'm a feat whore. I'd flip through them endlessly, picking out the ones I wanted to try at some point. A few times I even contemplated having my current character commit suicide in some reckless or noble act. Maybe Crwth noticed. I dunno. It never worked out and instead I waited for the inevitable TPK.
Even when Retraining was introduced I never really embraced it. Sure, I could see the value in it, and considered petitioning Crwth once or twice. I just didn't like the idea of rewriting history unless something was a perfect fit for my character concept. The whole "Oh that flying kick thing? Yeah, my character has had that feat since like 6th level or so. Seriously." wasn't my cup of tea. As much as I understood the rationale, I didn't really like it.
Naturally (or should I say naively) I figured retraining to be a part of the past with 4e. There's only one book. Where's the need for retraining when there's only one book to pick from? Does WotC really think we're so dumb that we're constantly screwing up our characters?
There must be something there, because according to this "5. Select Feats. You generally don’t have to worry about the level at which you gained a particular feat, since retraining allows you to have the feats you want at any given level." (from this article)
Okay. What? Retraining (a soon to be outdated and needless concept) is now a core rule? Right from the start? Despite being only three core rule books? With new books planned on a yearly basis? Odd.
I would love to know the thinking behind this design decision. I find it hard to believe that following their little Talent Trees is that complicated. I mean, you just pick your flavor and follow the map. Couldn't be simpler. Right?
Yet, apparently there is quite a bit of room for error. And gods forbid you should nerf your character by picking the wrong feat. You'd have to quit playing and spend your money on some other roleplaying game. Or worse, kill your beloved character off and make a new one. Or worst of all, scrape the bottom of the barrel, bite the bullet and try to reach some fair compromise with the DM. *gasp!* Horrors!
Oh. But before you do that, have you seen this rule on "Retraining"?
You probably have. It's in most of your favorite video games.
It even fit with 3.5 DnD when it was introduced in the later stages of the game. At that point the optional source books were coming fast and furious. Every time I turned around there was a new book with new classes and feats.
Oh the feats!
I'm a feat whore. I'd flip through them endlessly, picking out the ones I wanted to try at some point. A few times I even contemplated having my current character commit suicide in some reckless or noble act. Maybe Crwth noticed. I dunno. It never worked out and instead I waited for the inevitable TPK.
Even when Retraining was introduced I never really embraced it. Sure, I could see the value in it, and considered petitioning Crwth once or twice. I just didn't like the idea of rewriting history unless something was a perfect fit for my character concept. The whole "Oh that flying kick thing? Yeah, my character has had that feat since like 6th level or so. Seriously." wasn't my cup of tea. As much as I understood the rationale, I didn't really like it.
Naturally (or should I say naively) I figured retraining to be a part of the past with 4e. There's only one book. Where's the need for retraining when there's only one book to pick from? Does WotC really think we're so dumb that we're constantly screwing up our characters?
There must be something there, because according to this "5. Select Feats. You generally don’t have to worry about the level at which you gained a particular feat, since retraining allows you to have the feats you want at any given level." (from this article)
Okay. What? Retraining (a soon to be outdated and needless concept) is now a core rule? Right from the start? Despite being only three core rule books? With new books planned on a yearly basis? Odd.
I would love to know the thinking behind this design decision. I find it hard to believe that following their little Talent Trees is that complicated. I mean, you just pick your flavor and follow the map. Couldn't be simpler. Right?
Yet, apparently there is quite a bit of room for error. And gods forbid you should nerf your character by picking the wrong feat. You'd have to quit playing and spend your money on some other roleplaying game. Or worse, kill your beloved character off and make a new one. Or worst of all, scrape the bottom of the barrel, bite the bullet and try to reach some fair compromise with the DM. *gasp!* Horrors!
Oh. But before you do that, have you seen this rule on "Retraining"?
You probably have. It's in most of your favorite video games.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
More on the glimpse into feats
Originally started this as a comment to Crwth's "Odiferous Feats" post. But it got so long that it became a separate blog...
I chalked up the "Heroic" vs "Paragon" tiers as nothing more than terminology, but now that you mention it, I think it probably will be tied to character level. Which sucks!
I think the roles of "sniper", "controller" etc... are just loose descriptors and not an actual game mechanic. The only place I'd expect to see them is in the MMs.
I caught that Action Points will be core. No big surprise but I did forget to mention it in my blog (despite my mental note to do so).
At first glance I like the new version of Toughness. The current 3.5 version is blah, but this one gives a continuous benefit, which I like. I'll probably take it on most of my human casters.
I can't believe I missed the "squares" thing under the Golden Wyvern. Goddamn! I hate that! How about "omit a number of 5' gaps...". WotC can push their fucking "squares" on us all they want, I ain't buying their fucking minis. In fact I'm boycotting them just out of spite.
As for prerequisites, I can't see the Golden Wyvern feat having none. It must be part of a specific tree or path. In fact I'm sure I've seen that "Golden Wyvern" phrase somewhere else. Tome of Battle maybe? Another dev blog?
Anyways, it's looking more and more like everything is tied to level & class. In fact, I can see why character creation has been touted as much simpler in 4e. All you do is pick a race and a class then plug in the Lego blocks as you go. No decisions. No resource management. No strategy or tactics. No creativity. With the talent trees and feat design it's just plug'n'play.
I chalked up the "Heroic" vs "Paragon" tiers as nothing more than terminology, but now that you mention it, I think it probably will be tied to character level. Which sucks!
I think the roles of "sniper", "controller" etc... are just loose descriptors and not an actual game mechanic. The only place I'd expect to see them is in the MMs.
I caught that Action Points will be core. No big surprise but I did forget to mention it in my blog (despite my mental note to do so).
At first glance I like the new version of Toughness. The current 3.5 version is blah, but this one gives a continuous benefit, which I like. I'll probably take it on most of my human casters.
I can't believe I missed the "squares" thing under the Golden Wyvern. Goddamn! I hate that! How about "omit a number of 5' gaps...". WotC can push their fucking "squares" on us all they want, I ain't buying their fucking minis. In fact I'm boycotting them just out of spite.
As for prerequisites, I can't see the Golden Wyvern feat having none. It must be part of a specific tree or path. In fact I'm sure I've seen that "Golden Wyvern" phrase somewhere else. Tome of Battle maybe? Another dev blog?
Anyways, it's looking more and more like everything is tied to level & class. In fact, I can see why character creation has been touted as much simpler in 4e. All you do is pick a race and a class then plug in the Lego blocks as you go. No decisions. No resource management. No strategy or tactics. No creativity. With the talent trees and feat design it's just plug'n'play.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Odoriferous feat(s)
While I agree with Griff about the feats losing some of their appeal by not being available to everyone, what really got me about this latest Design & Development article was the peek into some 4th edition design.
The four feats all have a Tier field. Now, I might be losing track of the few bits of information that they've let out, but aren't "heroic" and "paragon" similar to the terms they've been using when talking about the level ranges? Are these Tiers stating that this is a feat that can be (only) taken in the 1-10 range, or the 11-20 range?
Given that the description blocks don't have "leader", "sniper", "warlord" as any kind of field, does this mean that feats aren't going to be listed in one place, having their separation into classes defined in the text block, but rather they're going to exist under the class description, much like class abilities do now?
Toughness is missing the text that you can take it multiple times. I suppose this new version is better than the old one, but is this really the case?
"You don't grant enemies combat advantage in surprise rounds." Is this just flavor text, or is "combat advantage" a 4e term for "opponent is flat-footed"?
Perception checks -- we've merged Listen and Spot? I can't remember if we'd read that somewhere. (And Move Silently and Hide -- were those now a Stealth skill?)
A feat bonus. Nice to see that the bonus from feats isn't unnamed, but does that mean that feat bonuses don't stack? Or are they added to the list of stackable ones, like Dodge and (sometimes) Circumstance?
Action point. Okay, fine, I guess they're a core rule now.
"You can omit a number of squares...". A number of squares. A number of SQUARES. Fine, it'd be awkward to have "a number of 5'x5' areas...", but perhaps that means that it shouldn't be a feat. I've ranted about squares versus feet before, but I can't help it: creatures/players/NPCs do not have to stand in a grid. They can stand in a completely arbitrary space. They do not have to fit between some imaginary lines on the ground. THIS MECHANIC HAS NO ROOM IN A ROLEPLAYING GAME.
"...wizard powers. This number can't exceed your Wisdom modifier." Wisdom mattering for a Wizard? Is this a rare occurrence (a non-core ability score mattering to a class feat), or is this going to be typical, where you will have a primary ability, a secondary, and maybe a tertiary, much like Monks and Paladins seem to in 3rd edition?
Or, perhaps, based on the name of this feat, the Golden Wyvern "focus/path" is an Intelligence/Wisdom hybrid?
"...close wizard powers." Is this talking about range, as we think of it in 3rd edition? Or is this a category of wizard powers that may or may not have the same range (though, you'd figure they're "close")?
No prerequisites are listed. Is that because they're in some tree to which you must refer to find prerequisites? Is it based on the Tier alone? Can it be that none of these four have any?
No feat "type", such as [General] or [Fighter]. Perhaps omitted for clarity, or perhaps a sign that these definitions don't exist?
Okay, that's about all I could glean from 100 or so words. "Yay" for the snippet of info, but in general the article rated a "boo" for what it told us.
The four feats all have a Tier field. Now, I might be losing track of the few bits of information that they've let out, but aren't "heroic" and "paragon" similar to the terms they've been using when talking about the level ranges? Are these Tiers stating that this is a feat that can be (only) taken in the 1-10 range, or the 11-20 range?
Given that the description blocks don't have "leader", "sniper", "warlord" as any kind of field, does this mean that feats aren't going to be listed in one place, having their separation into classes defined in the text block, but rather they're going to exist under the class description, much like class abilities do now?
Toughness is missing the text that you can take it multiple times. I suppose this new version is better than the old one, but is this really the case?
"You don't grant enemies combat advantage in surprise rounds." Is this just flavor text, or is "combat advantage" a 4e term for "opponent is flat-footed"?
Perception checks -- we've merged Listen and Spot? I can't remember if we'd read that somewhere. (And Move Silently and Hide -- were those now a Stealth skill?)
A feat bonus. Nice to see that the bonus from feats isn't unnamed, but does that mean that feat bonuses don't stack? Or are they added to the list of stackable ones, like Dodge and (sometimes) Circumstance?
Action point. Okay, fine, I guess they're a core rule now.
"You can omit a number of squares...". A number of squares. A number of SQUARES. Fine, it'd be awkward to have "a number of 5'x5' areas...", but perhaps that means that it shouldn't be a feat. I've ranted about squares versus feet before, but I can't help it: creatures/players/NPCs do not have to stand in a grid. They can stand in a completely arbitrary space. They do not have to fit between some imaginary lines on the ground. THIS MECHANIC HAS NO ROOM IN A ROLEPLAYING GAME.
"...wizard powers. This number can't exceed your Wisdom modifier." Wisdom mattering for a Wizard? Is this a rare occurrence (a non-core ability score mattering to a class feat), or is this going to be typical, where you will have a primary ability, a secondary, and maybe a tertiary, much like Monks and Paladins seem to in 3rd edition?
Or, perhaps, based on the name of this feat, the Golden Wyvern "focus/path" is an Intelligence/Wisdom hybrid?
"...close wizard powers." Is this talking about range, as we think of it in 3rd edition? Or is this a category of wizard powers that may or may not have the same range (though, you'd figure they're "close")?
No prerequisites are listed. Is that because they're in some tree to which you must refer to find prerequisites? Is it based on the Tier alone? Can it be that none of these four have any?
No feat "type", such as [General] or [Fighter]. Perhaps omitted for clarity, or perhaps a sign that these definitions don't exist?
Okay, that's about all I could glean from 100 or so words. "Yay" for the snippet of info, but in general the article rated a "boo" for what it told us.
You must be this class to take this ride.
After reading the latest Dev&Des article I am both encouraged and discouraged. Disencouraged? I dunno. Whatever.
The article gives some sweet insight into the role of feats in 4e. First of all, applause for keeping feats in the new edition. I love feats. I'm a whore for feats. I like to map them out. I like to use them. I think they add tons of versatility and uniqueness to a character. As far as game mechanics go, the feat system in 3.5 is probably my favorite.
So, while I'm glad to see that feats will be a part of 4e, I'm not so thrilled by the implementation. As per Andy Collins, a guy who probably knows, the majority of feats are being rolled into each class.
My reaction to this can be summed up in one cute little acronym. WTF?
This is exactly what I feared losing in 4e. The versatility and freedom to make any character I can imagine. No longer will I be able to mix up archetypes and concepts through choice of class, feats, skills, and spells.
Instead, if I want Spring Attack, I'll have to play a ranger or rogue. If I want Power Attack, well, that's under the Fighter and Barbarian class only. Think a sorcerer with a spiked chain and Improved Trip would be fun? Sorry. You'd need the Exotic Weapon feat and Combat Expertise, both of which are buried in the fighter type classes.
Maybe multi-classing will save the day. I'm certainly not above dipping into second or third classes for an extra feat or some proficiencies. However, I'm not willing to hamstring my character at later levels for a feat I should have been able to take at 3rd, 6th, or 9th level regardless of chosen class.
So I'm miffed.
Then there's this thing called "Tiers". As in...
"Toughness
Tier: Heroic
Benefit: When you take this feat, you gain additional hit points equal to your level + 3. You also gain 1 additional hit point every time you gain a level."
In the article Collins lists two kinds of tier. Heroic and Paragon. Interesting in that it's somewhat concrete proof of the whole talent tree concept. Cool, I guess. I'm just too pissed off about the feat thing to care.
The article gives some sweet insight into the role of feats in 4e. First of all, applause for keeping feats in the new edition. I love feats. I'm a whore for feats. I like to map them out. I like to use them. I think they add tons of versatility and uniqueness to a character. As far as game mechanics go, the feat system in 3.5 is probably my favorite.
So, while I'm glad to see that feats will be a part of 4e, I'm not so thrilled by the implementation. As per Andy Collins, a guy who probably knows, the majority of feats are being rolled into each class.
My reaction to this can be summed up in one cute little acronym. WTF?
This is exactly what I feared losing in 4e. The versatility and freedom to make any character I can imagine. No longer will I be able to mix up archetypes and concepts through choice of class, feats, skills, and spells.
Instead, if I want Spring Attack, I'll have to play a ranger or rogue. If I want Power Attack, well, that's under the Fighter and Barbarian class only. Think a sorcerer with a spiked chain and Improved Trip would be fun? Sorry. You'd need the Exotic Weapon feat and Combat Expertise, both of which are buried in the fighter type classes.
Maybe multi-classing will save the day. I'm certainly not above dipping into second or third classes for an extra feat or some proficiencies. However, I'm not willing to hamstring my character at later levels for a feat I should have been able to take at 3rd, 6th, or 9th level regardless of chosen class.
So I'm miffed.
Then there's this thing called "Tiers". As in...
"Toughness
Tier: Heroic
Benefit: When you take this feat, you gain additional hit points equal to your level + 3. You also gain 1 additional hit point every time you gain a level."
In the article Collins lists two kinds of tier. Heroic and Paragon. Interesting in that it's somewhat concrete proof of the whole talent tree concept. Cool, I guess. I'm just too pissed off about the feat thing to care.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Barking up the wrong tree
Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with "Talent Trees" and such. I've never played the Star Wars RPG, and never will. However I'm hearing again and again how DnD 4e will have this concept as a core part of character creation. One poster in the WotC forums (search for SavageCheater's remarks here ) offers what I feel is a damn fine guess.
It is a little lacking in exactly what skills or feats might make up each tree, but that can be forgiven considering there's no certainty that feats and/or skills will even be included in 4e. I've seen devs refer to feats and skill checks so it's almost a sure thing but I wouldn't cement anything into place just yet.
I suppose my initial qualms with talent trees is that they seem to remove some of the variety and versatility of 3.5.
I know what you are thinking right now. That Griff is a total R-tard! I'm gonna flame his posts so harshly that his house, his car, his entire world will actually catch on fire.
Whoa there boys and girls! Allow me to explain.
In 3.5 my fighter can be radically different from another fighter in the same party simply by taking different feats. Throw in choices in weapon specialization, dodge, mobility, combat expertise, power attack, cleave etc... and you have a ton of variety.
The 3.5 skills system allows two rogues to be completely different as well. One could specialize in the traditional rogue skills of disarm and open lock. Another could be the sneaky scout with lots of hide and move silently. A third could load up the social skills like bluff, diplomacy, and gather information.
The 3.5 magic system offers not only metamagic feats but school specialization, focus, and a ton of prestige classes. My shadowcasting sorcerer is completely different from my abjuration focused sorcerer.
It's been over seven years and I still haven't come close to trying all the character concepts rattling around in my head. Every new book with it's pages of new feats, classes, and magic types has provided even more selection and idea.
Talent trees on the other hand strike me as very cookie cutter. Want a stealthy ranger with a focus on archery? Take the ranger, apply this talent tree which says take this feat here, put these ranks into these skills, and voila!
Road map. Recipe. Pick your analogy. Either way you follow the directions and you have an instant character. Instant and bland, like a microwave burrito.
It is a little lacking in exactly what skills or feats might make up each tree, but that can be forgiven considering there's no certainty that feats and/or skills will even be included in 4e. I've seen devs refer to feats and skill checks so it's almost a sure thing but I wouldn't cement anything into place just yet.
I suppose my initial qualms with talent trees is that they seem to remove some of the variety and versatility of 3.5.
I know what you are thinking right now. That Griff is a total R-tard! I'm gonna flame his posts so harshly that his house, his car, his entire world will actually catch on fire.
Whoa there boys and girls! Allow me to explain.
In 3.5 my fighter can be radically different from another fighter in the same party simply by taking different feats. Throw in choices in weapon specialization, dodge, mobility, combat expertise, power attack, cleave etc... and you have a ton of variety.
The 3.5 skills system allows two rogues to be completely different as well. One could specialize in the traditional rogue skills of disarm and open lock. Another could be the sneaky scout with lots of hide and move silently. A third could load up the social skills like bluff, diplomacy, and gather information.
The 3.5 magic system offers not only metamagic feats but school specialization, focus, and a ton of prestige classes. My shadowcasting sorcerer is completely different from my abjuration focused sorcerer.
It's been over seven years and I still haven't come close to trying all the character concepts rattling around in my head. Every new book with it's pages of new feats, classes, and magic types has provided even more selection and idea.
Talent trees on the other hand strike me as very cookie cutter. Want a stealthy ranger with a focus on archery? Take the ranger, apply this talent tree which says take this feat here, put these ranks into these skills, and voila!
Road map. Recipe. Pick your analogy. Either way you follow the directions and you have an instant character. Instant and bland, like a microwave burrito.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
