Druids

Okay, the Sneak Peak article came out over a month ago, and I'm only commenting on it now. But as mentioned before, Druids have been one of my favorite classes for a while, and I thought I should take a look at what 4e has done to/for it.

The odd armor availabilities are something that any Druid player has come to expect, but it's nice to see that the weapons are no longer limited. The Primal power source, as with the Warden and Barbarian, nicely extends the 4e concept, and lets the Druids step away from their association with the Cleric and their divine magic.

I'm a bit disappointed that the Wild Shape ability doesn't confer any bonuses from the form you take, especially speed. Perhaps there will be Feats that allow this?

The Druid has a special condition on their At-Will attack powers -- that at least one but not all of them must have the Beast keyword. I can see the reasoning behind it, but I think this is a rule that will be forgotten by players and DMs alike. 4e has been trying to get rid of the exceptions, and this is a step backwards, especially for those who have gotten fully into that mindset of 4e -- the "regularity" of the rules.

I like the Wild Shape power, though. Being an At-Will Minor action that has a built-in shift from beast- to humanoid-form, a character could essentially get three shifts in a round if needed -- minor, move and standard actions -- perhaps to get out of a sticky situation, or to help sneak behind a foe to give a party member some flanking.

The Beast keyword powers and the non-Beast ones make a nice balance for feral, animal-form combat and the raw, natural, elemental powers. At first I wasn't really sure about the Controller role that these powers were supposed to provide, but as a whole, I suppose they do the job; the Burst powers are what come to mind for Controllers, for me: someone who is affecting large numbers at once. Each of the single-target powers instead "control" their target by forcing them to move, either willingly (to avoid ongoing damage) or not, which I suppose, too, is a form of control.

It's not a bad class, so far, but I have to admit, it doesn't pique my interest as much as the Druid has in the past. I think part of it is, again, the fact that everyone has powers now, so the wizard/cleric/druid don't feel as special. The Druid, like the Cleric, was always the hybrid spellcaster, designed with a little bit of melee combat in mind. But I'm not feeling the uniqueness of this class over any other. The Primal power source gives it the bestial flavor, but my beast form isn't anything other than the key to unlocking half of my powers and a source of lice.

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.

Future classes

I just started reading the article on the Warden class, which, as when new classes are introduced, had me thinking about my post here on the role/power-source pairings.

Since that post, Griff and I mulled around the ideas of classes that would pair up the future power sources, the ones that didn't make it into the Player's Handbook but had been mentioned there or elsewhere, such as Primal, Psychic, Ki and Shadow. We took our inspiration from the splat books of 3rd edition, trying to decide what existing classes would fit which roles.

The resulting table is too big for the blog's format, but you can see a live version (which might not match what I'm saying here, if you are looking at it in the future), here. The bold class names are ones that have been defined in rulebooks or other articles; the italicized entries are ones that were our guesses. For the Arcane Defender we had the Spellsword from Tome and Battle; and the Barbarian we had put into Primal Defender, not because we thought it fit perfectly, but because we wanted to place Barbarian somewhere, and had already put a Striker in (forgetting, of course, that we have two Martial Strikers from the get-go.)

Got any guesses for this chart?

Back to the Warden class. Right off the bat, I like the class features; they're nicely in line with the Defender concept and the title of "Warden", finding resistances and defenses where others do not.

The "marking" idea of 4e is one that I haven't fully evaluated. It gets used during our campaigns, but I think we've still got some time before we really see it shine. I like the concept, but it's contrary to the "not having to keep track of things" mentality of 4e -- luckily my players are good at reminding me when they've marked something (just as I'm saying that the target is attacking someone else). The Warden, rightly, gets powers based on marking, which helps cement that Defender role by drawing the enemy to her (or at least penalizing them if they don't).

Lots of the Warden powers deal with movement: pushing/pulling, slowing, sliding, shifting. Again, that works well with the Defender idea -- if the enemy can't move, they can't get to the rest of your party.

And of course, they have the requisite bit of polymorphing in there. In 3.5, I was strongly drawn to the Druid, and the Shifter, and the Verdant Lord... everything that the Primal power source is going to encompass (not counting the Barbarian). Right now, I think that the Warden would have my vote if I was to play a Defender role.

Until we get psionics, right Griff?

Happy New Year!

We're still alive here at the blog, but have been frightfully absent.

I won't bore you with tales of family, work and holiday obligations. We've both been negligent towards posting here, and it's my resolution, at least, to change that.

We do still play D&D, although the fact that we're still on the first 4e module should hint towards how often we get to play. We're a group of six thirty-somethings, and with family, work and other extracurricular activities, trying to coordinate 4 out of 6 -- my minimum for a session -- is a bit of a challenge.

There is plenty of 4e content to talk about, as Wizards is doing a really good job of keeping pace with Dragon and Dungeon magazine articles. Even if I don't have gameplay experiences to talk about, I'll talk about these more often (which I've said before, but resolve to do again).

Not that Griff and I are yet sold on 4e. We talk about whether we'll return to 3.5 or not, because there are some things that we still miss. We've often talked about a hybrid set of rules, the best of both, but haven't dug into how well that would actually work.
I've been working on a single-player 4e campaign idea that I'm going to take Griff through, so we have another view at the rules; I think 4e is well-designed to handle a single-player campaign, moreso than 3.5 at least.

Show me something Warlord. Anything.

I've had the chance to see our party's Warlord in action over a handful of sessions now, and so far nothing has changed my original opinion of this new class.

In fact, it seems to have the same "flaws" that the 3.5 version of the Cleric had. In that the majority of the Warlord's rounds are spent bestowing things upon his fellow adventurers. The Cleric used to "waste" actions on healing (a "problem" fixed by healing surges) and now the Warlord "wastes" actions either moving other players, or giving them an extra attack.

Granted, an extra attack or move is always appreciated. But, do we really need a new class for this purpose? Just give powers to the individual classes to do it themselves, just like with Healing Surges.

Personally, I've never cared for playing a Cleric because of the burden of healing party members. I'll certainly never play a Warlord.

The thing that probably miffs me about this "class" is that I can't shake the feeling that they bumped the Sorcerer to make room for it in the PHB.

Bastards.

Powerless against all these Powers

The more I play 4E, the more I miss saving throws.

I know, the saving throw system in 3rd edition was far from perfect. In the higher levels the monster's saving throw bonuses made their saves against even the most boosted of spells almost trivial.

But still, saving throws added something to the game. They added a feeling of empowerment (admittedly illusionary since dice are either random or malicious) and some tension (the dreaded natural 1 lurked everywhere).

With 4E's powers, there are no saves. Beating the defense score is enough. After that you simply apply the effect. It's quick. It's simple. It's elegant in it's way. It's also boring and rather anti-climactic.

I get hit and... I fall down. I get hit... and I'm dazed.

It's not all bad however. I like that players can pick and choose their powers to attack a variety of defenses (ie. some vs AC, some vs Reflex etc...). I also like that there's no more frustration caused by a Daily Power (used a crucial moment) getting shrugged off because the DM rolled a high save.

Still, the more I play the more I miss those Saving Throws. Hell, I even miss the natural 1.

Playing Gnolls - Playtested?

Just finished the article on “Playing Gnolls” from Dragon #367, and it was a great read. (I'd provide a link and/or page numbers, but with WotC, it's almost pointless.)

The gnoll has always been one of my favorite monsters so I was glad to see it getting some special treatment. The article also reinforced a lot of what I love about 4e. Namely the way that monsters are given a flavor that becomes the basis of and is emphasized in their powers and tactics. It’s a wonderful touch and severely lacking in 3.5.

On the other hand, the feats at the end of the article are... disappointing.

Does anyone at WotC read these before they’re printed? Do they have any real editors? Are they playtested in any shape or form?

Case in point.

Swift Bite
Prerequisite: 11th level, gnoll
Benefit: When you bloody a foe, you can choose to deal an extra 1d6 + Strength modifier damage with a bite against the target.

Seems straight forward enough at first glance. But the benefit raised questions within seconds of reading it.

Does this extra bite automatically hit, doing the extra damage? Or is it a free attack, like a sudden interupt, that you have to roll to hit? I’m guessing it’s the former because there’s no mention of a Str vs AC or whatever.

My point is, I shouldn’t have to guess.