Getting Primal

Just read the Dev & Des article on the Primal power source in the PHB2.

A few quick comments.

I like Rob's descriptions of the Barbarian and Druid classes. I haven't seen the PHB2 yet, so I have to take his word for it, but it sounds like they're finally noticably different from the Fighter and Cleric. I've always felt that either or both classes could have been rolled into the latter classes (with feats and optional spell lists opened up by a Prestige Class or something). Whether that changes with 4E's PHB2, well... we'll see.

The Warden, I only vaguely remember from some sneak peek article. It sounds to me at first pass as another Warlord type. A class that exists solely to fill pages in a product. Could the Warden's powers be rolled into the Ranger or Barbarian? Maybe open up some options for those classes versus creating a new cookie cutter?

I'm a proponent of fewer classes and more options. 4E seems to be about more classes with two options (ie. builds) for each.

Then there's the Shaman. I don't even need to read this class. It's clearly a slice of Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard given unnecessary ink. It'll take more than a fancy familiar (aka "spirit companion") to justify this class.

Mike then gives us a look at the Primal classes and how they fit the revamped cosmology. With this, I'm fully on board.

Make the druid into the anti-cleric. Let them butt heads over Gods vs Primordials. Create intra-party tension and conflict. That's good shit.

The rest... well... sounds like the PHB2 could have been about 50 pages.

Condition: Critical

Just finished this Des&Dev article from Jan 4, 2008.

I'm not impressed.

Basically, they've done away with confirming your critical threat. Now a natural 20 is a critical hit. Every time.

And there's no more doubling (or tripling or whatevering) of your damage. Instead a critical results in maximized damage. It's just that simple.

And just that boring.

Logan Bonner says "Yes, the confirmation roll is gone. So why did we get rid of it? Because we, like so many players, had rolled crits only to have the confirmation roll miss. And we didn't like it. We don't think that many people did."

Okay. I'll agree that having that natural 20 followed by a pitifully low d20 roll dims the original excitement a bit. I mean, you go from the high of having that "20" sitting on the table to seeing a "7" and it kind of sucks. But you know what? That's part of life. Sometimes highs are followed by terrible lows. You accept it and move on.

Only with 4th Edition WotC has decided to not only dumb the game down but to eliminate any chance of a player feeling sad for any reason. It's all a big happy love fest full of Care Bears and gum drops. No more of that icky hard math. No more missing criticals. No more losing characters to the random chance of that ogre rolling a nasty critical. No more worries and no more need for thought. Just figure out the maximum damage a bad guy can do, and keep your hit points at or above that. Easy peasy.

Now, I'm not a "math guy". Big numbers make me wince. But I've never had any problems totaling up my pluses and minuses and adding that to the result of a die roll. Sure, rolling a second attack roll to confirm a critical is a bit of a pain, but it takes all of 3 seconds. For starters you've already done the math. Just replace the natural 20 with a new number between 1 and 20. That's not so hard. And that feeling of confirming a critical more than makes up for the critical opportunities missed.

As I've said before, the randomness is what makes this game so great. Having the chance of a critical hit and then failing or confirming is, in my opinion, a lot more fun than simply maximizing damage whenever fate gives you a natural 20. Talk about sucking the fun from the moment.

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.