I downloaded the Character Builder Beta program when it was first released. I was excited to see how well it managed things, because I've taken a stab at the problem before.
The easy part of a character program is representation -- storing the numbers and the text and laying it out in a manner that's esthetically pleasing and well-organized for play. This is why there are myriad spreadsheets and programs that exist that let you keep track of your character, many of them decent.
It's another thing entirely to get a system that knows the rules, so it can ensure that your character is legal (read: that you're not cheating) by ensuring that you've got the right number of feats, right number of powers, and that your numbers add up.
For 3.5, the best commercial program was probably E-Tools, which did a reasonably good job at calculating your character sheet for you, but of course required you to purchase all of the source material in add-on modules, to get the classes and races and magic items that your hardcover books gave you. E-Tools could possibly be considered the grandfather of the Character Builder.
On the free front, Heroforge was amazing for what it was. Probably the most complicated Excel spreadsheet in existence, it had quite the following and was a remarkable accomplishment for what it was. Last I looked, the Heroforge team were doing a complete rewrite and were going to support 4e.
But what about this Character Builder? Could it really be useful, and free (with subscription)? So far: yes.
The beta only lets you play with the first three levels of character development, which works out great for our group, because they only JUST hit fourth level last play session. A few sessions before that, however, I had grabbed everyone's character sheets and punched them into the Builder, to see how well it handled a real-world sample of characters.
I'd say that every character had something wrong. Wrong on OUR end, that is, whether it was a missed bonus here or a forgotten feat there. Right away, the benefit of getting a computer to do your math for you, especially when it has access to every formula in the game, is evident.
If we were sticklers for this sort of thing, the Builder also keeps track of whether the character is "house-ruled" or not, marking it so based on whether you've got extra feats, too much loot, or ability scores out of whack. In our campaigns, we tend to allow point-buy or 4d6 rolling, and thus the two 4d6ers ended up as "house-ruled", since that's not a verifiable way of getting your abilities (for purposes of the RPGA, for instance).
Your powers (see below) are all presented with the math all done for them, adding in proficiency bonuses, ability bonuses, feats and implements. Very handy, especially as you level up and increase the chance of forgetting to advance some number or another.
It's unfortunate that you cannot set up different equipment configurations, to get stats for shield-and-sword, as well as two-handed-spear, etc. I believe E-Tools supported this.
The level-up feature in the software is nice, because if you enter each level separately, then you can, at any time, go back through and see the character in previous levels. Once you level up, it gives you a checklist of things that you need to decide -- new power, new feat, ability scores, etc. Very easy to use. Granted, levelling up in 4e is so easy that even *I* can do it.
The best part of the Builder, though, might very well be the cards at the end of the sheet. These 2.5"x3.5" sheets give you your powers and other effects in a nice succinct layout, providing the math for the power and giving you the to-hit and damage numbers you need. They have the rules for the power summarized right on the card. And they even provide a cheatsheet to give the DM so he or she has all of that character's useful information printed out instead of on a ratty piece of paper. Assuming the players play along, these sheets allow you to keep track of your dailies and encounter powers that are used (flip them upside down or "tap" them), and I use the cheatsheets as the characters' initiative order during combat.
The programmer in me wonders how they encode all of the rules, of course, and wish that that data was available for use, but I guess we have the Compendium for that. All told, though, I've quite impressed with this tool (more than I thought I'd be), and am looking forward to the full version to be released, not only so we can update our party to fourth level, but to also play with it a bit to make some 20th and 30th level characters, just to see how well it does (and to see what a 20th/30th level 4e character looks like!)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Invoker
Yet another old article, one that I hadn't even perused when it first came out. That's surprising, since I'm playing a Cleric right now, and in hindsight I should have been more curious as to where the line was between Leader and Controller for the Divine power.
Right off the bat, I like the look of the Covenants. They let you customize what the Channel Divinity does for you (something that I'm very bad at remembering to use), and give you the extra Manifestation, which is a nice boost to your significant powers (if you remember to use them).
The Invoker spell Summon Angel of Fire confused me; it wasn't clear how long the summoned angel stayed around. One round? The end of combat? Until it gets bored? Forever? There are no rules that I recall for summoning in the 4e Player's Handbook, and the Compendium doesn't return anything that might help.
I liked the Shroud of Warning prayer. It basically gives your party an initiative bonus once per day. It may not sound like a lot, but at least it's different from most of the powers we see. Granted, that's because it's a Utility power, and not an Attack power.
The rest of the powers, though... pull, push, slow, daze. Weren't these the same thing we saw in the Warden? Are these Controller things or Defender things? Oh, right, the Controller does it with bursts, while the Defender tends to stick to individuals.
It started off a bit interesting, but in the end, this class didn't impress me. This *is* just a sneak peak at the first three levels, but I don't really see where it's going to get its own personality to keep it separate from the Cleric and Warden in theme and role.
Right off the bat, I like the look of the Covenants. They let you customize what the Channel Divinity does for you (something that I'm very bad at remembering to use), and give you the extra Manifestation, which is a nice boost to your significant powers (if you remember to use them).
The Invoker spell Summon Angel of Fire confused me; it wasn't clear how long the summoned angel stayed around. One round? The end of combat? Until it gets bored? Forever? There are no rules that I recall for summoning in the 4e Player's Handbook, and the Compendium doesn't return anything that might help.
I liked the Shroud of Warning prayer. It basically gives your party an initiative bonus once per day. It may not sound like a lot, but at least it's different from most of the powers we see. Granted, that's because it's a Utility power, and not an Attack power.
The rest of the powers, though... pull, push, slow, daze. Weren't these the same thing we saw in the Warden? Are these Controller things or Defender things? Oh, right, the Controller does it with bursts, while the Defender tends to stick to individuals.
It started off a bit interesting, but in the end, this class didn't impress me. This *is* just a sneak peak at the first three levels, but I don't really see where it's going to get its own personality to keep it separate from the Cleric and Warden in theme and role.
Powers for everyone
Having read the Warden and Druid classes, I get the feeling of a bit of similarity. True, the Warden doesn't have the burst powers the Druid has, and the Warden has its Marking. Perhaps it's just the effect that Griff and I have mentioned in the past, how all of the powers seem to be the same thing, for every class, with just a little change here and there -- it's like there's a formula for making powers:
Pick an attack ability (Wisdom)
Pick a defense (Reflex)
Pick a range (10 squares)
Pick damage (1d6 fire)
Pick one of the following extra effects: push, pull, slide, stun, daze, combat advantage, zone of effect (zone of effect: fire)
Based on the above, determine whether this is at-will, encounter or daily, based on some formula (at-will)
If Daily, determine the Miss effect, if any (none)
Based on the above, determine appropriate class for this power (Druid)
Based on that, determine the power's name (Flame Seed)
I wonder if every combination of every variable has been crunched into a database, and the last few steps just need to be done for the lifetime of 4e. New classes could be determined that way:
"I was browsing through the database, and found a Dex vs. Fortitude Range 5 2d6 + stun encounter power - what should we do with it?"
"Sounds like some sort of deftly-thrown implement that knocks someone out -- sounds like a Martial Controller to me. Let's call it the 'Flying Dagger' class. Next!"
Now I understand that, given the mechanics of the game, there are only so many combinations of things: we have six abilities to "attack" with, four defenses, four attack types (melee, ranged, burst, close burst), and then some creative damage and effects. So you might say of *course* they're going to start feeling similar.
And that's the point: in previous editions of D&D, those with "spellcasting" differed in large ways: arcane vs. divine, holy vs. nature, innate vs. learned. That let you easily tell the difference between them, and playing each of these classes was quite different. But now every class has spells (...by any other name...) and that's what's making these classes blur together.
Even just having the 3rd edition fighters and rogues using Feats instead of Powers was enough. Even having one defense score and three saving throws was enough for the classes' abilities to feel different. And this is the feeling that we seem unable to shake - that I'm casting Divine Leader attack at the goblin, that Griff is casting Arcane Controller attack, then a Martial Leader attack, a Martial Striker attack, etc. And while my numbers might be slightly different than Griffs, probably not much so, because my Cleric has his best score in Wisdom, and his in Intelligence, and so our rolls are coming out the same.
I've mentioned in the past that I've not read all of the powers for every class, and that certainly goes for those in the 10+ level range. So perhaps I'm speaking too soon, and perhaps this similarity between the classes will disappear as we progress. The danger, of course, is that we don't choose to progress, but instead return to 3rd edition, because 4e can't keep our interest.
Pick an attack ability (Wisdom)
Pick a defense (Reflex)
Pick a range (10 squares)
Pick damage (1d6 fire)
Pick one of the following extra effects: push, pull, slide, stun, daze, combat advantage, zone of effect (zone of effect: fire)
Based on the above, determine whether this is at-will, encounter or daily, based on some formula (at-will)
If Daily, determine the Miss effect, if any (none)
Based on the above, determine appropriate class for this power (Druid)
Based on that, determine the power's name (Flame Seed)
I wonder if every combination of every variable has been crunched into a database, and the last few steps just need to be done for the lifetime of 4e. New classes could be determined that way:
"I was browsing through the database, and found a Dex vs. Fortitude Range 5 2d6 + stun encounter power - what should we do with it?"
"Sounds like some sort of deftly-thrown implement that knocks someone out -- sounds like a Martial Controller to me. Let's call it the 'Flying Dagger' class. Next!"
Now I understand that, given the mechanics of the game, there are only so many combinations of things: we have six abilities to "attack" with, four defenses, four attack types (melee, ranged, burst, close burst), and then some creative damage and effects. So you might say of *course* they're going to start feeling similar.
And that's the point: in previous editions of D&D, those with "spellcasting" differed in large ways: arcane vs. divine, holy vs. nature, innate vs. learned. That let you easily tell the difference between them, and playing each of these classes was quite different. But now every class has spells (...by any other name...) and that's what's making these classes blur together.
Even just having the 3rd edition fighters and rogues using Feats instead of Powers was enough. Even having one defense score and three saving throws was enough for the classes' abilities to feel different. And this is the feeling that we seem unable to shake - that I'm casting Divine Leader attack at the goblin, that Griff is casting Arcane Controller attack, then a Martial Leader attack, a Martial Striker attack, etc. And while my numbers might be slightly different than Griffs, probably not much so, because my Cleric has his best score in Wisdom, and his in Intelligence, and so our rolls are coming out the same.
I've mentioned in the past that I've not read all of the powers for every class, and that certainly goes for those in the 10+ level range. So perhaps I'm speaking too soon, and perhaps this similarity between the classes will disappear as we progress. The danger, of course, is that we don't choose to progress, but instead return to 3rd edition, because 4e can't keep our interest.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, January 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
