True, and I guess making them core does get newer players (or players who's DMs don't have upwards of 30 gigs of books downloaded) to try out non-standard races.Fenixius said:
The Truth About 4th Edition: Part One of Our Exclusive Interview with Wizards of the Coast
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
I dont think the article was informative at all, they didnt look into the reason as to why we all think its a total crap system. I read all the posts above me, and a huge majority dont like it, while the ones who do say they can either take it or leave it.
I want to know why they think there was such a huge backlash from the gamers, not why the Tiefling is "cool"
Tieflings are not cool nor are any emo wanna be character classes. If I want to make a loaner character, then I will make one with my own fluff.
I want to know why they think there was such a huge backlash from the gamers, not why the Tiefling is "cool"
Tieflings are not cool nor are any emo wanna be character classes. If I want to make a loaner character, then I will make one with my own fluff.
In a 3.5e Eberron campaign I played a Neutral Good Tiefling wizard who had the Eek the Cat mentality of "It never hurts to help!" So she helped a lot of people, at least she saw it as helping. Sometimes it didn't help at all. It sometimes it really did hurt. Also, she wasn't too aware of the laws of the land so to speak. That caused some issues when the party crossed a border into Thane. For some odd reason the Silver Flame people didn't like her.
Couple issues, funksobeefy. The article wasn't supposed to be a tell-all about how much they wanted to make money. It's always going to be promotion from Wizards of the Coast. It's the design of the game that we're all interested in, and looking for. Of course they'll slip in as much positive commentary about their game as they can; all media is biased. I'm sure there're other articles about why they deviated so drastically from 3/3.5. However, with the huge outcry on every DnD-themed article posted, I think that maybe The Escapist should ask Wizards to write something on the topic? *nudge-nudge >_>*funksobeefy said:
As to Tieflings, they're not "emo wanna-be's". If you don't like something, don't assume it's not how it should be. Assume that it's not meant for you, because in this case, it's evidently not. Tieflings allow for some fairly complex personification and roleplaying, which other races I feel don't so much try for that. They're all very blank slate, where as Tiefling is blank slate with a twist. That's how I see it, at least.
That's it. It's all about letting players try new things, and have cool new moves. Players trying new things is the whole point! It's not like World of Warcraft, where to try something new properly you need to sink 20 hours of gameplay into it. It's an inherent advantage of PnP that you can start at any level, with any gear, with any moves. If you look into the culture of each race, there're lots of opportunities for very unique roleplay. You could be an upstanding member of your society, you could be a deviant who shuns his culture, and tries to fit in someplace else. You could have a grudge against someone in a position of cultural power and work to subvert it. Lots and lots and lots of options is the idea. Just because there aren't 60 different classes to start with doesn't mean you're limited.Cain_Zeros said:
Chaosium has been around since the mid-seventies and, so far as I've been able to tell, the game is relatively unchanged since it first came out in 1980. The rules are solid enough that there's nothing about it that needs changing. On top of that, it's supplemental materials are top notch quality, providing intriguing ideas that are well-written, easy to understand and are actually fun to read. The Delta Green Manual sits comfortably in the position of best RPG manual ever written.Fenixius said:
It should be clear by now to anyone paying attention that my objection with WotC is not 4E. If people have fun playing it, that's a matter of taste. I've expressed what I don't like about 4E, but what makes me want to protest is the way that WotC is running the company now, which actually started about a year or so before 4E came out. Don't try to tell me that WotC has to go around arbitrarily changing everything in an effort to get us to buy all their books over again just to survive when Chaosium has been around over thirty years now and has changed almost nothing about their game.
And you can't powergame in Call of Cthulhu. It's not possible.
Actually, one of my friend's best characters was a tiefling. The race can be very good if you don't take the stereotypical attitude of "crazy, emo, demon-spawn loaner." Honestly, though, his other really good character was an Aasimar, so my question is why didn't they add Aasimar as a playable race? Probably because they're *are* trying to play to emo culture.funksobeefy said:
True, and yet not. You aren't under huge restrictions where every character will be the same. And indeed from a character standpoint there still aren't any limitations in 4E. And it's still pretty new, so once it's been around for as long as 3/3.5 there won't be any limitations as far as what those characters can do either. However, I personally am quite happy with what my friends and I have dubbed "3.75" (more commonly known as Pathfinder).Fenixius said:
Really? I'm surprised, then. My apologies! If they've devised a system robust enough to withstand 40 years of updates, then my proverbial hat doesn't just come off to them; it accelerates upwards with such force that it's now in lunar orbit. I don't know how often they update it, but I'm assuming one book a year or so? In order to make money, that'd be enough, if they're well priced, and the playerbase is solid. Otherwise, they're not doing it with the intention of profiting, which in my mind puts them in a different ballpark than Wizards of the Coast. The sort of difference between a modder and a professional game developer. There's no implicit differentiation in skill; just in objective, and possibly in dedication. Modders will tune and tune and mod and mod their product until they're happy with it. Professionals: by definition people who do it for a living, will work on something until they can sell it, and then work on something else until they can make money off of that. Be that a new game, a new edition, a new patch, or whatever.RJ Dalton said:
I'm certainly not going to defend Wizards of the Coast. They're a professional organisation that is trying to make money. However, they're not being huge enormous dicks about it like Activision and Ubisoft are these days. The lovely thing about PnP RPG's is that they're all still there when the new one comes out. There's infinite replayability in a framework, rather than a "game" where most of the mechanics are on the other side of the computer's display. They don't lose anything 'cause there's a newer version. In fact, if you want to, you can port all the new content down to the older mechanics. But you're right; 4th Edition has been very expensive compared to other games.RJ Dalton said:
Then they have some truly radical game mechanic. I've never seen any system which couldn't be min/max'd to have a higher profit than someone who doesn't. There are systems where it's not worth the effort, or where it's not possible to get a huge advantage, but it's definitely present in every single system I've ever seen.RJ Dalton said:
It's simple and obvious, but you have to admit it actually does speak to why people pick characters. For decades now, people have been playing half-orcs to be big and strong, playing dwarves to crack jokes about drinking in a faux-Scottish accent, playing elves to be Legolas. Heck, the cleric was written into D&D because the creators' playgroup decided they wanted to play a dude out of Hammer Horror.RJ Dalton said:
What did you expect? "Play an elf if you want to explore the themes of lost glory and immortal grief"? That's never been D&D's shtick.
It's definitely crass to write it outright, but what you consider "shallow" really is driving the decision-making process for most players of the game.
-- Alex
Even that attitude is just fine to play. It's a little cliche, but so is the magic-loving elf, and the ale-swilling dwarf. Now, as to your revised comment, funksobeefy, what's the issue with a certain race coming with a backstory that lends itself strongly to one roleplay or another? I don't see any sort of issue with that. Indeed, it adds further depth, because you can either roll with it and get a pretty simple story going quickly, which is a useful tool, or you can go counter to it and end up with some interesting personal and interpersonal conflicts.RJ Dalton said:
Aasimar... now, I never played 3.5 that extensively, but they're essentially the opposite of Tieflings, right? Celestial/Human mix? That seems similar-ish to the idea behind the Deva race, from PHB2 of 4th Edition. They're more like reincarnated demi-celestials than half-breeds, though, so it's a bit different. Of course, for maximum lolz, go make yourself a super-pious, Pelor/Bahamut loving Tiefling Paladin.RJ Dalton said:
I think you're right in that 4th edition will "open up" as they print more supplements. If only they priced them cheaper, yeah? I think it'll be Players' Handbook #3 that'll crack it wide open - Hybrid Classing sounds very powerful for fine-tuning your character. Best of luck with your Pathfinder, by the way.Cain_Zeros said:
Personally, I have no use for the 4th edition rules at all, but that's just me. I stick with the 3.5 rules with some additions thrown in from Pathfinder. My real problem with the whole switch to 4th edition wasn't the actual rules change, I can ignore those after all. It was the rest of the things that went with it. The end of the print Dragon and Dungeon magazines, the termination of pretty much every liscense they had (Dragonlance, Codemoney's E-tools, removing all PDF's from Paizo, etc), that sort of thing. Add to that the false promises that their D&D Insider site was making... it didn't leave a good taste in my mouth. WoTC basically destroyed some of the greatest traditional treasures of the game system (the magazines) to make way for the online system that, after two years, still hasn't delivered everything they promised. Of course, it took WoTC many years just to implement a search function on their forums, so that's no surprise.
Basically, they made it as hard as possible to continue to play 3.5. WoTC could have at least allowed the continued sale of the 3.5 rulebooks in electronic form, if they didn't want to print any more physical copies. If they had been able to, I'm sure they would have ended the right to make any 3.5 edition products at all. Thank God for the OGL being irrevocable. As it is, they added a few things to the liscense for 4th edition to force publishers to choose between editions, rather than publish for both.
Basically, it felt like WoTC was going out of its way to alienate me. I went from a several thousand dollar a year customer to nothing, giving all my business to Paizo instead. I'm no longer a fan of the publisher of the official D&D, and that's a painful thing for an old grognard like me to say. I wish it were otherwise, I really do.
Basically, they made it as hard as possible to continue to play 3.5. WoTC could have at least allowed the continued sale of the 3.5 rulebooks in electronic form, if they didn't want to print any more physical copies. If they had been able to, I'm sure they would have ended the right to make any 3.5 edition products at all. Thank God for the OGL being irrevocable. As it is, they added a few things to the liscense for 4th edition to force publishers to choose between editions, rather than publish for both.
Basically, it felt like WoTC was going out of its way to alienate me. I went from a several thousand dollar a year customer to nothing, giving all my business to Paizo instead. I'm no longer a fan of the publisher of the official D&D, and that's a painful thing for an old grognard like me to say. I wish it were otherwise, I really do.
Hybrid classing? This is new to me. I assume it's very much different from typical multi-classing.Fenixius said:
From what I've read, instead of being some radical new method, it sounds like a souped up version of traditional multiclassing, which was largely absent from 4th Edition. 4th came with a pseudo-multiclass, which let you spend feats every couple of levels to get elements from another class. They're in the back of the Feats section of the PHB, given about a page.Cain_Zeros said:
From what I've read, and this was all rumours, Hybrid Classing will work like this: Where multiclassing lets you take one level each in different classes, and you choose which to level when you level up, Hybrid-Classing will let you choose to take half a level in each class, every time you level up. Each class is broken down into a set of attributes and qualities which can be combined with another, so you make your own class which is forged from elements of each. The theory being that you'll be able to make your own class, tailored to your playstyle, but it depends hugely on execution. I have some anxiety that they'll screw it up and make it overly restrictive, but I'm hoping it'll be good so I can bust out a proper Warlock-Rogue for my Tiefling, like he needs.
So if they don't royally screw it up it'll be like a gestalt, except they're actually giving you a way to do it, instead of you having to do all the work.Fenixius said:
A gestalt isn't from a system. It's a combination of positive aspects of two things, in this case classes. I've done it before with Mariner and Fighter. Good things resulted.Fenixius said:
The 3rd Edition Unearthed Arcana. You basically shove two classes together to make a super-class, kinda like 2nd Edition multiclassing but without the trade-offs.Fenixius said:
Here's the D20SRD.org page [http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltcharacters.htm].
-- Alex