Mearls Speaks of 4E

[RiotGearEpsilon]

I'll grant the lack of illusions as jarring, but come on, bards aren't all that big of a deal.

[RandomCasualty2]

I'd have rather him put at least an effort into putting stuff that's supposed to go into D&D.

Things like there not even being a halfway decent unarmed combat system, disarm/sunder, illusions, or frickin' bards just points to an amateurish laziness that I don't want near my game.

Illusions were about the only iconic D&D thing you mentioned that probably should have made it in.

The unarmed combat system in basically every other edition sucked. Disarm didn't come in until 2nd edition's fighter's handbook. Sundering didn't come until 3E, and bards... well 2nd edition was probably the only edition with a half decent bard. In every other edition they were a total mess. Besides... bards sucked, D&D would be better off without them.

There technically is one disarming power in there for the fighter, though it's priced way too high. I can see why disarming didn't get much of a focus as they were going more for universal abilities, instead of specialized ones, and disarm is a very specialized ability, as it targets only humanoid NPCs that wield weapons. Go against monsters, and disarm is all but useless. I really didn't see PCs making much use of disarm in my campaigns. I mean it just wasn't worth a feat to take. And 4E does allow you to do subdual attacks at will, I consider a finishing move to a subdual attack could be where you disarm someone and hold a blade to their throat and they surrender.

Sunder is basically just a PC hoser power. It's for sadistic DMs who want to smash a PC's loot. Good riddance.

Now it's okay to be upset with the problems that exist in the rules that were written, and there are a lot, but I don't think it's right to bitch about the fact that Mearls happened to not include bards or disarms or some shit.

I got somewhat of a beef with not including illusions, but I can understand how they'd be difficult to balance. They're one of those powers that's only as good as the DM makes them. Not including them is fairly understandable as their primary concern was getting the other shit to work right.

My only real main beef with Mearls is giving solos too many hp and leading to the boring grinding battles.

[Angry_Pessimist]

I don't care what design philosophy you use, I just want you to make a good game.

[PhoneLobster]

OK.

Mike Mearls certainly isn't the source of all 4e evil, someone put picked him to suit their purposes and put him there and gave him crappy directions.

And not having bards IS a big deal, as they were the single class thiefy flavoured magic/warrior. Without the bard AND without a substitute class of that flavour something is missing. Ideally I'd see the musical bit de-emphasised though, maybe to the point of not calling them bards...

[Psychic Robot]

Allow me to play the role of the pro-4er, Lobster:

1. "YOU CAN JUST PLAY A WIZARD MULTICLASSED INTO ROGUE."

2. "YOU CAN JUST PLAY A ROGUE WITH THE RITUAL CASTING FEAT."

3. "JUST ROLE-PLAY THE WARLORD AS USING MUSIC TO INSPIRE HIS ALLIES."

4. "THE BARD IS GOING TO BE RELEASED IN THE PHB II. PAY $30 AND SUCK IT, BITCH. YOU WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO RELEASE AN UNPLAYTESTED CLASS, WOULD YOU?"

[Angry_Pessimist]

And he certainly isn't the source of all 4e evil, someone put picked him to suittheir purposes and put him there and gave him crappy directions.

Purpose: Wizard$ of the Coast want all your money while doing as little work as possible.

Sounds like most big business to me.

[PhoneLobster]

Allow me to play the role of the pro-4er, Lobster:

Actually my local pro 4e folks (those that exist, and they seem oddly few and unenthusiastic) are more like...

1. I like 4e, because I like WoW and I think changing 4e to be ostensibly WoW like is cool!

2. I have more options than ever! (the implications of which for their 3.x games is worrying)

3. Combat is so fast and fun! (Again, implications of which....)

4. Wait, there isn't a bard? I hadn't noticed. Now, off to disarm someone, wait, what do you mean no dis...

But then the local community has been in a slump recently. Still you'd expect a new D&D edition to bring a few more fans out of the wood work.

As much as word on the internet street seems to be all "4e has arrived, suffer and die critics, bow before your new master" word on the actual street around here seems to be more "4e is crappy and WoW like and you can't do anything cool and its boring" the general reaction to it seems to be under whelmed depression and pessimism.

I mean this is anecdotal from a totally boon docks nowheresville region, but even what little contact I have with gamers in the great capital city amounts to the same.

[Angry_Pessimist]

I mean this is anecdotal from a totally boon docks nowheresville region, but even what little contact I have with gamers in the great capital city amounts to the same.

I care more about what the local nerd group finds fun in my area, opposed to the Internet, as the hobby shops are the most likely to cater to their needs by what the local community finds popular. As of now, most nerds in my area are sticking to 3rd edition.

[RandomCasualty2]

And not having bards IS a big deal, as they were the single class thiefy flavoured magic/warrior. Without the bard AND without a substitute class of that flavour something is missing. Ideally I'd see the musical bit de-emphasised though, maybe to the point of not calling them bards...

The bard role was actually done with the Beguiler. Prior to that the bard role was some loser who conjured shit by playing a lute but was supposed to be stealthy.

And yeah, I like the beguiler class, he was the first class to do the thief/trickster correctly. The bard... well lets just let that concept fucking die. Playing a musical instrument shouldn't be your main schtick, it should just be something on the side that you can do.

Fucking bards.

[Leress]

And not having bards IS a big deal, as they were the single class thiefy flavoured magic/warrior. Without the bard AND without a substitute class of that flavour something is missing. Ideally I'd see the musical bit de-emphasised though, maybe to the point of not calling them bards...

The bard role was actually done with the Beguiler. Prior to that the bard role was some loser who conjured shit by playing a lute but was supposed to be stealthy.

And yeah, I like the beguiler class, he was the first class to do the thief/trickster correctly. The bard... well lets just let that concept fucking die. Playing a musical instrument shouldn't be your main schtick, it should just be something on the side that you can do.

Fucking bards.

You are correct, but since the beguiler isn't in 4E either (not yet by my guess) that doesn't really help all that much.

[Angry_Pessimist]

The Beguiler is a surprisingly good class. All we need now is an arcane warrior gish.

[Psychic Robot]

The beguiler was probably my single favorite class to come out of D&D. The only thing that made me sad was that it had half BAB. If it had three-quarters, it would have been perfect for a character build. (See, I'm one of the people who hates multiclassing and taking prestige classes when a single class would do. Which is part of the reason why I'm such a fan of True20.)

[RandomCasualty2]

You are correct, but since the beguiler isn't in 4E either (not yet by my guess) that doesn't really help all that much.

The point is that it isn't in 3.5 core either. All 3.5 core gave us was a pretty much ineffectual bard class which sucked at doing what it was supposed to do.

This I think only really lends supports to Mearls design paradigm of not bothering to include stuff unless they can find a way to make it balanced. Since seriously, the 3.5 PHB could have not had a bard in it and I could have cared less. Same for the barbarian and the monk, two more ill thought out classes that just plain sucked.

If you're going to include something in the game, make it playable, otherwise don't fucking bother. Don't include a bunch of PrCs that I won't want to play because they suck balls. Don't include a class that breaks my game either. If they can't get it right, I'd prefer they do what Mearls is proposing and just not print the thing. That philosophy leads to better products in the long run.

[Angry_Pessimist]

Which is part of the reason why I'm such a fan of True20.)

So what is it's appeal other than "D20 with just a d20?"

Is it balanced? Do I have to worry about Mages "pwning" Warriors and vice versa?

I bought the Core book and bestiary, and they gave straight ports for the monsters in the Bestiary. Bad idea. Theoretically, a Colossal Scorpion (40th level) should beat a Balor (20th level). But the Balor has special powers to keep it out of melee, while poor ol' scorpion can only melee.

However, I like the idea of CR=HD. It is overall a fine idea. Unfortunately, they kept Level Adjustment (renamed Level Lag).

[Leress]

You are correct, but since the beguiler isn't in 4E either (not yet by my guess) that doesn't really help all that much.

The point is that it isn't in 3.5 core either. All 3.5 core gave us was a pretty much ineffectual bard class which sucked at doing what it was supposed to do.

This I think only really lends supports to Mearls design paradigm of not bothering to include stuff unless they can find a way to make it balanced. Since seriously, the 3.5 PHB could have not had a bard in it and I could have cared less. Same for the barbarian and the monk, two more ill thought out classes that just plain sucked.

If you're going to include something in the game, make it playable, otherwise don't fucking bother. Don't include a bunch of PrCs that I won't want to play because they suck balls. Don't include a class that breaks my game either. If they can't get it right, I'd prefer they do what Mearls is proposing and just not print the thing. That philosophy leads to better products in the long run.

I agree with that philosophy. My problem with that in regards to 4E is that there are a number of things that seem to fit the "shouldn't have been in the book because they are not ready"

However, I like the idea of CR=HD. It is overall fine. Unfortunately, they kept Level Adjustment (renamed Level Lag).

Oh please don't tell me they did that with CR. That could mean that a T-Rex is a cr 18 which, is mad since even at CR 10 it was a big speed bump.

[Angry_Pessimist]

I spent hundreds of dollars on 3rd edition, a bunch of fantasy anime, and some RPG video games.

I admit that the fantasy genre is more than a hobby for me, but I don't want several of my products to become obsolete.

[Psychic Robot]

So what is it's appeal other than "D20 with just a d20?"

Is it balanced? Do I have to worry about Mages "pwning" Warriors and vice versa?

The reason that I like it is because it's so versatile, so it can be used in pretty much any campaign setting. Their solution to HP is a decent way to do things, too. I'll admit that I haven't had the opportunity to play the system--unfortunately--as my current group is now married to Pathfinder for the time being, but I really liked True20 from what I read of it. Also, the ability to make one's own classes made me very happy.

[Angry_Pessimist]

The reason that I like it is because it's so versatile, so it can be used in pretty much any campaign setting.

Can it duplicate some campaign settings better than D&D 3rd Edition, like Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, et cetera?

Does the spell system have any loopholes/crazy stuff that I should look out for?

I know this seems odd coming from someone who bought the book, but I have so many D&D/d20 books that I can't analyze them all.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

The point is that it isn't in 3.5 core either. All 3.5 core gave us was a pretty much ineffectual bard class which sucked at doing what it was supposed to do.

This I think only really lends supports to Mearls design paradigm of not bothering to include stuff unless they can find a way to make it balanced. Since seriously, the 3.5 PHB could have not had a bard in it and I could have cared less. Same for the barbarian and the monk, two more ill thought out classes that just plain sucked.

If you're going to include something in the game, make it playable, otherwise don't fucking bother. Don't include a bunch of PrCs that I won't want to play because they suck balls. Don't include a class that breaks my game either. If they can't get it right, I'd prefer they do what Mearls is proposing and just not print the thing. That philosophy leads to better products in the long run.

Then what the fuck they were doing in the first place?

If the game was balanced correctly and ran like Tome or TNE or Shadowrun then I could find these errors a lot more forgivable.

But the game isn't balanced correctly. A lot of the core assumptions are fucked from the start and what you have is a game that grows progressively more boring and pansifying as time goes on.

If I'm going to have a game that's going to relatively neem my character's abilities down to zero, I'd like to at least have the option to be a fucking bard or do something different other than 'I CLEAVE IT REALLY HARD!' or 'I KNOCK IT BACK 2 SQUARES!' for six rounds in a row. Having disarm and sunder would go a long way towards alleviating this problem, or at least give the option of doing some other minigame.

Fun with a small number of abilities beats boring with a large number of abilities, but boring with a large number of abilities beats the living fuckballs out of boring with a small number of abilities.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

Furthermore, I find the 'don't put the monk, barbarian, bard, druid in' because they can't get it right to be extremely unconvincing.

That's because they thought their edition was kickass enough to take a roll of the dice with warlord and warlock!. If they're so confident with their new edition, then why add these two ridiculous new classes from nowhere rather than classes that actually, you know, differ noticably from the other ones.

Let's face it. Warlock is to wizard what sorcerer was to 3E wizard, only they managed to make them even LESS interesting. Warlord is just a paladin or cleric stripped of its flavor.

So what gives? Poor design decisions, I guess.

[RandomCasualty2]

But the game isn't balanced correctly. A lot of the core assumptions are fucked from the start and what you have is a game that grows progressively more boring and pansifying as time goes on.

Well then bash Mearls for that shit. They are certainly valid points, and there are many other good reasons to not like 4E.

I just don't really see anything wrong with his design paradigm of not including stuff he couldn't balance.

[Psychic Robot]

Can it duplicate some campaign settings better than D&D 3rd Edition, like Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, et cetera?

Does the spell system have any loopholes/crazy stuff that I should look out for?

I know this seems odd coming from someone who bought the book, but I have so many D&D/d20 books that I can't analyze them all.

1. I'm not really familiar with the published settings, to be honest. I tend to stay away from published things and write my own settings.

2. Spell system seems far more balanced than 3e's. One of the powers is really strong--some kind of energy blast--but nothing seems (note: "seems," not "is") game-breaking.

My favorite aspect of the system is that it's just so customizable. You can have mages and druids and clerics and paladins without special classes and stuff.

[Koumei]

13 Wise Buttlords: the Barbarian is to the Fighter as the Warlock/Sorcerer is to the Wizard, though. Really, the Bard should have priority over Warlord, Warlock and Barbarian, and the Druid, if a nature-themed shapeshifter/summoner and not a nature-themed Cleric, would also get a place, but the Barbarian can wait in line just like all the other "I am X, but different" ones. Like the Warlock.

And for those who found my earlier idea distasteful: of course it was. I was pissed off and frustrated, because I'm sick of arguing with people about 4E but if I want to game at all I largely have to convince them that 4E is not worth playing. So I'm in a position where either I risk losing my hobby, or I argue on the Internet which I don't like doing... and still risk losing the hobby.

When annoyed like that, I have a tendency to be childish in my responses. I mean, obviously all I want Mearls to do is admit that 4E is a failure and promise to hire more competent people to make a fantastic game, or to admit it was the biggest, most expensive joke ever and release the real 4th Edition. But I don't have any faith in Hasbro/WotC any more.

And all I know about Skip is that he hated Sorcerers and argued with Frank a lot, so when Skip left, they banned Frank as a going away present. Where else did he fail in game design?

[Psychic Robot]

Frank got into it with Skip? Are there links to this?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Here you go: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=171