Julian Grimm wrote:
That's one thing I have noticed. WOTC seems to be having some problem delivering on the development side. That is, while they got the game out the material for the 3rd parties has been delayed. I know i have heard rumors of internal squabbling over the details of the GSL and SRD for 4e but, it makes me wonder if there aren't other internal problems that are causing the delays.
There are two major camps in WOTC. Those who wanted a more open GSL, and those who want to control it rigid like. The rigid folks won since they control the purse strings. So... folks are obviously finding other ways, of which there are several, around the restrictions.
For those paying attention, one way is clearly obvious. I'll leave people to speculate on that note. Cause I'm mean that way.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
Now that I've actually played a session as a wizard, here are some of my thoughts:
- It is extremely difficult to hit much of anything with most wizard spells, especially at the early levels. Apparently, even the most common monsters have relatively high reflex scores and thus are somehow able to duck and cover whenever a fire burst erupts right above their heads.
- Attribute checks are used for nearly everything, but in the bad way. They are used for "attack spells" for which it would make more sense that the target should be the one to do the rolling, for instance. There are very few spells that do anything if they "miss," and out of those that do, most of them are daily spells.
- The fact that wizard spells follow the ability system of the rest of the classes is very hurtful. There is no way for a wizard to cast Sleep more than once per day. Even those spells which are now daily abilities are still dramatically weakened from their original form, despite the fact that both HP and damage output has been scaled up for everyone else.
- The heavy reliance on healing surges as a core mechanic is extremely clunky and makes combat take a lot longer than it should. The warlord, who needs to exploit this mechanic and others quite often, is very immersion-breaking.
- Attacks of opportunity still come into play often enough to be bloody annoying. There are also some abilities that are oriented towards maneuvering in such a way as to allow for flanking, shifting and what not. The gameplay gets very metagamey very fast.
- One battle of six party members against about a dozen monsters (not including minions) took a whole two and a half hours. This is not at all acceptable. I sensed that 4th edition was more streamlined than the previous edition, so I shudder to think how long this battle would have taken before!
- The whole fortitude / reflex / willpower system is completely unnecessary. It'd be easier to simply roll stat checks to save vs. things. I often found myself having to metagame and look for spells that targeted fortitude rather than reflex, severely disrupting immersion and fun.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
ssfsx17 wrote:
- The whole fortitude / reflex / willpower system is completely unnecessary. It'd be easier to simply roll stat checks to save vs. things. I often found myself having to metagame and look for spells that targeted fortitude rather than reflex, severely disrupting immersion and fun.
I liked the idea of just three saves in 3e. (SOmething I have yet to successfully port to C&C ) Is it worse in 4e or about the same?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm
Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS
Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!
AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06
As far as I can tell, 4e uses C&C-style saving throws. However, the fortitude / reflex / willpower system exists alongside it, as something like AC ratings. For example, when casting magic missile, you have to make an "INT attack roll" and defeat the target's Reflex score.
This makes certain things very bloody annoying and forces you to constantly think about gaming the system so that you can exploit low fortitude / reflex / willpower, which is not my idea of fun.
ssfsx17 wrote:
This makes certain things very bloody annoying and forces you to constantly think about gaming the system so that you can exploit low fortitude / reflex / willpower, which is not my idea of fun.
Not sure I'd say it forces you to game the system. It doesn't any more than C&C and the Prime or Non-Prime saves.
There is a nice feature of variable attack rolls - your character will not be good at some things. A fighter with a wand of magic missiles, I assume, will have to make an Intelligence attack, and not a normal ranged attack... this means he will be inferior to the wizard who is stereotypically meant for such things. However, that MM requires an attack roll is something that is interesting... some forget it did not always hit automatically.
DangerDwarf wrote:
Not sure I'd say it forces you to game the system. It doesn't any more than C&C and the Prime or Non-Prime saves.
The problem comes when you feel like you might have the "wrong" character because you didn't pick out a spell that targets fortitude or willpower instead of reflex. The majority of the spells that target fortitude at level 1 are cold-based - it actually makes sense that fortitude would be involved in resisting them, but the reflex and fortitude scores for many monsters are rather arbitrary. Spells that target willpower are rare and valuable - at level 1, the only spell that does so is Sleep, a daily power. A wizard who never takes cold-based spells will always be defeated by monsters who have good reflexes, regardless of the qualities the spells should have.
Most likely, this is more of a problem with "game balance" than with attack rolls for spells in general. The first house rule I would put into place would definitely be half-damage on a "miss" for most wizard spells rather than no damage at all. Even so, I'm still rather bothered by "needing" to take certain spells.
