Thoughts on D&D 4E: Round Two
Hello, all.
You may have noticed that I decided to give my good friend Randy a shot at expressing his thoughts on Fourth Edition, and why it isn’t for him. I did this for a couple of reasons:
- I’m interested in Randy’s opinion. We are part of the same extended gaming group and while, because we both tend to DM we don’t often play at each others’ tables, I am interested in what our shared players might think and feel from the other side of things. Beyond that, we’re good friends and I genuinely wanted to know the reasoning behind his distaste for 4E.
- I think our gaming group is probably not that different than other gaming groups. Some folks play 4E and say “I like it” or “I don’t like it,” some folks don’t even read the books and say “it’s crap,” and some folks (like Randy) DO read the books and decide they don’t want to try it. The dynamic between those positions is worth discussing in a public way.
Now, I haven’t said a whole lot about 4E here since release. I mentioned I liked the idea of Rules Convergence and I gave a peek into what I thought about Keep on the Shadowfell both before and after I played it. Before release, I talked about liking the new cosmology (which I believe Randy’s adopted at his table. Correct me if I’m wrong here, bro). I also talked before release about why I was confident that 4E would be a good product. But I haven’t given a thorough opinion.
I’ll be doing that, over the next few posts (hopefully they’ll come more often than once a week, LOL). But I want to specifically address Randy’s complaints, and tell you all what I think about them. I’m not doing this as much to argue with Randy (we’re completely cool between us on the issue) but to broaden the discussion with my readers. Let’s go through the list, the way he presents them:
1)The powers section for PCs just scream ” goofy” to me.
I haven’t had the same experience. I think I’ve figured out why it is, too. See,once I accepted the fact that “Hit Points” were no longer representative of physical damage, it opened up a whole new world of possibilities. D&D isn’t about physical health anymore; it’s about heroic acts and the flow of battle. An ally’s ferocity or focus in battle is boosted when I fell my foe? I can buy that easily.
Would it have been easier to accept if they dropped hit points and called it “Hero points?” Maybe, but that sounds a bit wonky. No, I think this is the right move. Let’s get away from this idea that every hit does physical damage. The fact is, hit points as physical damage makes no sense when a naked character can be run through from behind at the dinner table without hardly getting a scratch on him, while it would kill any peasant or king.
As for the ritual thing, I’m not certain Randy’s got a correct reading of the rules. As I understand it, a fighter can’t just pick up a resurrection scroll and use it. Even If he can, though, I can live with it - the magic is in the item, not the user. It doesn’t affect my gameplay that much. I’ve been accused of handing out resurrections too freely, yet my players keep coming back. What do I care if the fighter can read the resurrection scroll I conveniently leave for the party?
2) The game is way too board/minis gamey for me.
Having played through two sessions, I can tell you 4E is the same amount of board-gamey as 3E, no more, no less. There’s very little different in this regard. The leap from AD&D to 3E was what made D&D more like a board game, and nothing’s changed in gameplay. Besides, it’s the DM and his ability to foster good roleplaying (which Randy, for example, does with extreme awesomeness) that keeps a D&D session from becoming a board game anyways.
3) The game just looks boring.
Again, having played 2 sessions, I can tell you 4E wasn’t boring for me. Quite the opposite, I had a blast.
Part of Randy’s argument here is the question of how things scale. I think there’s a danger when you’ve only got core books to say, “gosh, this looks limited. How boring will this be at 30th level?” By the time most of us play 30 levels, though, there will be scores of new books with all sorts of options we haven’t even thought of. That’s how Basic D&D worked; that’s how 3E worked; that’s just how D&D works. Core provides a startup experience with a high learning curve; supplements shake the shit up, so to speak.
The other part of this has to do with everything being “damage.” I think this goes back to the conversation about hit points. 4E uses familiar terminology in a new way to redefine how things work. You no longer make a will save, your opponent attacks you with an attack against your will “defense.” Is that different? Absolutely. Too different for some folks? Probably. Does that detract from gameplay? Not in my experience.
4) The GSL.
I’m more or less indifferent to the GSL and couldn’t tell you whether current rumors are speculation or not. Here’s why: I’m not an indie publisher. For the most part, I don’t usually play with Indie D&D products. I like the idea of there being competition in the marketplace, because it makes everyone’s products better. There’s nothing here to elicit any emotion from me in either direction on the GSL. I’m agnostic on this point. I can see where third party publishers might be really pissed, if the rumors are true.
5) The new DnD stuff is cheap looking crap.
I mentioned my problems with the production value in Keep on the Shadowfell already. However, the core books are better, much better. There are some printers errors and some indexing problems in the PHB, but I haven’t seen anything else that would make me say the books were cheap-looking or crap.
I can’t speak intelligently about the D&D minis. I don’t collect them. I buy individual figs I might like. Mostly, I paint my own minis. Yes, it’s discouraging if the D&D minis start to suck, but it doesn’t affect me much more than the GSL. Randy (and some of our other local guys) are big collectors, so I know this probably bugs them. All I can say here is this: don’t buy the minis if they suck. Reaper minis look a thousand times better anyways.
As far as repeat art, I don’t think the volume was particularly overwhelming. The Monster Manual certainly had plenty of new and interesting artwork.
See, I’m OK with some re-used art. Always have been. I want to think about this statement: “WOTC can afford new art.” First off, D&D isn’t and will never be the most profitable division of Hasbro, or even WotC. Magic has a much higher margin, for cample. This isn’t the right question, though, whether or not W0tC has enough money. The question is this: “Will consumers pay $X more per book to get 100% new art vs. 95% new art?” There is a point of diminishing returns, a point at which we either pay more for the books or they substitute a few older pictures.
Don’t get me wrong; I like new art. But I don’t buy D&D books for the artwork any more than I buy them for the stories. Stories belong in novels, artwork belongs in art books (Vallejo books, for example, are about half the cost of D&D books for twice as much art). I like stories and art in my rulebooks, but they’re not the reason I buy them.
6) Paizo and Monte Cook.
I asked the question a while back: Does Monte matter? Read my comments on that post, but I’ll throw out one quote from there: “if you press me, I’m going to tell you that I like Jim Wyatt and Mike Mearls at least as much as I like Monte, or probably more in the case of Jim.” Monte’s a non-starter issue for me. I like the guys at Paizo, they do great work. But I’m not dumping D&D for them. I recognize that’s a purely personal preference, and that Monte’s got a HUGE fan base. He is *the* rockstar in the D&D world.
———-
As you can tell, a large portion of the 4E debate comes down to personal preferences and habits. For my part, I don’t collect D&D minis. I don’t intend to publish anything under the GSL. I’m not worried at all about what Monte Cook does; I have other favorite designers. I like the idea of rules convergence. I accept the idea of hit points as totally separate from physical damage. I like the idea that the magic in an item is really in the item. Not everyone buys into these preferences, and I’m cool with that completely.
Do I think Randy will go 4E within a couple of years, like he jokes about? Maybe. Maybe not. There are guys, many of whom read this blog, that still play some version or another of AD&D or even OD&D. I’m cool with that. We’re all friends in the big D&D world. They don’t spit on my version of the game and I don’t spit on theirs. It’s all good.
What about the rest of you? How’s your gaming group handling it? What do you think about Randy’s problems with 4E and my replies? Do share.
Image by mborowick
4E: My “Final” Analysis ?
My boy , Bob, here at RPGDigest is putting 4e through its paces and I get the feeling he is loving it. I mean, it does have some nice simplification of the rules, the DMG is nice for beginning DMs, and the art is fabulous. I think some of the mechanics for flying and mounted combat are particularly nice as well. Though I do have all 3 core books, have read the PHB, am half way through the DMG, I belive I’m going to pass on this iteration of the Grandaddy of RPGs. In fact, I have someone who is going to take the PHB off my hands for cheap , and I am willing to sell the other two for a similar ‘good’ deal….any takers? 
I don’t want to start a flame war ,but I just want to put my thoughts out in the ether for posterity. Oh yeah, and so all my buddies can say, “I told you so” when I back track and re-purchase the core books a year or 2 from now when new Pathfinder and Monte Cook tomes for 3.x are no longer avaialable.
Now to squarely put my foot in my mouth.
Why I think that 4e is not for me:
1.)The powers section for pc just scream ” goofy” to me. A paladin smites someone and a nearby ally gains an AC boost….what the? Someone dies from a warlock curse and then the warlock gets to teleport 3 squares….or some such drivel. Fighters using a feat or two and then casting the raise dead ritual or else just buying the ritual on a scroll and casting it without a feat( the scroll part I’m not too sure of ,but I think I read that in the PHB)). However, I do know a fighter can raise the dead with a choice feat and for me that is way too irritating…oh yeah, and goofy. I really did not expect this at all. I was truly flabbergasted at how many times during my read -through of the PHB….I audibly said: “this is stupid”
2.) The game is way too board/minis gamey for me. Now before anyone gets their panties into a wad, you really can’t deny that DND has played more and more like a board game ever since the advent of 3e and minis. Now, I’m not saying that’s all bad , but its just that 4e is move even closer in that direction. I do think that in many ways 4e is a natural progression of the mini’s rules entrenched in 3e and I’ve, quite frankly, had enough. As most of my friends can attest, I find board games and minis games with too many rules and technicalities a real turn off( gimme Heroscape over DnD minis any day).
3.) The game just looks boring. High levels appear the same as lower levels which on the surface sounded good until I realized that everything is just the same. No significant difference except for damage output in the powers. Boring. Oh and don’t even get me started on the cheapening of illusion magic in the recent WOTC article…psychic damage…does every power have to deal damage and some condition? again….boring.
4.) The GSL…need I elaborate. Hey, I respect WOTC’s right to protect their IP ,but please don’t pretend it is really open.
5) The new DnD stuff is cheap looking crap. I mean, just take a look at the 4e Minis. They suck butt! I have been an avid collector of DnD minis since their inception and I can say unequivocally ( IMO) that they are horrendous and cheesy.
Exhibits
A: the new wyvern : horrid!
B: The Keep on the Shadowfell: repeat maps…..
C: The Core books: repeat art…please…WOTC can afford new art.
and
6) Paizo and Monte Cook. Pathfinder and Paizo Publishing is making great stuff that is 3.x compatible and I love it. I am a charter member of their adventure path and can’t wait for their RPG. Also, even though Cook is technically on the fringe of RPG’s these days, I will take his “fringe-work” over anything else …any other RPG creator makes.
Of course, if you love 4e, knock yourself out. It’s just not my cup of tea. At least not until I taste the new flava at Gencon 08″ . Go Gencon!!!!
Shekaka67
How Do You Foster Good Roleplaying?
When I was 13 years old, RPGs were all about killing things and taking their stuff. In a lot of ways, back then, D&D was a major precursor to today’s MMORPGs. Sure, we had some storylines back then, but they were usually pretty standard quests.
It was mostly “roll” playing, and less “role” playing. That was fine, for back then. Really, I didn’t mind.
But things changed. Eventually, I grew up, put off RPGs for a while. When I came back to them as a young adult, I found I’d changed. Suddenly, I was a lot more interested in the story than in the spoils.
Here’s the cool thing about RPGs: They are what you make of them. If you’re a 13 year-old boy who wants to slay dragons, go for it. If your a guy that wants to explore his feminine side by playing a female pixie sorceress, go ahead.
If you really must.
At any rate, my group today prefers roleplaying over hack-n-slash. Some days, though, hack-n-slash is all I’ve got in me as a DM. I’m sure you’ve had sessions like that, too.
So, let me put the question to you, both players and GMs: How do you foster good roleplaying?
I’ve got a few tricks up my sleeve, and I’ll share those in due time. I’m curious, though, what you all can come up with first.
Blast from the Past - Dealing with Problem RPG Players
Since my last blast from the past went over so well, I thought I’d pull up another old post. I’m really interested in hearing some of my new readers’ thoughts on this one! - Bob
A while back, I wrote about how, as a DM, I tend to make one of the worst players. I think this is pretty common among DMs. It is a different feeling, being on the other side of the screen.
So, let me tell you about my character. If you’re not interested, skip to the list down there at the end of the post.
A few years back, my wife ran a D&D campaign set in the Forgotten Realms, which we affectionately referred to as the “Flowers and Unicorns Campaign.” (Come up with your own acronym.) Now, I’ve only ever played in a handful of campaigns in my life, but this one was by far my favorite. Yep, I’m partial, but I think that most of the folks who played in that game had a good time.
That campaign was also the scene of the second scariest night I’ve ever had in D&D.
You see, I was playing an elven sorcerer. His name was Boskan, and he was something of a wunderkind. In fact, he and his sister, Yimsha, were thought to be the subjects of a prophecy spelling either the doom or the salvation of Faerun, depending on who you asked. Boskan wasn’t especially powerful, but he had attitude. See, Boskan had been raised by monks specifically to fulfill this prophecy. He knew his destiny (or thought he did) and he was driven to fulfill it, regardless of the cost to anyone around him.
The difficulty for Boskan came in that he had never met Yimsha; the pair had been separated at birth (think Luke and Leia stuff here). Yimsha was much more skeptical about the prophecy, as was the rest of the party.
Long story short (too late, I know) Boskan tended to rub everyone the wrong way. He wouldn’t entertain any efforts to question his destiny, not even from Yimsha, and he was determined that they would fulfill their roles in history.
Now, here is where the metagame comes in. I like to play ideologues when I do play. My characters, more often than not, tend to be driven, and often arrogant. Let’s just say that my characters tend to express the lesser angels of my nature. Deep down inside, there’s a part of me that’s just an asshole. My characters tend to take on that part of my personality perhaps more than any other part.
Anyways, in the process of playing this role, I crossed lines. I became heated, animated, and downright rude in character. This probably would have been fine, except that the person playing Yimsha and I had, in the past, had some personality tussles in real life, and this aggravated those sensitive areas for both of us.
Before the night was over, Yimsha’s player’s husband nearly handed me my teeth, and my wife kicked the two of them out of our house. It was the only time Angie has ever done that, and it was especially unfortunate given that Yimsha’s player and Angie were best friends. In the long run, it was OK; we had the two over the following day, and talked through the situation, and made nice. But it’s still something of a sore spot, all these years later.
So, what’s the point? Well, I think there are reasons that DMs often make the worst players. (These don’t all apply to every DM, I realize, but I can only speak from personal experience):
- First, as DMs, we are used to creating conflict. We run the bad guys, who argue with PCs, fight them, and are all-around pains in the ass to characters. It’s our job to be challenging.
- Second, we are all too often inexperienced as players. Mechanically, Boskan was weak, not for flavor’s sake, but because I didn’t build him right. I built him the way I would have built a single encounter creature, and that didn’t play right.
- Because of this inexperience as players, we often display our lesser angels. Most players figure out, in their first few characters, which of their own personality traits to project, and which ones to not project. We’ve never had to go through this process of trial and error. (My next character, by the way, was much less of an ass.)
- We also tend, as I talked about before, to mimic what we perceive to be player actions. In other words, on some level, I am disruptive as a player because I’ve had disruptive players as a DM. This isn’t a conscious decision, but I think it does happen from time to time.
- When we are playing, we can relax. DMing can be hard work; we feel like playing is something of a day off from the rigors of running the game.
So… how does your experience as a DM translate when you are on the other side of the screen?
Sunday RPG Link Smashup- June 15, 2008
Just because I liked the pic so much, and because the photographer commented on my blog last week… Let’s make her the unofficial Sunday RPG Link Smashup mascot, shall we? Disavian, What do you say?
photo credit: disavian | Got Links?
Anyways, let’s move on.
So, what’s going on in the world of RPGs this week?
Well, for starters, Chatty has an awesomely funny post (at least it’s funny to me) about how he can’t seem to let a paladin live in his campaigns: I Don’t do Paladins Really Well… I have the same problem, but with any character played by my friend Phil.
I don’t think I’ve mentioned it yet here, so I will now. If you don’t already Do Yax’s Sunday Morning Quiz right after reading my Link Smashup, you should. Just sayin’.
Bartoneous, who is fast becoming one of my favorite D&D blog writers, has another awesome post on the 4E/WoW question: How to Compare Birds to Fish
Greywulf is also quickly rising on my fave blogger scale. Check out Wolverine Is A Warlock to see why.
It’s amazing what 32 hours straight of 4E will do to a gaming group. Critical Ankle Bites has it here: Final thoughts after marathon 4e release day events.
All right, time to cash it in, folks. See you again real soon!
Reflections on RPGs, branding and the blog name
Good evening, all.
I want to cover a few things tonight, in no particular order.
First, if you don’t already get updates to RPGDigest, do it now. You can get updates via feed or via Email, and I’ll never share your addy with anyone, or send you anything except these blog updates. Pinky swear.
Next, I want to note a slight shift in this blog. To this point, I’ve focused on Dungeons & Dragons. Now, D&D is my #1 RPG and always will be, but as part of the move to a new name, I felt like it was time to expand the brand a bit. This allows me to blog about other RPGs, for example. It also gives me opportunity to feature articles from some folks who might play other RPGs or who play older versions of D&D.
I might even talk about a play by post World of Darkness game, from time to time.
Hence the “RPG” portion of the new name.
Not to worry; there will still be plenty of good ol’ D&D. I promise. After all, it’s the game that’s been kicking so much ass for so long.
I want to thank everyone who put in an entry for the contest, too. You all made it hard, damn hard, to decide.
In the end, I narrowed it down to four:
- RPGDigest (the winner, obviously, contributed by InShaneee)
- DnD4Ever (contributed by Ericc)
- RPGRenaissance (contributed by James of Capturing Fantasy)
- and RPG-Journey (contributed by… no one. It was a last minute entry by me, to try to keep things branded similarly to my writing blog - Writing Journey).
DND4Ever was cool - it even had 4E in it. However, I wanted to keep my options open just in case 4E were to flop.
I didn’t feel like RPG-Journey would be fair to everyone who worked so hard to come up with ideas. Plus, I couldn’t really pin down the value of sharing a brand with my writing blog (though I’m sure there is one).
I like the sound of RPGRenaissance, but it’s damned hard to spell. I just figured it out last week. It wouldn’t have done well for me to not known how to spell my own blog, would it?
Here were some of my other favorites, in no particular order:
- angrygoblinhorde from Greywulf
- ParagonGamer from Nate-Ball
- TenRanksDM from Arceo
- RoleForInitiative from Patriarch917
- NoHorsesinDND, Boccobsblessedblog, and mordysfaithfulwatchblog from Nevyn
- dispelignorance from Graham
- how-i-role from Geek’s Dream Girl
- RPGDungeonDragonDnD from Sage
- blogofscrying from Noctambulist
- fromthedragonsmouth from Kameron
- LettersFromHommlet from Thomas D
- DnDlicious from Shekaka67
- tavernpostings, attackingthedarkness, and undergroundadventuringsitesandflyingreptilianbeasts.com from Colin
So, there you have it. Again, many thanks to all that participated.
Economics in D&D: A Blast from the Past
(Good evening, all. I realize I still owe you all a post about my thoughts on the naming contest. Unfortunately, paying work has got in the way of goofing off here so far this week. I hope to have something soon. In the meantime, enjoy this post from January of this year. I’ve got a lot of new readers, so please chime in with your thoughts!)
Dante over at stupidranger.com raises some interesting questions today.
Dante’s point, which he makes so well, is that the economics of the D&D world are completely screwed up, primarily by magic items.
Let’s think about it: in our world, if there were wands that could cure diseases instantly, or if there were rings that could make you invisible, they would be the “gold standard” of the economy. Magic, rather than precious metals, would be at the heart of the stock market.
D&D has none of that. Hell, magic items are a regular commodity, as available as leather or wine.
There is another factor to think about in terms of D&D and economics. Just how much gold is there buried in all of those lost dungeons? And how much has been found? Wouldn’t the single dragon’s horde, discovered outside of a small town or village, completely decimate that town’s economy with the influx of all of that cash? Gold in the cities surrounding Myth Drannor would be so devalued as to be almost worthless, considering the thousands of lairs that have been raided.
These aren’t unique questions to D&D, either. The MMORPGs have the same problem, arguably on a much larger scale.
Having said all of that, there is still one question: does it even matter?
I say yes. We strive, as DMs, to provide players with a “realistic” fantasy world: a world that resembles our own in most ways, but has these supernatural, monstrous, and heroic elements. Those are what makes Dungeons and Dragons a fantasy role-playing game. Suspended disbelief.
But, economics? Having a completely unrealistic economic system doesn’t add to the fantasy element any more than having completely unrealistic geographic features adds to it (deserts and tundra can’t co-exist).
What’s the answer, then? Hell if I know. I was a philosophy major in college. But, I do think that there may be something on the horizon that helps: in 4E D&D, they’re talking about fewer magic items. That may be a step in the right direction.
Any professional economists out there who’d like to give it a go? That might even make a decent product for a 3rd-party designer: Economics of the Fantasy World.
Sunday RPG Link Smashup- June 8, 2008
The core 4E books are out, and reactions are starting to spread across the blogosphere. Here are a few of the most interesting articles on 4E That I’ve found this week:
Martin over at Gnome Stew does it again by recounting his first impressions of 4E. Some of the phrases that jump out at me: “Mercifully brief setup” and “Solid simplifications.” You may not may not like the idea of simplification or the rules convergence that leads to simplification, but you can’t deny it’s present in 4E.
photo credit: disavian | Got Links?
I missed Game Day due to the fact that we live waaay out in the middle of nowhere. Fortunately, Chatty’s got a Game Day recap, along with his thoughts about 4E.
The boys over at Critical Hits have a couple of 4E Roundtable discussions worth taking a look at. Among the interesting concepts? Half-elves apparently blow.
Greywulf, who inspired my post on balance the other day, has a compelling final analysis of Core 4E. His take? 4E is a mixed bag, but an improvement.
I even have a couple of non-4E articles for you to check out too.
Ben Overmyer of Silver Gryphon Games has a guest post at Capturing Fantasy on the Four Types of RPG Players. These are the four player archetypes we’ve talked about for years, but Ben’s put them in an interesting context here. There’s also still time to get into the CF launch contest if you haven’t already done so.
Speaking of contests, Yax is giving more stuff away. This time, he’s offering up 3 Forgotten Realms books. Get over there and enter today!
———-
OK, I know I’ve overloaded you with posts today, but I wanted to offer one more thought. Several of us in the gaming blog world use Twitter on a regular basis, and it has proven to be a much more usable tool for me in finding good RPG links than my feed reader. Here are some of the folks I recommend following:
@WritingJourney (That’s me)
@GreyWulf (Um, that’s Greywulf, of course)
@ChattyDM (You know Chatty)
@MenwithPens (from Capturing Fantasy)
@VegasPenMan (Harry from Capturing Fantasy)
If you’re on twitter, feel free to post your ID in the comments to this post.
Tomorrow: Some talk about the new name, and discussion of who almost won. Don’t miss it!
DnDReviews.com is now RPGDigest
Welcome one and all to RPGDigest.com! I trust your trip was a safe one.
Congratulations to InShaneee for suggesting the winning domain name for the new home of DnDReviews.com! Check out the rest of the entries here. InShaneee, if you’re reading this, please shoot me an e-mail so I can get you your prize!
You’ll pardon the dust, of course, while everything settles for a day or two. On Sunday, I’ll have a Link Smashup as always, and on Monday I’ll reveal some of the cool new features that make up RPG Digest. I’ll also let you know what the other top contenders were on Monday.
Stay tuned, and in the meantime go weigh in on the question of Game Balance in Dungeons and Dragons 4E.
photo credit: Poppyseed Bandits
Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
It’s all about balance.
Greywulf had an excellent post up at his Lair today. He offers up some of his thoughts on 4E, and how he sees some of the emerging trends.
Here are a some of the main points he makes:
- Game balance should be secondary to enjoyment of the game.
- 4E is combat-heavy, and has little to offer in the way of role playing.
- Because 4E is combat heavy, the classes have all been adjusted to be balanced in combat.
I agree completely that game balance is secondary. I’d even go as far as to say that game balance is, in some ways, an illusion. D&D isn’t a perfect system, mathematically, and it never will be. In my group especially, I don’t worry about game balance because we’re all friends. No one is going to be jealous of another player because of character abilities.
I don’t, however, agree with the other two points. On the first point, I’ll offer you the comment I left over a the lair:
I’m intrigued by what you’re saying here about 4E being so heavy on combat. To me, Keep on the Shadowfell was impressive the way that it handled the NPC interactions during the “interlude” stages. For the first time in a while, I felt like I really knew the NPCs, and could role-play them effectively without having to re-create them in my own head.
True, Shadowfell was a bit encounter-heavy, but no more so than Demonweb Pits.
So, my experience was totally different that Greywulf’s. Which one of us is right, or most reflects how 4E will be? Hell if I know. Time will tell. But here’s the thing: I believe, firmly, that a rule set can’t encourage good role-playing. That’s up to the people playing the game. A complex ruleset can get in the way of good roleplaying, as can one with social “skill checks” like in 3E. But, like with 3E, there are ways around that.
As to the question of the classes being more closely matched in combat ability, I think what Greywulf and others are seeing is simply rules convergence. This is the idea, very present in 4E, that the classes ought to play in a similar fashion, even if their abilities are vastly different. In other words, differences in classes matter most in flavor, not in mechanics.
I like this. In fact, here’s the other part of what I said at the Lair:
In fact, I’m of a mind that the rules convergence may well prove to be the smartest thing D&D ever did. Think about it: my friend who’s only ever played a paladin because he understands the mechanic can now play anything he wants. That’s a boon to many folks, especially newcomers to the game.
So, what do you all think? Really, there are 2 questions here. First, how important is game balance, if at all? Second, is rules convergence a good thing?
photo credit: SuperFantastic
-
Updates
