I will be in Madison the weekend after labor day. I'm going to be
interviewing for a job at CAE and probably the CSL as well. I'm going
to arrive a little after 5 on Thursday 9/4 and I'll be leaving the
morning of 9/7. My intended plan is to do interviews Friday and look
for potential apartments on Sat, but I'd like to get together with people
too.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Hey! What's that? I think it's the sun!
After what has seemed like two months of continuous rain, it managed to not rain today. I spent about four hours cruising on my bike, which was absolutely glorious. I have been going (more) nuts from not being able to ride from all the rain. It's not going to last though, it's still summer in Florida.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
No GenCon for me
So yeah, I'm not going to be able to make it. Chalk one up to poor planning on my part. I would have like to have seen you guys, but I just can't make it.
And I know I promised to continue my review of 4th ed a month ago, but once I got over being mad about the changes I didn't like I just stopped caring about it entirely. So I make no promises about continuing my review.
Also, it has now rained nearly every day for two months straight. Ugh.
And I know I promised to continue my review of 4th ed a month ago, but once I got over being mad about the changes I didn't like I just stopped caring about it entirely. So I make no promises about continuing my review.
Also, it has now rained nearly every day for two months straight. Ugh.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Must Have!
*lust*
I have signed up for GenCon, now I just need to figure out what I'm going to do...
More D&D 4th ed tonight.
I have signed up for GenCon, now I just need to figure out what I'm going to do...
More D&D 4th ed tonight.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Gen Con
I'm thinking about going to Gen Con again this year, and I'm looking for ideas. Specifically, what might be fun that I can still get into, and what I might try to get into if there are no shows?
Review of D&D 4th ed, part 3
I find my self needing to clarify my opinion again in response to Alan's comment, this time on alignment. Like I said in my first post, I agree that the old alignment system was strained in places, especially keeping NG and CG distinct and deciding exactly what CN meant. My concern is mostly that Lawful Good, Good, undecided, Evil, and Chaotic Evil will look like a continuum to someone who isn't familiar with the old system. They even encourage that point of view in the second paragraph of the CE description. A sentence or two is all it would have taken to say that LG and good can be equally good, differing only on the degree of value placed on lawfulness, and likewise for Evil and CE. I don't know if a newcomer would really view it as a continuum rather than as designed, but they might.
On to chapter 4. Probably the first thing I noticed is that while classes was a fairly modest 35 pages in 3rd ed, it's a whopping 120 in 4th ed. due to the huge number of class specific powers. Paragon paths are essentially a refinement of prestige classes, but since there are only 3-4 per class and you need to pick one, it could be restrictive on viable character concepts. Presumably there will be many more in the future splat books (only $29.25 each). Epic destinies is hurting even worse for options since, of the four available, Archmage is wizard specific and Deadly Trickster may as well be rogue specific.
Powers are by far the biggest new thing in this chapter. I think they are an extremely good thing for casters, since at will and per encounter spells can get a party away from stopping to rest because the Cleric or Wizard is out of spells. Where I think powers went wrong is in using them for all classes. In previous editions a player who was new and learning, or just wanted streamlined options, could play almost any non caster class and be happy. Now every class is as complicated as playing a caster. You're pretty much never going to use a basic attack, so every action means picking from whatever options are available and tracking power usage for every player. I may be thinking it's worse than it really is, and I do think it is a vast improvement for casters, but think it is a negative for non casters.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time pouring over each class since the returning classes are conceptually similar, plus my attention span for reading each power gave out mid Paladin. Overall, classes look more restrictive, in that it is hard to break out of the standard model for a class. I don't think Denia would be possible, and certainly not practical, in 4th ed. I'll miss that flexability.
Cleric is pretty much the same with a little more combat and a lot less healing. I suspect the new limit on adventuring between rests is going to be the Cleric's reduced ability to pour blood back into the Fighter.
Fighter is now pretty much restricted to being an armoured tank. As someone with fond memories of the flexibility of the 3rd ed fighter I see this as a big loss, probably more so in my mind than it is to most anyone else.
Paladin looks similar although the Paladin's Mount appears to be gone. (mmm... Unicorn mount)
Ranger follows the lead of 3.5th ed. with the separate Two Weapon Fighting and Bow paths. There isn't any explicit restriction to one path or the other, but I'm sure splitting feats and powers between the two paths will leave the character relatively weak at high levels.
Rogue is pretty much a rogue, although it looks like the stealth rogue, which is what I think of when I think rogue, is an afterthought. It doesn't really fit either build option. It looks like combat ability has been strongly promoted. Like I said yesterday, I'm not a fan of the striker role emphasizing combat abilities over non-combat abilities.
Warlock is an interesting concept, although pacts seem a little forced in a game where magic is always out there for the taking. Eh, not a big deal by any means. No real surprise that most Warlock spells have a target of one creature since it was placed in the striker role. They don't appear to get Rituals, which isn't a surprise since they are conceptually very different casters than the Cleric and Wizard. The Warlock's paragon path is explicitly dictated by choice of pact at level 1, with one paragon path for each pact. Hopefully they fix this in the splat books.
The Warlord concept feels really out of place to me, being better suited conceptually to leading armies than supporting a small group of heroes. I have to admit I didn't read enough of the powers to have a very good feel for how the class fits mechanically, but it does have some healing powers to fulfill that part of the Cleric's role.
The Wizard's classic abilities got split between powers and rituals, but overall it is the same class. As I said above, at will and encounter powers should make this class a lot less about total spells per day management. The downside is that compared to the massive list of available spells in 3rd ed, there are very few powers and rituals available in 4th ed.
On to Chapter 5 and skills. Compared to 3rd ed, skills in 4th edition are significantly streamlined. Similar skills are grouped into a single skill. Training is either yes or no with a +5 bonus for training, and advancement is mainly by adding in 1/2 character level. As characters level, training is going to become much less significant to the 1/2 character level. Also, any training after 1st level or outside your short class list is going to come at the expense of a feat. The skills themselves are pretty self explanatory. My only complaint is for the physics of jumping. I don't really care about the distances being calculated, but the physics of jumping itself. For a high jump, it doesn't really matter if you have a run up or not, you will jump the same height. This doesn't surprise me all that much since it is a commonly held belief that a run up will give a higher jump. A bigger problem comes in the long jump. The long jump doesn't require that the highest point in the jump be at the center point. In the example they seem to be expecting maximum height at lift off followed by a glide over the pit. Yes, I'm probably being to picky about what are intended to be simple guidelines for a game that isn't about jumping. Other than that nit, the skills themselves look good. The number and grouping is probably right, although I will miss tumble.
Time to start reading again before I can review any more.
On to chapter 4. Probably the first thing I noticed is that while classes was a fairly modest 35 pages in 3rd ed, it's a whopping 120 in 4th ed. due to the huge number of class specific powers. Paragon paths are essentially a refinement of prestige classes, but since there are only 3-4 per class and you need to pick one, it could be restrictive on viable character concepts. Presumably there will be many more in the future splat books (only $29.25 each). Epic destinies is hurting even worse for options since, of the four available, Archmage is wizard specific and Deadly Trickster may as well be rogue specific.
Powers are by far the biggest new thing in this chapter. I think they are an extremely good thing for casters, since at will and per encounter spells can get a party away from stopping to rest because the Cleric or Wizard is out of spells. Where I think powers went wrong is in using them for all classes. In previous editions a player who was new and learning, or just wanted streamlined options, could play almost any non caster class and be happy. Now every class is as complicated as playing a caster. You're pretty much never going to use a basic attack, so every action means picking from whatever options are available and tracking power usage for every player. I may be thinking it's worse than it really is, and I do think it is a vast improvement for casters, but think it is a negative for non casters.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time pouring over each class since the returning classes are conceptually similar, plus my attention span for reading each power gave out mid Paladin. Overall, classes look more restrictive, in that it is hard to break out of the standard model for a class. I don't think Denia would be possible, and certainly not practical, in 4th ed. I'll miss that flexability.
Cleric is pretty much the same with a little more combat and a lot less healing. I suspect the new limit on adventuring between rests is going to be the Cleric's reduced ability to pour blood back into the Fighter.
Fighter is now pretty much restricted to being an armoured tank. As someone with fond memories of the flexibility of the 3rd ed fighter I see this as a big loss, probably more so in my mind than it is to most anyone else.
Paladin looks similar although the Paladin's Mount appears to be gone. (mmm... Unicorn mount)
Ranger follows the lead of 3.5th ed. with the separate Two Weapon Fighting and Bow paths. There isn't any explicit restriction to one path or the other, but I'm sure splitting feats and powers between the two paths will leave the character relatively weak at high levels.
Rogue is pretty much a rogue, although it looks like the stealth rogue, which is what I think of when I think rogue, is an afterthought. It doesn't really fit either build option. It looks like combat ability has been strongly promoted. Like I said yesterday, I'm not a fan of the striker role emphasizing combat abilities over non-combat abilities.
Warlock is an interesting concept, although pacts seem a little forced in a game where magic is always out there for the taking. Eh, not a big deal by any means. No real surprise that most Warlock spells have a target of one creature since it was placed in the striker role. They don't appear to get Rituals, which isn't a surprise since they are conceptually very different casters than the Cleric and Wizard. The Warlock's paragon path is explicitly dictated by choice of pact at level 1, with one paragon path for each pact. Hopefully they fix this in the splat books.
The Warlord concept feels really out of place to me, being better suited conceptually to leading armies than supporting a small group of heroes. I have to admit I didn't read enough of the powers to have a very good feel for how the class fits mechanically, but it does have some healing powers to fulfill that part of the Cleric's role.
The Wizard's classic abilities got split between powers and rituals, but overall it is the same class. As I said above, at will and encounter powers should make this class a lot less about total spells per day management. The downside is that compared to the massive list of available spells in 3rd ed, there are very few powers and rituals available in 4th ed.
On to Chapter 5 and skills. Compared to 3rd ed, skills in 4th edition are significantly streamlined. Similar skills are grouped into a single skill. Training is either yes or no with a +5 bonus for training, and advancement is mainly by adding in 1/2 character level. As characters level, training is going to become much less significant to the 1/2 character level. Also, any training after 1st level or outside your short class list is going to come at the expense of a feat. The skills themselves are pretty self explanatory. My only complaint is for the physics of jumping. I don't really care about the distances being calculated, but the physics of jumping itself. For a high jump, it doesn't really matter if you have a run up or not, you will jump the same height. This doesn't surprise me all that much since it is a commonly held belief that a run up will give a higher jump. A bigger problem comes in the long jump. The long jump doesn't require that the highest point in the jump be at the center point. In the example they seem to be expecting maximum height at lift off followed by a glide over the pit. Yes, I'm probably being to picky about what are intended to be simple guidelines for a game that isn't about jumping. Other than that nit, the skills themselves look good. The number and grouping is probably right, although I will miss tumble.
Time to start reading again before I can review any more.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
D&D 4th Ed, part 2
I'd like to go back to Character role from chapter 2 before dealing with races. My previous post was pretty much just a howl of outrage without really dealing with why. I'll give a pass on defender, I don't really think of that role in that way, and they ignore the cross role ability of the ranger, warlord and even cleric, but close enough. Controller also seems misnamed to me, but I can't think of a better name. Presumably "nuke it from orbit" was deemed insufficiently fantasy. The real problems with how role are presented starts with striker completely ignoring the non-combat importance of stealth. We are role playing after all, not roll playing. Calling the healer/support group the Leader really seems like they were trying to justify the Warlord's existence and thinking no one will want to play a character who's role is called support. They even acknowledge the potential confusion with the spokesperson non-combat role, but use the term anyway. Like I said, it just seems like much of this was taken way to seriously.
Enough on that, on to Chapter 3. I'll try to keep it shorter with less poo flinging, but no promises. I can only think dragonborn made it in one of two ways. One is to totally pander to people who liked playing half dragons, the other is as a feature of yet another new campaign setting at the expense of older settings. I haven't seen anything about Grayhawk or DragonLance for 4th ed, so presumably they are out of favor again. There's bunches of Forgotten Realms stuff in the pipeline already. Maybe they are yet another super powerful race in the Realms banished in ancient times and now coming back to restore their empire no matter what the current occupants of that land think. Str +2, Cha +2, so that means balance is out the window. That will make humans interesting. Dwarves are still dwarves. Another new race, Eladrin. They're mostly elves with a shiny new back story. I thought 3rd ed's handling of sub races in the Monster Manual was good enough, but whatever. Elves are elves, although they are fey now instead of humanoid. Half-elves are half-elves. Halflings are halflings, although not having a homeland of their own is a bit of a demotion. Humans are pretty much the same as 3rd ed. Only +2 in a single skill, but it's the character's choice. Bonus power, bonus skill, bonus feat, +1 to Fort, Reflex, and Will. Tiefling is an odd choice of new race since they go to so much trouble to stress that characters should be good. Aasimar didn't make the cut, and would make more sense. Both Dragonborn and Tiefling seem odd as new core races since both are supposed to be rare. Oh well, if it made sense it wouldn't be D&D.
oops, time for Simpsons. More ranting later.
Enough on that, on to Chapter 3. I'll try to keep it shorter with less poo flinging, but no promises. I can only think dragonborn made it in one of two ways. One is to totally pander to people who liked playing half dragons, the other is as a feature of yet another new campaign setting at the expense of older settings. I haven't seen anything about Grayhawk or DragonLance for 4th ed, so presumably they are out of favor again. There's bunches of Forgotten Realms stuff in the pipeline already. Maybe they are yet another super powerful race in the Realms banished in ancient times and now coming back to restore their empire no matter what the current occupants of that land think. Str +2, Cha +2, so that means balance is out the window. That will make humans interesting. Dwarves are still dwarves. Another new race, Eladrin. They're mostly elves with a shiny new back story. I thought 3rd ed's handling of sub races in the Monster Manual was good enough, but whatever. Elves are elves, although they are fey now instead of humanoid. Half-elves are half-elves. Halflings are halflings, although not having a homeland of their own is a bit of a demotion. Humans are pretty much the same as 3rd ed. Only +2 in a single skill, but it's the character's choice. Bonus power, bonus skill, bonus feat, +1 to Fort, Reflex, and Will. Tiefling is an odd choice of new race since they go to so much trouble to stress that characters should be good. Aasimar didn't make the cut, and would make more sense. Both Dragonborn and Tiefling seem odd as new core races since both are supposed to be rare. Oh well, if it made sense it wouldn't be D&D.
oops, time for Simpsons. More ranting later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
