Scientology may be a load of bull, but it certainly points out an interesting bit of logic. Following the viewpoints of a book, however true you may be believe the content to be, is not necessarily the most intelligent way to form a religion.
It seems to me that whatever supreme being looks down on the Earth as a god would place down Scientology amongst us with just such a lesson in mind. Many of the things that are described as happening in the Bible are just as alien, foreign, and simply unbelievable as the things Scientology claims to have happened. Not that I've read about this other "religion" mind you, but I've heard some things about it.
I suppose some people would simply say it was the work of the devil, rather than of god, but I've always taken the belief that a god would encompass both the good and the bad of existence, rather than be intrinsically good. Neutrality, as it were. Balance is, after all, a major deciding factor in the universe.
5/23/2009
5/18/2009
My One Big Beef with 4th Ed D&D
All right, I know I said in a previous post that I disliked the apparent lack of benefits for dual-wielding. My main problem is that, in 3e, any class could dual-wield, with the right feats. It was even possible to dual-wield crossbows, though you couldn't reload them without a free hand. In 4e, only certain classes benefit from it. Namely, the Fighter (if he takes Tempest Technique, and really only with light weapons) and the Ranger. You don't see Rogues with two daggers, or Swordmages running around with two enchanted swords. They also frown upon dual-wielding anything that isn't a light weapon, in general. One of the few things about WoW that I find rather clever, is that Warriors, (by taking the very final Talent, Titan Grip, in the Fury spec tree), can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. This allows them to grab a shield as well, or wield two two-handed weapons. Imagine dual-wielding Greataxes! I think it would be fun, in D&D, if there were level 30 Fighters who could do the same thing, or if anybody could, with the right feat.
I honestly find this all a limiting factor in 4th Ed, and wish dual-wielding was a bit more flexible so that any class using a melee weapon could have the option. And so you weren't so limited in weapon options, either.
But that's not the thing that really annoys me. I can work past that, and just list it as a minor complaint. The game works perfectly fine as is.
What really annoys me is the skills system. Now, I want to get this straight: I really do like 4th Edition, and if it's up to me, I will always pick it over 3rd. I love the combat system, and I always focused on combat in 3rd anyways.
The skill system of 4th Edition, however, feels totally wrong to me. Let me explain the differences, for skills, between the two editions.
In 3rd, you would get skill points based on your Intelligence, and you could spend those points into any skill you wished. Class skills cost 1 point to rank up, whereas cross-class skills would cost 2, thus causing you to need to choose your skills wisely. Whether it was in a Knowledge skill, or a Craft skill, or the stealthy skills, or Bluff, even Jump, you could become quite...well...skilled, in any skill you wanted to fit to your character. Every class was even more customizable than their combat skills, feats, or spells, allowed. For example, one Rogue might be a master of Bluff, Disguise, and Diplomacy, beguiling their way through fights that could otherwise prove certain death. Another rogue might instead choose to be a master of traps and picking locks, as well as stealth, so that they can scout ahead in the dungeons and clear the way for the rest of the group. There are many such examples among the other classes, and some classes had more skill points than others. Sorcerers would often be skilled in Diplomacy and Bluff because of high Charisma, but they could just as easily choose other skills, (Spellcraft and Concentration were certainly quite important to spellcasters).
In 4th, there are no skill points. Instead, every class starts with a number of skills they are "trained" in from among their class skills. Class skills only limit your choice at this first level, so beyond character creation, you can forget about it. You can grab the feat Skill Training to further increase your skills, but you can only get trained in a skill once, (that is, you can't take it twice for Thievery. You can get the feat for ALL your skills if you want, one skill at a time). All this skill training does is give you a +5 on your skill. So throughout all 30 of your levels, you only get to add +5 to any skill, if you choose to take the feat, (or if you chose that as a trained skill at 1st level).
After that, there are only two factors that increase your skill check bonus: your level, and your ability modifiers. Oh yes, it's been simplified like crazy. To determine your skill check bonus you add the ability modifier for that skill, 1/2 your level, and then +5 if you have training in it.
This seems like a good thing at first. Everything is simplified. You don't need to spend a long time choosing your skills when you gain levels, and your party isn't screwed when you don't have a Rogue. Wonderful concept.
So why do I hate this system? It's quite simple. At 30th level, a Fighter will have at least 15 ranks in Thievery, without ever having to specifically train in it. Then you can add the Dex modifier. I should point out that some Fighters will actually have a nice Dex modifier, especially if they're a Tempest Fighter, (because they typically wear light armor or chainmail). This means that, not counting the Dex modifier, (which is never going to be an insanely large gap by itself), a Rogue will only be better at Thievery than any other class by 5 ranks.
So then what is the point of bringing a Rogue? In 4th Ed, the entire choice between classes is now their abilities in combat. No longer is a Rogue's trap-handling skills a major factor in class selection and party make-up. You can have the Fighter do his job!
You can say the same thing for the Arcana skill, or the Bluff skill, the Nature skill...etc.
Some people will argue, "Well the Thievery skill is a broad term. Whereas the Rogue would pick at the lock with his tools, a Fighter will just smash it, or a Wizard would cast a spell to open it." Yes, your logic is clever, and it sounds nice. But the skill is called Thievery for a reason folks! It's not just disabling traps and opening locks in the dungeons. It's all about being an expert thief. Sleight of Hand and Pick Pocket are included in the general skill of Thievery. That line of logic, presented in the quotes above, just sounds like a cheap excuse to make it work, rather than working to find a better way.
"Oh, but with the Fighter watching the Rogue work through so many adventures, he must have picked up a few tricks!" No. This assumes that there is a Rogue in the party to begin with, for starters. Second: Your TV repair man, the cable guy, the computer repair guy, the plumber, the electrician...and any other such professional you hire? You don't pick up their trade by watching them work. Most of the time, you may not even be able to reproduce their solution for your specific problem, if it pops up again, because it would require a higher level of understanding and training. Sometimes people will attempt to pick up their trade like this, and it only leads to accidents about the home, shoddy jobs, and similar results.
A Fighter deciding to try his hand at disabling a trap is like you deciding to rewire your TV to pick up better reception because you saw the TV repair guy fix it the other day. The Fighter is just as likely to set off the trap and kill himself (and his companions) as you are to electrocute yourself.
I'm hoping that WotC will realize this flaw with their skill system in 4th Ed, but it's rather unlikely. Either I'm going to have to live with this, or I'm going to have to try and get my D&D groups to homebrew it so that we use the old 3rd Ed skills setup. Of course, I want to keep the streamlining of the skills in 4th Ed, (Thievery including disable trap, open lock, pick pocket, and sleight of hand, for example), so it would need fine-tuning and perhaps mean that we get less skill points. But I think it would be worth it.
I couldn't care less about Craft and Profession being removed. Item creation seems a little too easy to me, as well, but it's not an aspect of the game I ever became particularly enchanted with. I always found better items by going through the adventures and the dungeons, so item creation felt pointless. Plus, you feel a sense of pride in retelling the story of how you acquired your fancy magical sword by killing a drow weapon-master in single combat, rather than telling somebody that you made it yourself. Or that you bought it.
I honestly find this all a limiting factor in 4th Ed, and wish dual-wielding was a bit more flexible so that any class using a melee weapon could have the option. And so you weren't so limited in weapon options, either.
But that's not the thing that really annoys me. I can work past that, and just list it as a minor complaint. The game works perfectly fine as is.
What really annoys me is the skills system. Now, I want to get this straight: I really do like 4th Edition, and if it's up to me, I will always pick it over 3rd. I love the combat system, and I always focused on combat in 3rd anyways.
The skill system of 4th Edition, however, feels totally wrong to me. Let me explain the differences, for skills, between the two editions.
In 3rd, you would get skill points based on your Intelligence, and you could spend those points into any skill you wished. Class skills cost 1 point to rank up, whereas cross-class skills would cost 2, thus causing you to need to choose your skills wisely. Whether it was in a Knowledge skill, or a Craft skill, or the stealthy skills, or Bluff, even Jump, you could become quite...well...skilled, in any skill you wanted to fit to your character. Every class was even more customizable than their combat skills, feats, or spells, allowed. For example, one Rogue might be a master of Bluff, Disguise, and Diplomacy, beguiling their way through fights that could otherwise prove certain death. Another rogue might instead choose to be a master of traps and picking locks, as well as stealth, so that they can scout ahead in the dungeons and clear the way for the rest of the group. There are many such examples among the other classes, and some classes had more skill points than others. Sorcerers would often be skilled in Diplomacy and Bluff because of high Charisma, but they could just as easily choose other skills, (Spellcraft and Concentration were certainly quite important to spellcasters).
In 4th, there are no skill points. Instead, every class starts with a number of skills they are "trained" in from among their class skills. Class skills only limit your choice at this first level, so beyond character creation, you can forget about it. You can grab the feat Skill Training to further increase your skills, but you can only get trained in a skill once, (that is, you can't take it twice for Thievery. You can get the feat for ALL your skills if you want, one skill at a time). All this skill training does is give you a +5 on your skill. So throughout all 30 of your levels, you only get to add +5 to any skill, if you choose to take the feat, (or if you chose that as a trained skill at 1st level).
After that, there are only two factors that increase your skill check bonus: your level, and your ability modifiers. Oh yes, it's been simplified like crazy. To determine your skill check bonus you add the ability modifier for that skill, 1/2 your level, and then +5 if you have training in it.
This seems like a good thing at first. Everything is simplified. You don't need to spend a long time choosing your skills when you gain levels, and your party isn't screwed when you don't have a Rogue. Wonderful concept.
So why do I hate this system? It's quite simple. At 30th level, a Fighter will have at least 15 ranks in Thievery, without ever having to specifically train in it. Then you can add the Dex modifier. I should point out that some Fighters will actually have a nice Dex modifier, especially if they're a Tempest Fighter, (because they typically wear light armor or chainmail). This means that, not counting the Dex modifier, (which is never going to be an insanely large gap by itself), a Rogue will only be better at Thievery than any other class by 5 ranks.
So then what is the point of bringing a Rogue? In 4th Ed, the entire choice between classes is now their abilities in combat. No longer is a Rogue's trap-handling skills a major factor in class selection and party make-up. You can have the Fighter do his job!
You can say the same thing for the Arcana skill, or the Bluff skill, the Nature skill...etc.
Some people will argue, "Well the Thievery skill is a broad term. Whereas the Rogue would pick at the lock with his tools, a Fighter will just smash it, or a Wizard would cast a spell to open it." Yes, your logic is clever, and it sounds nice. But the skill is called Thievery for a reason folks! It's not just disabling traps and opening locks in the dungeons. It's all about being an expert thief. Sleight of Hand and Pick Pocket are included in the general skill of Thievery. That line of logic, presented in the quotes above, just sounds like a cheap excuse to make it work, rather than working to find a better way.
"Oh, but with the Fighter watching the Rogue work through so many adventures, he must have picked up a few tricks!" No. This assumes that there is a Rogue in the party to begin with, for starters. Second: Your TV repair man, the cable guy, the computer repair guy, the plumber, the electrician...and any other such professional you hire? You don't pick up their trade by watching them work. Most of the time, you may not even be able to reproduce their solution for your specific problem, if it pops up again, because it would require a higher level of understanding and training. Sometimes people will attempt to pick up their trade like this, and it only leads to accidents about the home, shoddy jobs, and similar results.
A Fighter deciding to try his hand at disabling a trap is like you deciding to rewire your TV to pick up better reception because you saw the TV repair guy fix it the other day. The Fighter is just as likely to set off the trap and kill himself (and his companions) as you are to electrocute yourself.
I'm hoping that WotC will realize this flaw with their skill system in 4th Ed, but it's rather unlikely. Either I'm going to have to live with this, or I'm going to have to try and get my D&D groups to homebrew it so that we use the old 3rd Ed skills setup. Of course, I want to keep the streamlining of the skills in 4th Ed, (Thievery including disable trap, open lock, pick pocket, and sleight of hand, for example), so it would need fine-tuning and perhaps mean that we get less skill points. But I think it would be worth it.
I couldn't care less about Craft and Profession being removed. Item creation seems a little too easy to me, as well, but it's not an aspect of the game I ever became particularly enchanted with. I always found better items by going through the adventures and the dungeons, so item creation felt pointless. Plus, you feel a sense of pride in retelling the story of how you acquired your fancy magical sword by killing a drow weapon-master in single combat, rather than telling somebody that you made it yourself. Or that you bought it.
5/12/2009
I hate big decisions
Everybody has choices to make in their life...but it seems that several choices have been laid before me, after spending so much time thinking about what I want to accomplish, and how to accomplish it. I have discarded many, added some of mine, missed some entirely due to hesitation. And life goes on, while I stagnate, trying to make a decision.
I don't want to say what the choices are, not just yet...I'm not entirely comfortable with telling people even what I want to do, let alone discussing how I could do it, because I feel like most of the people in my life have wanted me to turn away and give up. And while I understand the reasoning behind the advice, while I can see that it is one way to approach my situation and still enjoy life...I just can't say that it's the way I would enjoy. And, frankly...a certain person doesn't want me to let go, either. That guarantees that I would regret my decision, if I did. I don't like to give up, and I'm stubborn as a mule. I think Liz finds this annoying, but I'm not sure.
And it's more than that I want this particular goal...more than that I need to achieve it, or something similar to it, for what I want out of life. But the other person involved wants, maybe even needs, me to achieve this goal as well. Since it's impossible to know the future, neither of us can say how things will turn out. The best we can do is to go with what feels right, and hope that the gods didn't see fit to give us a broken instinct.
But that's not what is bugging me. It's the how that's bugging me, more than the what. And I am seeing too many options to be able to decide if one way would work better than another.
How often in life have you made a truly life-changing decision. And I mean the kind of decision that really completely changed where you would end up in life. Not just "Oh, should I date that person or this person?" or "Which college should I pick?" because those don't cause you completely miss out and lose something from your life, in return for something else. Whichever college you picked, you still went to college, you still worked towards your degree as hard as you would have at the other one. Whichever person you dated, you still dated somebody, and you still ended up having a great or a terrible time, and you still ended up taking things to the next step with one specific person eventually. Neither decision really changes all that much about where your life goes, and there's a million choices like that in our lives.
But what about the big ones? I don't want to give away my thoughts on this just yet. I'm not so comfortable doing so, especially with certain people in my household having access to this blog. But I can assure you this is one of the bigger decisions, because depending on which I choose...it will lead to a drastic change in my life, including a change of locale. It would mean leaving what I have known for my whole life and abandoning it for good. It does include a choice of college, but that's not the important part, because the choice here, if I think only about my career, is obvious.
But...would I be happy, prioritizing my career in making my choice? Does the road to happiness truly focus entirely on a successful job, and making lots of money?
I have friends who are now married, even having kids, and they're no older than me. Sometimes a bit younger. On the one hand, I bet they are very happy with their lives. I know I'm not happy with where I am, especially considering that I've done some back-stepping. I want to go back to moving forward. But even if I HAD been moving forward all this time, most of my old friends are going through their lives far faster than I would have. And I have to wonder...not so much who would have been happier, or who is happier. But I have to wonder if it's really worth it all, to rush through life, as society is pushing us to do, and to take the designated path. Specifically the path that my parents are believing I should take. (I should add that I almost automatically throw out any life choice that originates from them)
It doesn't help that I've read novels where boys become men at around the age of 16, whereas in modern society, we are considered men at 18 and don't drink until 21. That I've read about 15-year-old boys marching off to war, being called the King in the North, and routing entire armies with their strategems. Reading about how intellectual they are, about how charismatic and strong-willed they are, at such a young age.
Granted, these is fiction that I'm reading. But I look around me...and though it's not on the same level, I see people of those younger age groups as sometimes being quite intelligent. To the point that I feel envious, and wish I'd been like them at their age. I see people that I once considered my peers years ahead of me, making all the "right" choices and certainly being happy with how their lives are going. In places I hadn't imagined myself for another half a decade, give or take a year. Am I maybe setting my milestones to cautiously? I look to people who are younger than me, and think...that they're very close to where I am, mentally, spiritually, intellectually. Maybe not as far as society is concerned...I've been to college, they haven't. But I think you see where I'm getting at: I feel slow. And I can't help but hate it, though I know it's silly to do so.
Sometimes, when you really want something...you have to risk things for it....you have to struggle against hardship, and struggle through whatever pain may come along the way. Is something really worth acquiring if you don't have to fight for it? Do I want to give up the easier road, the safer road...admittedly the slower road...or do I want to take so long to get somewhere, that my destination no longer exists?
I guess this is about setting my priorities straight. And I can't help but think that the perfect job, the perfect path towards getting the job that you want...isn't what should be top priority. Is your job, financial security, what life is about? Is putting career first really the way a person should want to live his life?
I know people who gave up working, gave up their career, in order to help care for the family. To help raise the kids, and be there for them in every way possible. It's still working, it's just different. And I see people who made the opposite choice, though often for a lot of the same reasons. And I wonder if there even is a right choice.
I've made tough choices before. One of the toughest I ever made was to move back in with my parents, when I realized I was headed to financial ruin, with no way to stop it on my own. Not while having to pay for rent, food, and transportation all at once. Not while lacking my own car. I look back at the choice NOW, and see that I did have the option of staying, but it would have meant to struggle and fight, to make some sacrifices, to push myself forward along a path strewn with rubble and sharp rocks. Did I mention that you walk through life barefoot? It's true.
I can honestly say now that I regret not having taken that harder road. But does that mean one choice was wrong, and the other right? I don't think I made the wrong choice. I just think I should have made the other choice, cause I would have felt better about the choice. That doesn't mean the choice I did make was wrong...just different.
I am cursed, as I see it, with the ability to see things from beyond my own viewpoint. I can put myself in your shoes, and understand why you believe what you believe. Why you did what you did. Rather than just saying to myself, "I would never do that," I see why YOU did it, and can agree it was a good choice for you.
As a result of this, it is easy for me to see the differences between tough choices and agree with both of them. Such as the example above that most mothers are forced to make: family vs job. I can understand both choices, and see the good in both choices. I don't see either one has inherently right, or wrong. Just different. And both lead to good things AND bad things, in different ways. If presented with that choice myself, if I were a father needing to make that choice, I don't know which I would make.
And so in the choices I have laid out before me, as the paths I can take to move forward, rather than continuing to stagnate, I can see the good in either decision. And I don't know which "benefit" I really want to go with. I already know what my own family would say, because they are decidedly close-minded and narrow in thought. I already know what my closer friends would say, because I know they want what's best for me, and don't want me to risk losing everything...what little that "everything" represents, at least.
But in the end, what matters is what I say...because it's my life choice, and it changes the way I will live my life. The problem is...I don't know what to say to myself. While I certainly do listen to what other people have to say, I can't seem to decide what it is that I say...and I don't want to blindly pick a road. I was educated to do better than that.
What it may come down to in the end, is which decision I would regret the most. Though many of you may not like to hear it, I think I would regret the riskier choice the most. It's a choice even bigger than deciding to move back in with my parents....cause this new choice involves reversing the old one. Involves finally moving back out, something I've wanted from day one.
Heh...people say you do crazy things when you're in love. Are they inherently bad things, though? Or just illogical?
I don't want to say what the choices are, not just yet...I'm not entirely comfortable with telling people even what I want to do, let alone discussing how I could do it, because I feel like most of the people in my life have wanted me to turn away and give up. And while I understand the reasoning behind the advice, while I can see that it is one way to approach my situation and still enjoy life...I just can't say that it's the way I would enjoy. And, frankly...a certain person doesn't want me to let go, either. That guarantees that I would regret my decision, if I did. I don't like to give up, and I'm stubborn as a mule. I think Liz finds this annoying, but I'm not sure.
And it's more than that I want this particular goal...more than that I need to achieve it, or something similar to it, for what I want out of life. But the other person involved wants, maybe even needs, me to achieve this goal as well. Since it's impossible to know the future, neither of us can say how things will turn out. The best we can do is to go with what feels right, and hope that the gods didn't see fit to give us a broken instinct.
But that's not what is bugging me. It's the how that's bugging me, more than the what. And I am seeing too many options to be able to decide if one way would work better than another.
How often in life have you made a truly life-changing decision. And I mean the kind of decision that really completely changed where you would end up in life. Not just "Oh, should I date that person or this person?" or "Which college should I pick?" because those don't cause you completely miss out and lose something from your life, in return for something else. Whichever college you picked, you still went to college, you still worked towards your degree as hard as you would have at the other one. Whichever person you dated, you still dated somebody, and you still ended up having a great or a terrible time, and you still ended up taking things to the next step with one specific person eventually. Neither decision really changes all that much about where your life goes, and there's a million choices like that in our lives.
But what about the big ones? I don't want to give away my thoughts on this just yet. I'm not so comfortable doing so, especially with certain people in my household having access to this blog. But I can assure you this is one of the bigger decisions, because depending on which I choose...it will lead to a drastic change in my life, including a change of locale. It would mean leaving what I have known for my whole life and abandoning it for good. It does include a choice of college, but that's not the important part, because the choice here, if I think only about my career, is obvious.
But...would I be happy, prioritizing my career in making my choice? Does the road to happiness truly focus entirely on a successful job, and making lots of money?
I have friends who are now married, even having kids, and they're no older than me. Sometimes a bit younger. On the one hand, I bet they are very happy with their lives. I know I'm not happy with where I am, especially considering that I've done some back-stepping. I want to go back to moving forward. But even if I HAD been moving forward all this time, most of my old friends are going through their lives far faster than I would have. And I have to wonder...not so much who would have been happier, or who is happier. But I have to wonder if it's really worth it all, to rush through life, as society is pushing us to do, and to take the designated path. Specifically the path that my parents are believing I should take. (I should add that I almost automatically throw out any life choice that originates from them)
It doesn't help that I've read novels where boys become men at around the age of 16, whereas in modern society, we are considered men at 18 and don't drink until 21. That I've read about 15-year-old boys marching off to war, being called the King in the North, and routing entire armies with their strategems. Reading about how intellectual they are, about how charismatic and strong-willed they are, at such a young age.
Granted, these is fiction that I'm reading. But I look around me...and though it's not on the same level, I see people of those younger age groups as sometimes being quite intelligent. To the point that I feel envious, and wish I'd been like them at their age. I see people that I once considered my peers years ahead of me, making all the "right" choices and certainly being happy with how their lives are going. In places I hadn't imagined myself for another half a decade, give or take a year. Am I maybe setting my milestones to cautiously? I look to people who are younger than me, and think...that they're very close to where I am, mentally, spiritually, intellectually. Maybe not as far as society is concerned...I've been to college, they haven't. But I think you see where I'm getting at: I feel slow. And I can't help but hate it, though I know it's silly to do so.
Sometimes, when you really want something...you have to risk things for it....you have to struggle against hardship, and struggle through whatever pain may come along the way. Is something really worth acquiring if you don't have to fight for it? Do I want to give up the easier road, the safer road...admittedly the slower road...or do I want to take so long to get somewhere, that my destination no longer exists?
I guess this is about setting my priorities straight. And I can't help but think that the perfect job, the perfect path towards getting the job that you want...isn't what should be top priority. Is your job, financial security, what life is about? Is putting career first really the way a person should want to live his life?
I know people who gave up working, gave up their career, in order to help care for the family. To help raise the kids, and be there for them in every way possible. It's still working, it's just different. And I see people who made the opposite choice, though often for a lot of the same reasons. And I wonder if there even is a right choice.
I've made tough choices before. One of the toughest I ever made was to move back in with my parents, when I realized I was headed to financial ruin, with no way to stop it on my own. Not while having to pay for rent, food, and transportation all at once. Not while lacking my own car. I look back at the choice NOW, and see that I did have the option of staying, but it would have meant to struggle and fight, to make some sacrifices, to push myself forward along a path strewn with rubble and sharp rocks. Did I mention that you walk through life barefoot? It's true.
I can honestly say now that I regret not having taken that harder road. But does that mean one choice was wrong, and the other right? I don't think I made the wrong choice. I just think I should have made the other choice, cause I would have felt better about the choice. That doesn't mean the choice I did make was wrong...just different.
I am cursed, as I see it, with the ability to see things from beyond my own viewpoint. I can put myself in your shoes, and understand why you believe what you believe. Why you did what you did. Rather than just saying to myself, "I would never do that," I see why YOU did it, and can agree it was a good choice for you.
As a result of this, it is easy for me to see the differences between tough choices and agree with both of them. Such as the example above that most mothers are forced to make: family vs job. I can understand both choices, and see the good in both choices. I don't see either one has inherently right, or wrong. Just different. And both lead to good things AND bad things, in different ways. If presented with that choice myself, if I were a father needing to make that choice, I don't know which I would make.
And so in the choices I have laid out before me, as the paths I can take to move forward, rather than continuing to stagnate, I can see the good in either decision. And I don't know which "benefit" I really want to go with. I already know what my own family would say, because they are decidedly close-minded and narrow in thought. I already know what my closer friends would say, because I know they want what's best for me, and don't want me to risk losing everything...what little that "everything" represents, at least.
But in the end, what matters is what I say...because it's my life choice, and it changes the way I will live my life. The problem is...I don't know what to say to myself. While I certainly do listen to what other people have to say, I can't seem to decide what it is that I say...and I don't want to blindly pick a road. I was educated to do better than that.
What it may come down to in the end, is which decision I would regret the most. Though many of you may not like to hear it, I think I would regret the riskier choice the most. It's a choice even bigger than deciding to move back in with my parents....cause this new choice involves reversing the old one. Involves finally moving back out, something I've wanted from day one.
Heh...people say you do crazy things when you're in love. Are they inherently bad things, though? Or just illogical?
5/11/2009
D&D 4e: Why Powers System Works (And a small addition to the last rant)
I had noticed online a random suggestion, from a random person I don't know, another use for healing surges: to spend an amount of them to regain the use of an encounter or daily power.
At first, many people might think this to be a good thing. You get to use your most powerful spells more often. That's exciting! And it works well, because you expend a limited resource to get your powers back.
Or so you think. Hold up for a moment, you D&D 4e fans out there, before you get excited about this idea, and let's talk about why the powers system works well, and why it is capable of replacing the old 3e system of spells.
Vancian spell-casting works well for a specific reason: you have a limited supply of spells. This causes you to cast your spells more strategically, and to actually think carefully about your next move. This is the way spell-casters are *supposed* to think, or at least how people perceive they should think. They're supposed to have higher intelligence, and thus be smarter than your average fighter. So they are supposed to think ahead about the battle, in much the way a skilled chess player imagines the next dozen or so moves of play. Sorcerers aren't quite like that, of course, because they use in-born magic talent, but this was portrayed through the old 3e system of spontaneous casting (and high Charisma).
The new 4e system, (using powers that are limited to encounters, once per day, or once per round), works for the same specific reason: you have a limited supply of abilities. It's just *less* limited, and now we're able to apply it to everything, not just spells! In fact, I dare say, 4e is STILL using the Vancian spell-casting system, if you look at it hard enough. How else do you explain what happens with your daily attack powers? You forgot it. It isn't expressed that way in the D&D books anymore, cause it makes you sound like a lackwit. It's merely stated that those powers are so powerful that they exhaust your mind and body, and thus they can only be used after an extended rest. But that's just a fancy way of saying that you forget your daily powers once you use them. Technically, all the old spells were daily attack powers, every single one!
And so using a healing surge to regain the use of an encounter/daily attack power is a bad idea, and severely unbalances the system. Granted, you can do this with action points, (using certain Paragon Paths and Epic Destines), but action points are much more annoying to acquire, and you have to give up your extended rest, (which recharges your encounter/daily powers and your healing surges), in order to get more than one each day. Thus doing this with action points isn't so bad. Doing this with healing surges, on the other hand, turns D&D into an MMO, (which I thought D&Ders don't want!). It turns a healing surge into the equivalent of a mana point.
This is the main thing that differentiates D&D and MMO games. In an MMO, you DO have limited resources...but you can spam your most powerful spell all you want, at least until you run out of mana. In D&D, you don't really spam anything. Okay, I admit, you spam your At-Will Attack Power. I would hope, of course, you don't; I would prefer that you utilize ALL your attack powers, choosing whichever one would best fit whatever situation you happen to be in. But you don't spam your most powerful abilities. You can't! Because you can only cast them once per day. Or once per encounter, as the case may be.
This means that you don't have as much strategy in an MMO. This is why WoW PvP has always been so open to casual gamers: it requires no real amount of thought. You don't need to be a genius to totally "pwn" your enemy. This is also why I had always enjoyed raiding more than I did PvP: it involved tactics and strategy.
In D&D you have to think about how to apply your resources. 4e has basically made only a small change. Instead of spamming your basic attack repeatedly, in the case of people who attack with weapons, you will more likely use your at-will powers repeatedly, and choose from encounter/daily powers for more strategic applications. You might knock your enemy prone, you might force them to move into a different square, you might blind or stun them.
In the case of a caster, you now have the option of using a repeatable ability every turn; in 3e, casters didn't really have that option so much, unless you were a Sorcerer. Why else do you think Sorcerer was more popular than Wizard? At least, it was in my book, and I doubt most people disagreed with my opinion on which was better. I HATED having to prepare your spells each day. I never played a Cleric because of this; I always used the Favored Soul instead. Anyways, this allows casters to retain their strategic application and wide variety of spells, while giving them something that is repeatable, when they're in a certain kind of mood that day.
This also allows for different playing styles to emerge within each class! You might be a Wizard and use your Encounter/Daily powers often, controlling the enemy ranks as strategically as you can, and truly you would rarely use your at-will powers. This means your party will need to rest more, or else not utilize you to your full potential, but it's certainly a playing style that would still be effective.
But you might also prefer the ease-of-use with at-will attack powers instead. You might not think quite so much about how to set up the positions of your enemy just right for your party. Or maybe you just hate the limited nature of Encounter/Daily powers, and hoard them like a packrat for emergency use. (I do this with curative items in console RPGs: I often go through entire Final Fantasy games without once using the limited supply of Ethers, because I'll be worried I will direly need one. But at the same time, I will often let myself die, instead of giving the cleric an ether so he can heal the group. Backfired logic, for shame!) Whatever the reason, you're essentially always using At-will powers, and never using the powers that make you more versatile.
The second option isn't necessarily an ineffective way to play your Wizard, it's just a different way. And you can now have these alternatives with a Fighter, or a Rogue, or a Monk. Whereas before, those classes were all fairly simple to play, now more thought can be applied to them. Especially Fighter. It is rare to find a D&D player who did not get bored with the hack-and-slash Fighter.
On the flip side, you can no longer, as a Wizard, memorize Fireball half a dozen times, and then memorize a lower spell-level of it for each lower spell slot that you were able to. Wizards COULD spam spells: if that was the only spell they have.
You can't do that with Daily Attack Powers, (not without action points), for which I am quite glad.
Maybe it's this specific aspect of the game, that make people cry about D&D being like an MMO: the fact that you can now "spam" abilities.
The irony is, you always could spam them. Wizards could prepare a Fireball multiple times. In fact, they most certainly did. They gave up spell slots and their advantage of variety to spam it. Sorcerers gave things up, too. But they gave up their spell uses per day, rather than the spell itself.
Fighters were all about spamming in 3e. How many times did the Fighter attack monster X with his sword in a specific battle? I lose count. That's spam if I ever tasted it.
The only thing 4e did was allow spell-casters to spam, and let Fighters stop spamming. Is this regime change, this freedom of choice, really such a bad thing?
It's not like an MMO. The whole point of this wasn't to allow wizards to spam Fireball. The whole point of this was to give all classes more options. You now have the option to spam as a Wizard. You now have the option to not spam as a Fighter.
...and isn't options what everybody wants in D&D?
At first, many people might think this to be a good thing. You get to use your most powerful spells more often. That's exciting! And it works well, because you expend a limited resource to get your powers back.
Or so you think. Hold up for a moment, you D&D 4e fans out there, before you get excited about this idea, and let's talk about why the powers system works well, and why it is capable of replacing the old 3e system of spells.
Vancian spell-casting works well for a specific reason: you have a limited supply of spells. This causes you to cast your spells more strategically, and to actually think carefully about your next move. This is the way spell-casters are *supposed* to think, or at least how people perceive they should think. They're supposed to have higher intelligence, and thus be smarter than your average fighter. So they are supposed to think ahead about the battle, in much the way a skilled chess player imagines the next dozen or so moves of play. Sorcerers aren't quite like that, of course, because they use in-born magic talent, but this was portrayed through the old 3e system of spontaneous casting (and high Charisma).
The new 4e system, (using powers that are limited to encounters, once per day, or once per round), works for the same specific reason: you have a limited supply of abilities. It's just *less* limited, and now we're able to apply it to everything, not just spells! In fact, I dare say, 4e is STILL using the Vancian spell-casting system, if you look at it hard enough. How else do you explain what happens with your daily attack powers? You forgot it. It isn't expressed that way in the D&D books anymore, cause it makes you sound like a lackwit. It's merely stated that those powers are so powerful that they exhaust your mind and body, and thus they can only be used after an extended rest. But that's just a fancy way of saying that you forget your daily powers once you use them. Technically, all the old spells were daily attack powers, every single one!
And so using a healing surge to regain the use of an encounter/daily attack power is a bad idea, and severely unbalances the system. Granted, you can do this with action points, (using certain Paragon Paths and Epic Destines), but action points are much more annoying to acquire, and you have to give up your extended rest, (which recharges your encounter/daily powers and your healing surges), in order to get more than one each day. Thus doing this with action points isn't so bad. Doing this with healing surges, on the other hand, turns D&D into an MMO, (which I thought D&Ders don't want!). It turns a healing surge into the equivalent of a mana point.
This is the main thing that differentiates D&D and MMO games. In an MMO, you DO have limited resources...but you can spam your most powerful spell all you want, at least until you run out of mana. In D&D, you don't really spam anything. Okay, I admit, you spam your At-Will Attack Power. I would hope, of course, you don't; I would prefer that you utilize ALL your attack powers, choosing whichever one would best fit whatever situation you happen to be in. But you don't spam your most powerful abilities. You can't! Because you can only cast them once per day. Or once per encounter, as the case may be.
This means that you don't have as much strategy in an MMO. This is why WoW PvP has always been so open to casual gamers: it requires no real amount of thought. You don't need to be a genius to totally "pwn" your enemy. This is also why I had always enjoyed raiding more than I did PvP: it involved tactics and strategy.
In D&D you have to think about how to apply your resources. 4e has basically made only a small change. Instead of spamming your basic attack repeatedly, in the case of people who attack with weapons, you will more likely use your at-will powers repeatedly, and choose from encounter/daily powers for more strategic applications. You might knock your enemy prone, you might force them to move into a different square, you might blind or stun them.
In the case of a caster, you now have the option of using a repeatable ability every turn; in 3e, casters didn't really have that option so much, unless you were a Sorcerer. Why else do you think Sorcerer was more popular than Wizard? At least, it was in my book, and I doubt most people disagreed with my opinion on which was better. I HATED having to prepare your spells each day. I never played a Cleric because of this; I always used the Favored Soul instead. Anyways, this allows casters to retain their strategic application and wide variety of spells, while giving them something that is repeatable, when they're in a certain kind of mood that day.
This also allows for different playing styles to emerge within each class! You might be a Wizard and use your Encounter/Daily powers often, controlling the enemy ranks as strategically as you can, and truly you would rarely use your at-will powers. This means your party will need to rest more, or else not utilize you to your full potential, but it's certainly a playing style that would still be effective.
But you might also prefer the ease-of-use with at-will attack powers instead. You might not think quite so much about how to set up the positions of your enemy just right for your party. Or maybe you just hate the limited nature of Encounter/Daily powers, and hoard them like a packrat for emergency use. (I do this with curative items in console RPGs: I often go through entire Final Fantasy games without once using the limited supply of Ethers, because I'll be worried I will direly need one. But at the same time, I will often let myself die, instead of giving the cleric an ether so he can heal the group. Backfired logic, for shame!) Whatever the reason, you're essentially always using At-will powers, and never using the powers that make you more versatile.
The second option isn't necessarily an ineffective way to play your Wizard, it's just a different way. And you can now have these alternatives with a Fighter, or a Rogue, or a Monk. Whereas before, those classes were all fairly simple to play, now more thought can be applied to them. Especially Fighter. It is rare to find a D&D player who did not get bored with the hack-and-slash Fighter.
On the flip side, you can no longer, as a Wizard, memorize Fireball half a dozen times, and then memorize a lower spell-level of it for each lower spell slot that you were able to. Wizards COULD spam spells: if that was the only spell they have.
You can't do that with Daily Attack Powers, (not without action points), for which I am quite glad.
Maybe it's this specific aspect of the game, that make people cry about D&D being like an MMO: the fact that you can now "spam" abilities.
The irony is, you always could spam them. Wizards could prepare a Fireball multiple times. In fact, they most certainly did. They gave up spell slots and their advantage of variety to spam it. Sorcerers gave things up, too. But they gave up their spell uses per day, rather than the spell itself.
Fighters were all about spamming in 3e. How many times did the Fighter attack monster X with his sword in a specific battle? I lose count. That's spam if I ever tasted it.
The only thing 4e did was allow spell-casters to spam, and let Fighters stop spamming. Is this regime change, this freedom of choice, really such a bad thing?
It's not like an MMO. The whole point of this wasn't to allow wizards to spam Fireball. The whole point of this was to give all classes more options. You now have the option to spam as a Wizard. You now have the option to not spam as a Fighter.
...and isn't options what everybody wants in D&D?
5/09/2009
An addition to the earlier D&D rant
I was scouring some random online resources, and this thought just randomly popped into my head...about how there is an MMO called D&D Online. I began to think about that, because it came out before 4e was ever released.
So I went to their web site and gave a skim over the way their game runs, and it is even now based entirely on 3.5e rules! So much for 4e being too much like an MMO, I say.
Hypocrites, every one of you.
So I went to their web site and gave a skim over the way their game runs, and it is even now based entirely on 3.5e rules! So much for 4e being too much like an MMO, I say.
Hypocrites, every one of you.
D&D 4e vs WoW
I guess I rarely post here, at least lately, about non-personal things, but I have had Dungeons & Dragons on my mind for the past week or two, and I feel like I should post something, somewhere, that expresses my thoughts.
Specifically, I've been thinking about the fairly new and still unfinished 4th Edition of the popular tabletop game. A LOT of veteran players seem to hate the new edition, and they have various reasons for this. I personally find most of their reasons to be trivial. I mostly find that they're simply resisting change, a common trait of all humans. (Oddly enough, D&D does NOT express this! Humanity, though easily adaptable to any situation, is actually a race that dislikes change, and often resists it. I wonder what D&D players, and WotC especially, would think about that fact.)
Now, I could try and go on to express why I think everybody is complaining for nothing, arguing against each specific reason, but I'm lazy. And I'm also absent-minded, and tend to ramble in my rants. I am likely to forget details here and there.
So for now, the sum of all complaints about 4e is the following: "Boohoo, I can't have godly power anymore!"
If you want godly power, go play WoW. Blizzard's philosophy is "you can never have too much power."
If you want a challenging roleplaying game, stick to D&D. WotC DOES believe in too much power.
The only complaint *I* have about 4e, is that I don't see any real benefit in wielding an off-hand weapon. The only time I can see this being beneficial is if you have a power that allows you to make attacks with both weapons, and I think that mostly limits this benefit to rogues and rangers. Maybe just rangers. Otherwise, it seems a bit useless, since you can only use a basic attack each round with one weapon or the other. What happens to races like the Thri-keen, which is a race of mantis-like humanoids sporting four arms? They can wield four one-handed weapons, two two-handed weapons, or two double weapons. Do they get extra attacks?
This isn't so much a "Oh no, now I can't get more powerful by wielding two weapons" as a "Why should I customize my character to be wielding two weapons?"
Fortunately, the Tempest Fighter build was offered in Martial Power, so now Fighters can choose to dual-wield, but I am still confused about this. There are some small benefits, from feats and a few class features, but they are small. Whatever happened to extra attacks? Why *can't* we attack with both?
I can get why they removed attacking multiple times in one round because of having a high attack bonus. That makes sense. But not attacking with both weapons while dual-wielding? What ARE you doing with your second weapon in those six seconds, while you're attacking?
Here's an example to emphasize my point: Take one of your kitchen knives. Maybe a butter knife for safety. Make extra careful not to cut yourself, anybody near you, or any objects nearby. I know a friend who happens to own a machete. Maybe you can just grab that and go outside for a few moments to exercise this. Slash this blade through the air. Just once. Now think about how long it took you to perform that simple maneuver. That was a basic melee attack of D&D. It took you, what, 2 seconds tops? Sounds about right. There's your standard action. Now you could take your move action, which is usually about 30 feet per round, for a human. Making a quick 30 foot movement in a single round would possibly take 2-3 seconds. Especially in a battle, since you're probably not just walking, but dashing quickly about. I think it's about twice the width of my bedroom, and that takes 1, maybe 1.5 seconds to cross. So that basic melee attack, plus moving 30 feet, took me 4 seconds or so. So there's your move action. I have 2 more seconds to my "round." I suppose that would largely be reserved for minor actions, but think on this: I have a second blade in my other hand. You think maybe I should attack with it?
I will admit that the concept of a six-second round is a bit of an abstraction. Real combat doesn't take place with six-second turns, obviously, but the D&D rules are attempting to put these battles into pencil and paper form. Six seconds is about the amount of time it takes for one "moment" of battle in D&D.
Those of you who have read about Drizzt Do'Urden: how many times in the books did he slash his opponent with both weapons? I suppose you could express some of those moves as Martial Powers, but it happened far too often to not have also counted as a double melee basic attack. Drizzt is obviously a Two-Blade Ranger, (among other things, but primarily this) in D&D 4E...but he only can attack with one scimitar every six seconds, besides his melee attack powers? Drizzt could hit you six times in six seconds as a standard move, simply because of how dexterous and fast he is. That wouldn't be an at-will power for Drizzt, that would be part of his melee basic attack! It stands to reason that somebody of average dexterity, like me, could at least get in two hits in six seconds. Artemis Entreri was on par with Drizzt, and though he was also amazingly dexterous, he was also human. So it's not beyond the realm of possibilities.
This isn't something that turns me off from 4e. This is just one aspect of the new edition that grates on me, and seems to make no logical sense, not from a roleplaying perspective OR a mechanics perspective.
That rant aside, I want to touch on my biggest pet peeve that has evolved ever since I first heard it expressed: the complaint that 4e D&D is a lot like World of Warcraft.
It is nothing like WoW! Not in the slightest!
Where did ANYBODY make that connection? Point me towards a SINGLE mechanic of WoW that has a perfect clone copy in D&D, I dare you.
Yes, 4e gets rid of Vancian spell-casting. I understand why so many D&D players are attached to that system, since it has been around from the beginning of the game. I can understand that some of you even preferred Vancian spell-casting to the new 4e system of powers. But that doesn't mean we adopted a WoW system of spells and abilities!
WoW uses mana and cooldowns numbering in the mere seconds.
4e D&D uses At-Will Attack Powers, Encounter Attack Powers, and Daily Attack Powers. For every class, including fighters and rogues, not just wizards and warlocks. This allows Fighters to do more each round than, "I swing my axe. I swing my axe again. I swing my axe again, but this time I move 5 feet to the left. I swing my axe again."
Now, Fighters can use powers of Martial prowess. They don't just swing their axe, they use a trained combat maneuver with their axe, designed to unbalance the enemy and push them a few feet away by knocking them off-balance. I just described the Fighter At-Will Power Tide of Iron. I didn't even know the power, I made up the description first then looked for one that matched it.
WoW does none of this. Nothing even like it. In fact, most abilities in WoW don't include knockback effects. WoW also deals with a list of something called threat, to decide who AI monsters attack. None of this "marking" stuff that D&D fighters get to use. (Honestly, I think this method is better than threat, but WoW needs threat to code their AI effectively).
All of your abilities in WoW are pretty much At-Will powers, and you can use far more than one ability in a six-second round. Some have longer cooldowns than the six seconds that is a D&D round, yes. Some of them might be able to have the label of an encounter power, but that's a rarity, like a Shaman's Elemental totems, (and those Elementals suck anyways, nobody uses them seriously). But D&D 4e is not a cleverly-disguised WoW, like all the conspiracy-theorists want you to believe. Powers in D&D are not fueled by Mana, Energy, Rage, or Runes. There is no fueling system present in D&D mechanics. It's just how often you can use that power. Once per round, once per encounter, or once per day. In fact, this is the precise reason Vancian spell-casting was originally used in D&D! Whoever originally started up D&D, Gygax and the other guy involved, didn't want to use the unoriginal concept of mana. Instead we got Vancian spell-casting. The new 4e system of using Powers is simply an alternate method of not relying on Mana for spell-casters, or Rage for Warrior types, or Energy for Rogue types. At the same time, the new system admits, "You know what? It's STUPID that wizards forget their spells!"
WoW also has nothing similar to even the simplified 4e skill system. WoW has skills, yes, but they're either professions or weapon skills. If you recall, Profession is a 3e skill, which does not seem to be present in 4e anymore. I haven't read enough about the new edition to figure out where it went, because I can assure you item creation is still existent. I just have to find it.
To clarify: Weapon skill in WoW affects how well and how hard you can hit with the weapons you're wielding. So that makes it quite similar to a combination of attack bonus, weapon proficiency, weapon focus, weapon specialization, and other such things.
In WoW, your armor, and your various other defenses, are also worked differently. Armor can be expressed in the thousands, reducing damage by a percentage, rather than being a "how hard it is to hit me" mechanic. Dodge works more like D&D AC than Armor does, and even then, that's a percentage chance to avoid melee attacks. Magic resistance is a separate stat that is a percentage chance to completely resist the effects of a spell. I think. I was never too sure on magic resistance in WoW, and I think it's actually mostly level-based. Surviving spells in WoW is more about interrupting spells, or simply absorbing them by having thousands of HP.
D&D actually simplifies AC so that it works for both spells AND melee attacks. There are also Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses, usually reserved for power effects rather than damage. All of these defenses represent a number that your die roll (plus any bonuses you get from a number of places) must beat, in order to land your attack (whatever the result of that attack would be). You don't reduce the damage of an attack by the number of your AC. Armor doesn't work that way in D&D. It only provides avoidance, as opposed to damage reduction.
D&D has to provide fancy rules for moving in combat, too. You get move actions, and standard actions, and minor actions, and it all works together in a manner that makes logical sense. In WoW, most of the time you don't ever think about that. If you're using a spell with a casting time, such as Lightning Bolt, then you can't move or the spell is interrupted, and you have to cast again. A lot of abilities are also instantaneous, or you have one ability that makes others into an instantaneous ability. Movement in WoW is more chaotic and more random, while D&D puts movement more into tactics and strategy. A lot of combat in WoW is more about timing when you hit your abilitiy's hotkey, than about any strategy or tactics. In fact, a lot of the time, I use my abiltiies in conjunction with rapid mouse movement, so that I use an ability in mid-air, facing backwards. You can't do that in D&D! Well, maybe you could with an appropriate Acrobatics check. But the point is, WoW doesn't have any skill check involved with this, and it's entirely related to the actual player's ability to dexterously manipulate a computer mouse.
I can't think, right now, what else I could possibly cover to try and argue that D&D 4e is nothing like WoW. I'm spent. My rant is over.
If you play D&D, or at least dabble into it, feel free to comment. Feel free to argue or agree. Either way, my opinion is expressed: Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition is absolutely nothing like World of Warcraft.
Seeing people honestly believing that it IS like WoW...really ticks me off.
I shall finish by saying the following: if anybody around in San Antonio, those few of you who happen to read my blog posts, would like to play D&D, either 3.5 OR the new 4e, I am totally game. I already have something set up for Sundays, but I am open to ideas.
I can say that I find myself attracted to 4th Edition, and the more I read about it, the more I want to play a 4e campaign as a Genasi Swordmage. It's rules seem so much more balanced, even if all the customization options are yet to be released. Who knows, maybe I will even dabble into DMing.
Specifically, I've been thinking about the fairly new and still unfinished 4th Edition of the popular tabletop game. A LOT of veteran players seem to hate the new edition, and they have various reasons for this. I personally find most of their reasons to be trivial. I mostly find that they're simply resisting change, a common trait of all humans. (Oddly enough, D&D does NOT express this! Humanity, though easily adaptable to any situation, is actually a race that dislikes change, and often resists it. I wonder what D&D players, and WotC especially, would think about that fact.)
Now, I could try and go on to express why I think everybody is complaining for nothing, arguing against each specific reason, but I'm lazy. And I'm also absent-minded, and tend to ramble in my rants. I am likely to forget details here and there.
So for now, the sum of all complaints about 4e is the following: "Boohoo, I can't have godly power anymore!"
If you want godly power, go play WoW. Blizzard's philosophy is "you can never have too much power."
If you want a challenging roleplaying game, stick to D&D. WotC DOES believe in too much power.
The only complaint *I* have about 4e, is that I don't see any real benefit in wielding an off-hand weapon. The only time I can see this being beneficial is if you have a power that allows you to make attacks with both weapons, and I think that mostly limits this benefit to rogues and rangers. Maybe just rangers. Otherwise, it seems a bit useless, since you can only use a basic attack each round with one weapon or the other. What happens to races like the Thri-keen, which is a race of mantis-like humanoids sporting four arms? They can wield four one-handed weapons, two two-handed weapons, or two double weapons. Do they get extra attacks?
This isn't so much a "Oh no, now I can't get more powerful by wielding two weapons" as a "Why should I customize my character to be wielding two weapons?"
Fortunately, the Tempest Fighter build was offered in Martial Power, so now Fighters can choose to dual-wield, but I am still confused about this. There are some small benefits, from feats and a few class features, but they are small. Whatever happened to extra attacks? Why *can't* we attack with both?
I can get why they removed attacking multiple times in one round because of having a high attack bonus. That makes sense. But not attacking with both weapons while dual-wielding? What ARE you doing with your second weapon in those six seconds, while you're attacking?
Here's an example to emphasize my point: Take one of your kitchen knives. Maybe a butter knife for safety. Make extra careful not to cut yourself, anybody near you, or any objects nearby. I know a friend who happens to own a machete. Maybe you can just grab that and go outside for a few moments to exercise this. Slash this blade through the air. Just once. Now think about how long it took you to perform that simple maneuver. That was a basic melee attack of D&D. It took you, what, 2 seconds tops? Sounds about right. There's your standard action. Now you could take your move action, which is usually about 30 feet per round, for a human. Making a quick 30 foot movement in a single round would possibly take 2-3 seconds. Especially in a battle, since you're probably not just walking, but dashing quickly about. I think it's about twice the width of my bedroom, and that takes 1, maybe 1.5 seconds to cross. So that basic melee attack, plus moving 30 feet, took me 4 seconds or so. So there's your move action. I have 2 more seconds to my "round." I suppose that would largely be reserved for minor actions, but think on this: I have a second blade in my other hand. You think maybe I should attack with it?
I will admit that the concept of a six-second round is a bit of an abstraction. Real combat doesn't take place with six-second turns, obviously, but the D&D rules are attempting to put these battles into pencil and paper form. Six seconds is about the amount of time it takes for one "moment" of battle in D&D.
Those of you who have read about Drizzt Do'Urden: how many times in the books did he slash his opponent with both weapons? I suppose you could express some of those moves as Martial Powers, but it happened far too often to not have also counted as a double melee basic attack. Drizzt is obviously a Two-Blade Ranger, (among other things, but primarily this) in D&D 4E...but he only can attack with one scimitar every six seconds, besides his melee attack powers? Drizzt could hit you six times in six seconds as a standard move, simply because of how dexterous and fast he is. That wouldn't be an at-will power for Drizzt, that would be part of his melee basic attack! It stands to reason that somebody of average dexterity, like me, could at least get in two hits in six seconds. Artemis Entreri was on par with Drizzt, and though he was also amazingly dexterous, he was also human. So it's not beyond the realm of possibilities.
This isn't something that turns me off from 4e. This is just one aspect of the new edition that grates on me, and seems to make no logical sense, not from a roleplaying perspective OR a mechanics perspective.
That rant aside, I want to touch on my biggest pet peeve that has evolved ever since I first heard it expressed: the complaint that 4e D&D is a lot like World of Warcraft.
It is nothing like WoW! Not in the slightest!
Where did ANYBODY make that connection? Point me towards a SINGLE mechanic of WoW that has a perfect clone copy in D&D, I dare you.
Yes, 4e gets rid of Vancian spell-casting. I understand why so many D&D players are attached to that system, since it has been around from the beginning of the game. I can understand that some of you even preferred Vancian spell-casting to the new 4e system of powers. But that doesn't mean we adopted a WoW system of spells and abilities!
WoW uses mana and cooldowns numbering in the mere seconds.
4e D&D uses At-Will Attack Powers, Encounter Attack Powers, and Daily Attack Powers. For every class, including fighters and rogues, not just wizards and warlocks. This allows Fighters to do more each round than, "I swing my axe. I swing my axe again. I swing my axe again, but this time I move 5 feet to the left. I swing my axe again."
Now, Fighters can use powers of Martial prowess. They don't just swing their axe, they use a trained combat maneuver with their axe, designed to unbalance the enemy and push them a few feet away by knocking them off-balance. I just described the Fighter At-Will Power Tide of Iron. I didn't even know the power, I made up the description first then looked for one that matched it.
WoW does none of this. Nothing even like it. In fact, most abilities in WoW don't include knockback effects. WoW also deals with a list of something called threat, to decide who AI monsters attack. None of this "marking" stuff that D&D fighters get to use. (Honestly, I think this method is better than threat, but WoW needs threat to code their AI effectively).
All of your abilities in WoW are pretty much At-Will powers, and you can use far more than one ability in a six-second round. Some have longer cooldowns than the six seconds that is a D&D round, yes. Some of them might be able to have the label of an encounter power, but that's a rarity, like a Shaman's Elemental totems, (and those Elementals suck anyways, nobody uses them seriously). But D&D 4e is not a cleverly-disguised WoW, like all the conspiracy-theorists want you to believe. Powers in D&D are not fueled by Mana, Energy, Rage, or Runes. There is no fueling system present in D&D mechanics. It's just how often you can use that power. Once per round, once per encounter, or once per day. In fact, this is the precise reason Vancian spell-casting was originally used in D&D! Whoever originally started up D&D, Gygax and the other guy involved, didn't want to use the unoriginal concept of mana. Instead we got Vancian spell-casting. The new 4e system of using Powers is simply an alternate method of not relying on Mana for spell-casters, or Rage for Warrior types, or Energy for Rogue types. At the same time, the new system admits, "You know what? It's STUPID that wizards forget their spells!"
WoW also has nothing similar to even the simplified 4e skill system. WoW has skills, yes, but they're either professions or weapon skills. If you recall, Profession is a 3e skill, which does not seem to be present in 4e anymore. I haven't read enough about the new edition to figure out where it went, because I can assure you item creation is still existent. I just have to find it.
To clarify: Weapon skill in WoW affects how well and how hard you can hit with the weapons you're wielding. So that makes it quite similar to a combination of attack bonus, weapon proficiency, weapon focus, weapon specialization, and other such things.
In WoW, your armor, and your various other defenses, are also worked differently. Armor can be expressed in the thousands, reducing damage by a percentage, rather than being a "how hard it is to hit me" mechanic. Dodge works more like D&D AC than Armor does, and even then, that's a percentage chance to avoid melee attacks. Magic resistance is a separate stat that is a percentage chance to completely resist the effects of a spell. I think. I was never too sure on magic resistance in WoW, and I think it's actually mostly level-based. Surviving spells in WoW is more about interrupting spells, or simply absorbing them by having thousands of HP.
D&D actually simplifies AC so that it works for both spells AND melee attacks. There are also Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses, usually reserved for power effects rather than damage. All of these defenses represent a number that your die roll (plus any bonuses you get from a number of places) must beat, in order to land your attack (whatever the result of that attack would be). You don't reduce the damage of an attack by the number of your AC. Armor doesn't work that way in D&D. It only provides avoidance, as opposed to damage reduction.
D&D has to provide fancy rules for moving in combat, too. You get move actions, and standard actions, and minor actions, and it all works together in a manner that makes logical sense. In WoW, most of the time you don't ever think about that. If you're using a spell with a casting time, such as Lightning Bolt, then you can't move or the spell is interrupted, and you have to cast again. A lot of abilities are also instantaneous, or you have one ability that makes others into an instantaneous ability. Movement in WoW is more chaotic and more random, while D&D puts movement more into tactics and strategy. A lot of combat in WoW is more about timing when you hit your abilitiy's hotkey, than about any strategy or tactics. In fact, a lot of the time, I use my abiltiies in conjunction with rapid mouse movement, so that I use an ability in mid-air, facing backwards. You can't do that in D&D! Well, maybe you could with an appropriate Acrobatics check. But the point is, WoW doesn't have any skill check involved with this, and it's entirely related to the actual player's ability to dexterously manipulate a computer mouse.
I can't think, right now, what else I could possibly cover to try and argue that D&D 4e is nothing like WoW. I'm spent. My rant is over.
If you play D&D, or at least dabble into it, feel free to comment. Feel free to argue or agree. Either way, my opinion is expressed: Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition is absolutely nothing like World of Warcraft.
Seeing people honestly believing that it IS like WoW...really ticks me off.
I shall finish by saying the following: if anybody around in San Antonio, those few of you who happen to read my blog posts, would like to play D&D, either 3.5 OR the new 4e, I am totally game. I already have something set up for Sundays, but I am open to ideas.
I can say that I find myself attracted to 4th Edition, and the more I read about it, the more I want to play a 4e campaign as a Genasi Swordmage. It's rules seem so much more balanced, even if all the customization options are yet to be released. Who knows, maybe I will even dabble into DMing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
