Quote from: jeff37923;361431Each of us should be allowed to defend themselves against false accusations, especially when they are posted by nutbags solely to stop conversation.

Well, I notice you are off topic and you hate 4E, and you totally want to talk about other stuff. Was this kinda what you were going for?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361429ok, but what if we don't assume the wands, what if that were the concept all along?

Then it seems likely the game would've stayed more focused on combat and wouldn't have developed (at least not to the same extent) the more exploration-based focus, since the latter consists by-and-large of ways to try to avoid combat (sneaking and scouting and trying to draw accurate maps, running away and trying to deter pursuit (by setting obstacles or dropping distractions), attempting to align with "friendly" monsters to get help and info, attempting to talk or bribe your way past monsters, etc.) because you know that if you do get into combat (especially multiple back-to-back combats) you're likely to lose. For people who like a lot of combat this probably would be seen as a good thing, but for me who prefers all that other stuff and thinks straight-up combat is probably the least-fun part of the game, it would've been a bad thing.

Quote from: T. Foster;361438Then it seems likely the game would've stayed more focused on combat and wouldn't have developed (at least not to the same extent) the more exploration-based focus, since the latter consists by-and-large of ways to try to avoid combat (sneaking and scouting and trying to draw accurate maps, running away and trying to deter pursuit (by setting obstacles or dropping distractions), attempting to align with "friendly" monsters to get help and info, attempting to talk or bribe your way past monsters, etc.) because you know that if you do get into combat (especially multiple back-to-back combats) you're likely to lose. For people who like a lot of combat this probably would be seen as a good thing, but for me who prefers all that other stuff and thinks straight-up combat is probably the least-fun part of the game, it would've been a bad thing.

For me, I think combat should be an equally viable option amongst others (neither the best-favored nor the worst option). And I also tend to think..well, combat is fun in itself. It's exciting. Here you have a bunch of characters all dressed up in armor and weaponry and you're not going to use it?

My other point is; if we start talking about spells you can use every round, shouldn't Chainmail be considered as well?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361434Well, I notice you are off topic and you hate 4E, and you totally want to talk about other stuff. Was this kinda what you were going for?

Actually, the conversation was going pretty well until you showed up with your 4E Zealot cross to bear.

Funny thing is, I was waiting for Pundit to say whether or not he thinks DDI is considered part of 4E, because I think that is a good innovation.

But then again, you have never let reality or common sense get in the way of your 4E persecution complex.

EDIT: Also for the millionth fucking time, I hate the 4E Zealots and their assinine behavior. I can't get up enough energy to hate 4E because it is just a game that fails to scratch my gaming itch.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361440My other point is; if we start talking about spells you can use every round, shouldn't Chainmail be considered as well?

No, because we're talking about role-playing games and not minature wargames.

Quote from: Drohem;361445No, because we're talking about role-playing games and not minature wargames.

We are?! I thought we were talking about 4E. According to so many of the grognards around here 4E is just a miniature wargame anyway. What gives?

Quote from: IMLegend;361449We are?! I thought we were talking about 4E. According to so many of the grognards around here 4E is just a miniature wargame anyway. What gives?

Aww, man!  You took his bait.  Do you like the taste of chum?  

In so far as the ability for mages to cast spells everyone round.  D&D 4e is a latecomer to the game.  Most other mainstream RPG's have been allowing mages to cast spells every round for years and I'm not even talking about a daily limit through a spell point mechanic.  Just the ability to cast any spell you know as often as you want.  The usual offset to this freedom is some kind of test be it willpower, skill or some other risk.  

I think this is the logical counter point to a fighter doing his thing.  The fighter has to get up close and personal with his opponent to do his reaping-swing-of-death.   The mage on the other hand has to overcome his own personal willpower or risk some external force each time they cast.  They must balance risk/reward each time they cast, in essence that's their combat.

Mages spamming magic missile with no risk and in virtually the same mechanical state that archers shoot arrows.  That just takes away from the story element of being a spell caster.  But more then that it also diminishes some of the benefits of being an archer.

Quote from: Drohem;361450Aww, man!  You took his bait.  Do you like the taste of chum?  

Just call me Jaws baby! (Yes, you're gonna need a bigger boat.)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361440For me, I think combat should be an equally viable option amongst others (neither the best-favored nor the worst option). And I also tend to think..well, combat is fun in itself. It's exciting. Here you have a bunch of characters all dressed up in armor and weaponry and you're not going to use it?

I pretty much agree with this, and it's not like I avoid combat entirely in my games -- we pretty much always have at least 1 or 2 big throwdowns per session, often more -- I just don't want it to be the sole, or even primary, focus of the game. My ideal is for combat to generally make up about 25-33% of the game (with the other 66-75% being a mix of planning, exploration, puzzle-solving, and in-character dialogue and negotiation).

QuoteMy other point is; if we start talking about spells you can use every round, shouldn't Chainmail be considered as well?

Well, Chainmail was a tabletop wargame, not an rpg, so that's not the comparison I'd imagine most 4E fans would want to make. Since you brought it up, though, it does appear to me that 4E's play dynamic probably bears more comparison to Chainmail than it does to pre-3E versions of A/D&D.

Quote from: IMLegend;361454Just call me Jaws baby! (Yes, you're gonna need a bigger boat.)

:rotfl:

Personally, I think the 4e Warlock concepts, themes and flavour rock.

Also, the idea of combat-characters doing something other than 'I attack!' for mechanics every round, and being fully effective, rocks.

AC/Fort/Ref/Will being flat numbers makes things faster and easier and doesn't detract from gameplay.

Quote from: T. Foster;361455Well, Chainmail was a tabletop wargame, not an rpg, so that's not the comparison I'd imagine most 4E fans would want to make. Since you brought it up, though, it does appear to me that 4E's play dynamic probably bears more comparison to Chainmail than it does to pre-3E versions of A/D&D.

Well, I dunno if that's mainly an internet phenomenon or what, but the comparison woouldn't phase most people. Most people don't care, and miniatures wargame is not a grave insult, except for people who completely lack the skills to play one and thus see it as something beyond their abilities. Better to stick to "the game where nobody wins!" for those guys, right?

(How ironic is it that 'grognard" was a term that the miniatures wargamers took for themselves to differntiate themselves from the RPGers!)

 There's no way 4e *isn't* a roleplaying game (which anyone who has played it, even skeptically, can tell you). The real issue has always been "It's not according to tradition!"

And I think in certain ways that might be true, but usually not in any way that anyone is ever willing to talk about (the social network effect in particular). Much of this thread talks about characters that can cast every round, and what I want to say, (to quote Tom Jones); It's not unusual.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361430Are you guys like..in on it?

As I was saying -- case in point.

!i!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361430AAll I ever said was "ignore him"

For the record: I think you made a good call.