The Dwarves are Upon You!
I'm so amazingly not writing an essay right now that my only choice is to write another LiveJournal entry.
Point the First: Curse those of you who are already back in town, all having a good time while I am trapped in an endless cycle of classes, sleep, and procrastination for another two weeks! I want nothing more right now than to play some SSBB.
Point the Second: My summer job with the Jed/Probst consortium fell through on account of them not actually needing an assistant. So it looks like I'll be doing YoungREP in the mornings (the morning classes) and on Tuesday evenings (the playwriting workshop). If I'm lucky, I'll be able to find some kind of afternoon job to keep me busy and provide for me eating next year. If not, I'll probably have to resort to drug dealing/ prostitution.
Point the Third: When I actually get around to finishing this essay (and I actually am about 2/3 of the way through; I've just lost all will to live), it's going to be pretty awesome. It's for my class about games, and the prompt is something along the lines of "How is some non-game aspect of your life like a game?" So I'm writing an essay about how writing essays is like a game. I have a fairly bullshitfull thesis explaining the deeper significance of the game elements in essay writing, but I have the most fun comparing writing an essay to a game. I quote, among other things, the essay's own prompt.
Point the Forth: Due to the prevalence of pirates in our school, I have obtained an, um, "advance copy" of the 4th edition Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. Much to my surprise, I found myself liking the system quite a bit (I was planning on a neutral to mildly supportive relationship). Obviously I'll have to play it to be sure, but here are some of my observations:
-It seems that this version of D&D was written with a specific feel in mind: epic adventures. The book explicitly states that a first level hero is already heroic, standing head and shoulders above a normal commoner. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, the abilities are truly impressive, and it looks like combat will be a lot more fun (something I had a problem with in 3.x, especially as a DM). On the other hand, it is a bit limiting in terms of campaign styles. The idea of the common adventurer would seem misplaced in this setting; already by level 10, characters are moving into one-of-a-kind zone. Aaron's Kingdom at Sunset campaign wouldn't be possible in 4th ed (at least, as it is presented with the material released so far).
-The main mechanism of the game is the powers system. Every class has a number of powers associated with it (think spells) from which a character can choose. This means that even two members of the same class could turn out vastly different. These powers (separated into daily, encounter*, and at-will) do a great deal to make combat exciting and tactical rather than 1. I take a 5 foot step 2. I fire a crossbow 3. Repeat. On the other hand, there seems to be little reason why a character would choose one power over another, as they're flavored more or less all the same. A very minor problem, that I only noticed as I created my prototype character, a human fighter.
*the term encounter has been broadened so that it can mean a diplomatic or skill encounter as well.
-Coupling the increase of heroism is a decrease in realism. It is not really explained exactly why you can add your charisma bonus to some rogue attacks, other than that it balances against a fighter's strength and constitution advantage. Also, distances are now measured in 'squares', I practice I will adamantly oppose given the opportunity.
-There are 8 classes subdivided into 4 party roles: defender (front-line type; fighter), striker (lots of damage to one target; rogue), controller (damage to all enemies; wizard), and leader (heal and buff; paladin). While categorizing the classes into roles like this does help balance parties, it makes it harder to build a party without one of these roles. It will be hard to play 4th ed. without a fighter or a paladin, for example. On the other (other) hand, there is not a single class now that I would try out playing, as opposed to the 3.x druid and ranger.
-The classes are also divided into groups based on the source of their powers. The PH explains classes of three sources: arcane, divine, and martial. A sidebar hints at future supplements detailing the following sources: elemental, ki, primal, psionic, shadow.
-Oddly, the DMG lists miniatures as a required item in a D&D game, while a character sheet is listed as optional.
-Somewhere along the line, someone realized that if they gave races 2 stats with a +2 instead of one stat with a +2 and one stat with a -2, they would still all be balanced against each other. So now, we don't have racist implications like "dwarves are gruff and unattractive". Elves have been split into two races corresponding with the two elf stereotypes (elves are beings of magic/ elves are woodsman archers). Half-elves are now appealing from a rules standpoint. On the one hand, they've gotten rid of half-orcs. On the other hand, they've gotten rid of gnomes. Tieflings look like they'll probably be the new drow, at least until stats for drow are released.
-Alignment is now optional. Instead, the game encourages developing personality traits, and devotes much more space to doing so than 3.x ever did (including a sidebar detailing the difference between alignment and personality). It was at this point that the game started winning my respect. This was around page 20. Especially since the personality section included this quote: "A wizard who never speaks except in haiku might be carrying the idea of distinctive speech to an extreme, but if you can pull it off, everyone at the table will remember your character for years!" Good advice from the good folks at Wizards.
-Rolling ability scores is now discouraged in favor of standard array and point buy. I guess it makes sense of balance purposes, but man, that was one of my favorite parts!
Overall, though, a good looking system.
Enough.
Point the First: Curse those of you who are already back in town, all having a good time while I am trapped in an endless cycle of classes, sleep, and procrastination for another two weeks! I want nothing more right now than to play some SSBB.
Point the Second: My summer job with the Jed/Probst consortium fell through on account of them not actually needing an assistant. So it looks like I'll be doing YoungREP in the mornings (the morning classes) and on Tuesday evenings (the playwriting workshop). If I'm lucky, I'll be able to find some kind of afternoon job to keep me busy and provide for me eating next year. If not, I'll probably have to resort to drug dealing/ prostitution.
Point the Third: When I actually get around to finishing this essay (and I actually am about 2/3 of the way through; I've just lost all will to live), it's going to be pretty awesome. It's for my class about games, and the prompt is something along the lines of "How is some non-game aspect of your life like a game?" So I'm writing an essay about how writing essays is like a game. I have a fairly bullshitfull thesis explaining the deeper significance of the game elements in essay writing, but I have the most fun comparing writing an essay to a game. I quote, among other things, the essay's own prompt.
Point the Forth: Due to the prevalence of pirates in our school, I have obtained an, um, "advance copy" of the 4th edition Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. Much to my surprise, I found myself liking the system quite a bit (I was planning on a neutral to mildly supportive relationship). Obviously I'll have to play it to be sure, but here are some of my observations:
-It seems that this version of D&D was written with a specific feel in mind: epic adventures. The book explicitly states that a first level hero is already heroic, standing head and shoulders above a normal commoner. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, the abilities are truly impressive, and it looks like combat will be a lot more fun (something I had a problem with in 3.x, especially as a DM). On the other hand, it is a bit limiting in terms of campaign styles. The idea of the common adventurer would seem misplaced in this setting; already by level 10, characters are moving into one-of-a-kind zone. Aaron's Kingdom at Sunset campaign wouldn't be possible in 4th ed (at least, as it is presented with the material released so far).
-The main mechanism of the game is the powers system. Every class has a number of powers associated with it (think spells) from which a character can choose. This means that even two members of the same class could turn out vastly different. These powers (separated into daily, encounter*, and at-will) do a great deal to make combat exciting and tactical rather than 1. I take a 5 foot step 2. I fire a crossbow 3. Repeat. On the other hand, there seems to be little reason why a character would choose one power over another, as they're flavored more or less all the same. A very minor problem, that I only noticed as I created my prototype character, a human fighter.
*the term encounter has been broadened so that it can mean a diplomatic or skill encounter as well.
-Coupling the increase of heroism is a decrease in realism. It is not really explained exactly why you can add your charisma bonus to some rogue attacks, other than that it balances against a fighter's strength and constitution advantage. Also, distances are now measured in 'squares', I practice I will adamantly oppose given the opportunity.
-There are 8 classes subdivided into 4 party roles: defender (front-line type; fighter), striker (lots of damage to one target; rogue), controller (damage to all enemies; wizard), and leader (heal and buff; paladin). While categorizing the classes into roles like this does help balance parties, it makes it harder to build a party without one of these roles. It will be hard to play 4th ed. without a fighter or a paladin, for example. On the other (other) hand, there is not a single class now that I would try out playing, as opposed to the 3.x druid and ranger.
-The classes are also divided into groups based on the source of their powers. The PH explains classes of three sources: arcane, divine, and martial. A sidebar hints at future supplements detailing the following sources: elemental, ki, primal, psionic, shadow.
-Oddly, the DMG lists miniatures as a required item in a D&D game, while a character sheet is listed as optional.
-Somewhere along the line, someone realized that if they gave races 2 stats with a +2 instead of one stat with a +2 and one stat with a -2, they would still all be balanced against each other. So now, we don't have racist implications like "dwarves are gruff and unattractive". Elves have been split into two races corresponding with the two elf stereotypes (elves are beings of magic/ elves are woodsman archers). Half-elves are now appealing from a rules standpoint. On the one hand, they've gotten rid of half-orcs. On the other hand, they've gotten rid of gnomes. Tieflings look like they'll probably be the new drow, at least until stats for drow are released.
-Alignment is now optional. Instead, the game encourages developing personality traits, and devotes much more space to doing so than 3.x ever did (including a sidebar detailing the difference between alignment and personality). It was at this point that the game started winning my respect. This was around page 20. Especially since the personality section included this quote: "A wizard who never speaks except in haiku might be carrying the idea of distinctive speech to an extreme, but if you can pull it off, everyone at the table will remember your character for years!" Good advice from the good folks at Wizards.
-Rolling ability scores is now discouraged in favor of standard array and point buy. I guess it makes sense of balance purposes, but man, that was one of my favorite parts!
Overall, though, a good looking system.
Enough.