The design work is certainly superior on the new card vs the previous one.

I like Sett's version the best. :keke:

something about the new edition one reminds me of an almost B/E d&d simplicity.

now just slap on a bunch of asterisks after the HD and we're in business!  

Quote from: beebersomething about the new edition one reminds me of an almost B/E d&d simplicity.

now just slap on a bunch of asterisks after the HD and we're in business!  

Indeed. It looks very clean and manageable. I'm a big proponent of complexity for the players and simplicity for the GM, which this seems to be a step towards. Good stuff.

Quote from: DrewIndeed. It looks very clean and manageable. I'm a big proponent of complexity for the players and simplicity for the GM, which this seems to be a step towards. Good stuff.

Why? Shouldn't it be simplicity all around?

Quote from: James McMurrayWhy? Shouldn't it be simplicity all around?

As a player I prefer games which have plenty of options and fiddly bits to fine tune my character. In a gamey sense it's the only playing piece I have, and extended customisation and choice maintains my interest at the system level.

As a GM my playing pieces are unlimited. Not only do I have to manage them but also keep a rein on multiple character plots, setting info and overarching adventure goals. Simplicity and ease of use is a must have for me when behind the screen.

Does that clarify things?

I'm with Drew. I enjoy more complexity on the player's side.

Drew sums up my feelings perfectly. PC creation should have plenty of options and customizations, but I do think you have to balance that against complexity. Luckily I do think that there are ways to give plenty of options without making PC creation subject to classroom instruction.

Hey speaking of 4e monster design, has anyone heard the latest podcast, where they talk about monster design?

One thing scares me all to the get out about their approach. The names.
Mooks, brutes, controllers, artillery, etc  several of the names Clicked in my head.

Most notably, brutes and controllers.  Then it dawned on me today.  These guys are going to push MMORPGS aspect familiarity with regards on how certain classes work with each other into their monster development!

Controllers, and brutes, if you dont know are classes in a popular MMORPG game called city of heros / Villians.  They whay they describe elete monsters and controllers sent a shiver down my spine, as the controller, does what it does in the MMORPG which is to add buffs and debuffs.  Brutes are easy to hit but have lots of hitpoints, and im going to assume some sort of taunthing aspect, atrillery sounds alot like a blaster, or a hunter, etc.

Did anyone else get that feeling??

Quote from: sithson

I don't.

-O

Quote from: sithsonThese guys are going to push MMORPGS aspect familiarity with regards on how certain classes work with each other into their monster development!

God, I certainly hope so.  Folks who play these games have this immense body of skills and knowledge around certain types of tactical games (just as wargamers did in ye olde days) and it'd be great for them to have an avenue to use that stuff productively at the table.

It seems plausible, but doesn't bother me. I see no problem with using words that are familiar to gamers from both sides of the computer screen. "Brute" meaning "guys with strength and hit points" is the way it's worked for me for decades.

Controller though, sounds to me more like someone that has a bunch of mooks on their side, not a buffer/debuffer.

Basically, if the word usage makes sense, I don't care what the source of it is. If it doesn't though, I'll be peeved (but almost certainly still buy at least the PHB, DMG, and MM).

I'm with James. I don't really give a fuck what the source is as long as the D&D experience is sweet. You'd have to be naive not to think they've looked at computer games, which themselves took several pages off of TTRPG anyway.

But these sorts of general archetypes have always been with us. Easy ways to categorize stuff. Like the "bricks" and "blasters" of the super genre, for instance.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm with James. I don't really give a fuck what the source is as long as the D&D experience is sweet. You'd have to be naive not to think they've looked at computer games, which themselves took several pages off of TTRPG anyway.

But these sorts of general archetypes have always been with us. Easy ways to categorize stuff. Like the "bricks" and "blasters" of the super genre, for instance.

Hell, I hope they have an index in the MM where they're sorted by archetype then level. That would be gold.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm with James. I don't really give a fuck what the source is as long as the D&D experience is sweet. You'd have to be naive not to think they've looked at computer games, which themselves took several pages off of TTRPG anyway.

Yep, the inspirational traffic between tabletop and computer games goes both ways.

Besides, all they're doing is applying tags to tactical elements that have existed for decades anyway.

Quote from: sithsonOne thing scares me all to the get out about their approach. The names.
Mooks, brutes, controllers, artillery, etc  several of the names Clicked in my head.

It's the same approach that includes splitting the PC classes into Defenders, Leaders, Strikers and Controllers, and I personally think it's a good one.

It doesn't originate in MMORPGS, D&D did it first and MMORPGs stole it. Not D&D is killing them and taking its stuff back.

There is a reason the archetypal PC group includes a fighter, a cleric a rogue and a wizard afterall.