4E: DM's Screen

Nice! 4-panels of the same cardstock as the cover of a hardcover book. Looks to be of good quality and useful.

Also picked up Goodman's "Points of Light" and a Celtic Warband boxed set from Renegade Miniatures. Not relevant to the DM screen, but I'm in a Twittering mood.

4E: The magic item table formula - revealed!

The secret THEY didn't want you to know!

OK, I'm being a tad overdramatic. Anyway, there's a table in the PHB that lists magic item prices by item level (page 223). There's a definite pattern there, so I sat down and figured out what the formula was. Can it be useful? Eh...hard to say. It was a fun puzzle for me, so I thought I'd share it:

160*POWER(5,TRUNC((Level-1)/5))*(2.25+MOD(Level-1,5))

It's in an Excel format, but it should be easy enough to decipher. Obviously, "Level" is the item level. "TRUNC" means to truncate (drop the decimal) of "(Level-1)/5". POWER means take the first value ("5") to the power of the second value "(TRUNC((Level-1)/5)"). And "MOD" is the modulus formula; take the remainder of "Level-1" divided by 5 (so "3" would be "2", "12" would be "1", "21" would be "0", etc.).

Like I said, not necessarily very useful. But I figured I did the work so I'd share it.

4E: Roleplaying

One of the prevailing anti-4E arguments is that the 4E rules "don't support role-playing". It's amusing because the implication is that the rules in the previous editions did. Really? The central theme of D&D since the beginning has been "kill things, take their stuff" (from a core POV, which is all you can compare 4E with since that's all that's out for it at this point). Role-playing has always been something that the group brought to the table. This is an old, old argument. I remember that flame wars on Usenet in the early 90's about how AD&D (1 or 2) was all hack-n-slash and that only games like Vampire and that ilk allowed you to truly "role-play".

You don't need rules to tell you how to role-play. If you want to RP, you can and probably will. If not, then you won't (or you'll do the bare minimum). It's as simple as that.

One of the best 4E reviews I've seen so far...

If your character's name is "my guy" as in "my guy hits the monster," or "my guy grabs the treasure," this might be for you.

If you prefer video games to other people, and think interactive storytelling is for wussies, buy it.

But if you're an actual role-player, and especially if you've loved the previous D&D games, buy Pathfinder instead. D&D 4e is the worst pile of drek I've ever wasted money on. I'm taking my copy back for a refund.

Very informative and not the least bit confrontational!

Seriously, what is it with nerds and 4E? There's plenty of rational discourse and commentary about it (such as here and here), but there's so much of this unsupported, vitriolic, emotionally-unhinged ranting. I understand this is par for the course when it comes to human nature and isn't limited to gamers (I live in Chicago and have seen how Cubs and White Sox fans act at times), but it still seems so ridiculous. It's one thing not to like something, but to go on at length about how it sucks without providing any substance to your reasoning...I don't get it.

What does the author think a "review" like this will accomplish, anyway? A rational person isn't going to consider it if they're trying to find out information on 4E; anyone who takes it to heart will simply be doing so to reinforce their own bias against the game. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but why not say why you dislike it? I keep hearing the detractors saying "4E is just like a video game". OK...in what way? Try to support your argument with examples, otherwise you just sound like a raving loon.

4E Random Comments

I've had the books now for a week now and I've been reading them when I can. Some random thoughts in no particular order follow:

• Alignment: I'm cool with the alignment changes but the naming is wonky. It's obvious now that they kept the "corner" alignments and renamed "neutral" to "unaligned". Presumably CN has been rolled into "unaligned" and NG was merged with CG (though just called "good" now). Not sure about LN, but I'd guess most people ended up playing LN as LG or LE so they didn't see a need for it, and NE was probably absorbed by either LE (now "evil") or CE. I'm OK with the changes, but why call CG "good" rather than "chaotic good"? Or he opposite for the evil alignments? The implication is that alignment follows a linear model, like the first edition of WFRP, like "LG-G-U-E-CE", whereas it's really a square with U in the middle. Not sure, but not a big deal.
• Disease: Actually more complicated than 3.x, but a lot cooler. I also like the idea that if you roll poorly enough on your Heal check when performing the Cure Disease ritual you could actually kill the person you're trying to cure.
• Masterwork armor: Seems a little odd, but you can get by with the mundane for quite some time. The "second tier" armor is no more weird than mithril and adamantine (and you can't get it until level 16), and from what I can see you wouldn't be dealing with the "third tier" until the late 20's anyway, at which point you're wearing it to have dinner with the gods. In any case, they're all just sets of numbers so the names and fluff are easily changed.
• Skill system: In 3E, the idea was good but I always felt the implementation was flawed. I much prefer the consolidation and static increases of 4E.
• Opportunity Attacks: From what I can see, only three things provoke OAs: ranged attacks, area attacks, and movement. I may be wrong (I haven't fully read the combat chapter yet), but a definite improvement if not. AoOs were something that seemed like a good idea but their implementation took more away from gameplay than it added.

More comments as I finish the books. I've skimmed all three but I've only been thoroughly reading the PHB so far.