It's pretty much official- D&D 4e is now under way. [Archive]

Janos

08-16-2007, 01:12 AM

I was hoping for true20 style, but that seems unlikely.

what I want?
- damage saves, which don't go up with level
- armour help damage saves
- defence bonus
- only three or four classes (fighter, rogue and adept; or fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric)
- most traditional extra classes (e.g. paladin, bard) as prestige classes; variant classes (barbarians, druids, rangers) reproduced through feat chains.

I don't mind damage saves for some genres, but I'm really stuck on hit points for D&D. I agree with the last two options, and wouldn't mind a defense bonus system, but I would probably nerf or avoid the game if they implimented damage saves ala True20 into core fantasy D&D. They really significantly alter the feel of the game, and not in a good way for me.

By the way, paging Krishnath to come eat his words for the last few months.

Morbidity

08-16-2007, 01:23 AM

Hey I'll be happy if we just go to hexes rather than squares so that movement can be done properly.

Janos

08-16-2007, 01:26 AM

Hey I'll be happy if we just go to hexes rather than squares so that movement can be done properly.

That I certainly can agree with. But I don't think they will just to be different.

:rolleyes:

Harry

08-16-2007, 01:41 AM

My group put aside 3.5 quite a while back. We are more than happy playing Castles & Crusades, and whenever we feel like going on a lark, we putz around with systems like Rifts, D20 Modern, whatever strikes our fancy. I am currently collecting possible material for A&8s. Only two of us are book hounds to any degree, well, extreme degrees, myself and Brutorz Bill, and neither of us have any interest in exploring another revision of 3.x.

When I buy books nowadays, it's only in the interest of completing a collection or supporting a publisher I am really fond of - Necromancer and Goodman Games fall into that category. The books I actively look for for actual game use are almost exclusively 1st and 2nd Edition books.

So, count me among the massively underwhelmed.

Wizards lost my gaming dollars quite a while back.

Morbidity

08-16-2007, 01:48 AM

As I GM my home game my only opportunity to play a character is doing RPG … I play Living Greyhawk. As any changes to the rules are automatically flowed on to the RPG games, I’m keenly interested as this will potentially ruin something I greatly enjoy doing.

Unless 4e offers something truly spectacular though I doubt I’ll flow it on to my home game (which is currently 3.5). Hmmm this makes me think, there’s no reason I can’t just make my home game hexes and get rid of that minor bugbear immediately. Another advantage is that the hex side of my battlemat is nice and clean.

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 03:42 AM

I'm guessing that 4th Ed is tied in with their new digital initiative no wonder they kept so quiet about it.

Then again it could just be the count down to Gencon, it's 4 days of Adventuring.

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 03:50 AM

Found this on Wizards forums... there was a 4E forum but it's now been blocked.

Hello All.

The announcement of 4th Edition is a pretty big event for all RPG fans. It's a huge event for all of us at Wizards of the Coast, including WotC staff and our WizO support team. We understand that this is something many of you are going to feel very passionate about in a number of ways.

We've created this forum for few reasons. We want everyone to have a single discussion forum where they can get answers and information directly from the D&D staff. We also want to prevent the other forums from being overwhelmed with 4E posts to the point that it drowns out any of the natural discussion in those areas. Additionally, I want to have a single forum where our community can post their hopes, fears, concerns, and dreams about 4E. This will make it easier for the D&D staff to read community feedback, and to (hopefully) provide a lot of answers to your questions.

The WizOs will be moderating this forum and others. They are acting on the direction of Wizards of the Coast, so if you're upset with their moderation, please don't take it out on the WizOs. Their goals will be clear: Keep 4th Edition discussion in the 4E forum. This might mean locking threads and/or moving posts.

If you have concerns, questions, or issues about the forum moderation taking place after the 4th Edition announcement, I've created a thread here where you may discuss your concerns.

Finally, please try to be respectful in your posts and comments. Be nice to other posters, the WizOs, and WotC staff. The WizOs will be enforcing all Code of Conduct rules on all forums as usual.

If you have any suggestions or ideas on how I can do a better job of helping to facilitate communication between the D&D Staff and the Community, I've created a thread here.

Thanks!
-Mike
__________________
Mike Lescault
Online Communities Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Host of Gamer Radio Zero
Gamer_Zer0 is offline Report Post

Harry

08-16-2007, 03:57 AM

http://theminiaturespage.com/news/519193/

August 16, 2007 (Renton, WA) – Whether you storm a mad wizard's tower every week or haven't delved into a dungeon since you had a mullet and a mean pair of parachute pants, one thing is certain - millions of D&D players worldwide have anticipated the coming of 4th Edition for many years. Today, Wizards of the Coast confirms that the new edition will launch in May 2008 with the release of the D&D Player's Handbook. A pop culture icon, Dungeons & Dragons is the #1 tabletop roleplaying game in the world, and is revered by legions of gamers of all ages.

The 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons game includes elements familiar to current D&D players, including illustrated rulebooks and pre-painted plastic miniatures. Also releasing next year will be new web-based tools and online community forums through the brand-new Dungeons & Dragons Insider (D&D Insider) digital offering. D&D Insider lowers the barriers of entry for new players while simultaneously offering the depth of play that appeals to veteran players.

The 4th Edition rules emphasize faster game play, offer exciting new character options, and reduce the amount of "prep time" needed to run the game. D&D Insider includes a character creator that lets players design and equip their D&D characters, dungeon- and adventure-building tools for Dungeon Masters, online magazine content, and a digital game table that lets you play 24/7 on the internet — the perfect option for anyone who can't find time to get together.

"We've been gathering player feedback for eight years," said Bill Slavicsek, R&D Director of Roleplaying and Miniatures Games at Wizards of the Coast. "Fourth Edition streamlines parts of the D&D game that are too complex, while enhancing the overall play experience. At its heart, it's still a tabletop game experience. However, D&D Insider makes it easier for players to create characters, run their games, and interact with the rest of the D&D community."

Wizards of the Coast will release two 4th Edition preview books in December and January — Wizards Presents: Classes and Races and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters. The first live demos of 4th Edition will happen at the D&D Experience gaming convention in Washington D.C. in February 2008. The full scope of 4th Edition books, miniatures, and adventures will be available in the spring and summer of 2008.

Since its first release in 1974, the fantasy roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons has taken millions of players on imaginary adventures of epic scale. Today, D&D is universally regarded as the original game that created the roleplaying game category, and the inspiration for generations of game designers. D&D is enjoyed by millions of players worldwide, while countless more remember it with fond nostalgia.

"Anticipated" is a word with many meanings.

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 03:58 AM

Actually I think that's all a smoke screen....

Nothingland closed yesterday.... Wizards DnD site is now reopening with a new look.... coincidence I think not.

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 04:00 AM

"Anticipated" is a word with many meanings.

I think "dreaded" would fit equally well.

Harry

08-16-2007, 04:16 AM

Oddly enough, one of my first thoughts was "Poor Rich Burlew, he's gonna have to reboot OotS again."

Dacke

08-16-2007, 04:35 AM

PHB coming in May? That's certainly a departure from the "release at GenCon" thing.

I wonder if they'll do a staggered release like with 3.0, or simultanous like 3.5. I hope for simultaneous, as I don't feel like buying an incomplete game.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-16-2007, 05:01 AM

Hey I'll be happy if we just go to hexes rather than squares so that movement can be done properly.

I've never quite gotten people's problem with squares. Whereas hexes make my head hurt... :shrug:

Limper

08-16-2007, 07:31 AM

Thank God! I was so getting tired of buying new books, now I can work with what there is and not worry about players buying new crap that I have to incorporate.

Tetsubo

08-16-2007, 08:43 AM

I know I have no plans on making the switch to 4E. I have too much invested in 3.5 books.

Not that I *have* a game right now... grumble... I miss gaming...

Limper

08-16-2007, 08:52 AM

I know I have no plans on making the switch to 4E. I have too much invested in 3.5 books.

Not that I *have* a game right now... grumble... I miss gaming...

I'm lucky in that those I game with normally have become old and cheap and unwilling to buy yet another version.

If you wait to long however you may have to change cause everyone else has.

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 08:55 AM

Yeah, I suck with 3.0 for ages then changed group and they were all on 3.5. If the online stuff is good enough and really does make the DM's job easier I can see me switching to 4.0 sooner. The problem I see is if 4.0 is a big step then even if the online stuff helps, it will render any 3.0/3.5 adventures (like my Dungeon collection) unusable (as is) which will in turn increase my workload either writing original adventures or converting old ones.

EhtoZed

08-16-2007, 09:34 AM

I'm kind of excited about this. One of my favorite things about 3rd party books was seeing how they could change or streamline the rules. Everybody liked some of the changes in SW Saga, so why not see what changes (hopefully for the better) can be made for D&D.

obryn

08-16-2007, 09:54 AM

I will just say... I knew it. :)

Seriously, I'm sure I'll end up picking the core books up, but the tie-ins to the digital initiative seem kind of kooky to me.

Having played Star Wars Saga for the past month, I'm kinda hoping D&D doesn't go quite the same route. The Saga rules work great for a Star Wars game, but I really don't see them working for a D&D game.

-O

Phantom Stranger

08-16-2007, 10:39 AM

I'm feeling an overwhelming wait and see flow over me. I'm neither excited or dreading what is coming.

I do wonder though, how much of this was done to put a kibosh on the OGL and what the new "default," world will be.

Janos

08-16-2007, 11:18 AM

I do wonder though, how much of this was done to put a kibosh on the OGL and what the new "default," world will be.

Ditto. I'll switch for sure, how fast is really the issue. If they tie in the Online support well, I'll do it faster. If they market the online support built into the game as part of the Gleemax Subscription Package, I'll probably torch the WotC headquarters.

BOZ

08-16-2007, 11:43 AM

Oddly enough, one of my first thoughts was "Poor Rich Burlew, he's gonna have to reboot OotS again."

naw, i'm sure he'll look at this as more of an opportunity than a burden - he'll have a lot more material to work with now. ;)

Limper

08-16-2007, 11:45 AM

naw, i'm sure he'll look at this as more of an opportunity than a burden - he'll have a lot more material to work with now. ;)

Unless they dig out their old business plan and sue him out of the game as well as anyone else who mentions anything related to ther product anywhere in the world and web.

Janos

08-16-2007, 11:46 AM

'D&D 4th Edition' Announced at Gen Con
Online Component Added

August 16, 2007

Wizards of the Coast is announcing at GenCon today that it will release the 4th Edition of its category-leading Dungeons and Dragon roleplaying game in 2008, the first full new edition in eight years. The three core books will be released next summer on a monthly schedule: Player's Handbook in May, Monster Manual in June, and Dungeon Master's Guide in July. Pricing and page counts of the new products will be consistent with current packaging. Graphics have been updated, art will be used on the covers, and interior design has been opened up to make the books less intimidating to new players.

Lead-in products, Wizards Presents: Classes and Races and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters, will be released in December. An April release, Keep of the Shadowfell, will include a set of quickstart rules for 4E.

While there are changes in play (such as incorporating "epic-level play," with 30 levels instead of 20), they are described as "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary." Other changes include new power sources, changes in resource management, and new encounter design, and more clearly defined monster roles. Changes will speed play, make the game easier to learn, and make DM-ing easier. Concepts for 4th Edition gameplay were tested in the new Star Wars RPG, and the Book of 9 Swords.
What the company does describe as revolutionary is the method of product delivery, which will incorporate online play for the first time. WotC is incorporating online components into the game through a new Website, DnDInsider.com. Each paper product will include codes to unlock digital versions on the site for a "nominal" activation fee. Players will also be able to use DnDInsider tools and access regular new content similar to the material that was previously released in Dragon and Dungeon magazines (see "Interview with Liz Schuh") for a monthly fee (as yet undetermined) greater than the old subscription price, but less than a MMORPG subscription. Magazine-style content will be added to the site three times a week and compiled into digital "issues" monthly.

Gameplay features on the Web will include a digital D&D game table, and voice chat and text messaging, to allow online players to communicate with each other. The online play is designed to "supplement, not replace" meatspace play.

The Open Gaming License will continue as it has in the past, allowing the use of the rules in other publishers' games.

Work on the new edition began in 2005, with the major work all accomplished in the last year.

D&D products released between now and the launch of 4th Edition will fall into three groups. Edition-proof products (which are mostly story) will not include mechanics that are edition-specific. Some products will be "enhanced" to 4th Edition mechanics after release through DnDInsider, and a couple of series will end as 3.5 products.

The setting for the core books are campaign neutral. Forgotten Realms will be the first campaign setting to be updated (in August 2008). Other campaign settings will be updated at a rate of one per year.

Marketing support will initially focus on migrating the existing player base, and then move to an acquisition strategy to re-activate lapsed players and acquire new ones. Midnight launch parties will be used to kick off sales of the first new release in May.

Finally, some good news. Also, this seems like a pretty reasonable approach, and a decent solution to copyright issues and online books.

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 11:54 AM

Dacke

08-16-2007, 12:04 PM

The three core books will be released next summer on a monthly schedule: Player's Handbook in May, Monster Manual in June, and Dungeon Master's Guide in July.
Interesting that they are reversing the DMG/MM order from 3e. I guess they figured that the DMG stuff can wait a while (and it's probably the least edition-dependent of the books as well), whereas people want monsters to kill right away.

Other changes include new power sources, changes in resource management, and new encounter design, and more clearly defined monster roles. Changes will speed play, make the game easier to learn, and make DM-ing easier. Concepts for 4th Edition gameplay were tested in the new Star Wars RPG, and the Book of 9 Swords.
So we'll be seeing more per-encounter balance than per-day balance.

Also, regarding the stuff about encounter design and monster roles: check out Dungeonscape and some of the recent articles on the website (notably the developer's notes for MM5). Quite a lot of talk about that kind of stuff there.

The setting for the core books are campaign neutral. Forgotten Realms will be the first campaign setting to be updated (in August 2008). Other campaign settings will be updated at a rate of one per year.
I was hoping Eberron would be the first to be translated :(

doc

08-16-2007, 12:05 PM

My guess is "prepare to be disappointed."
Sounds like my honeymoon

I'm so underwelmed right now with DnD, WoTC, Hasbro and sundry other companies. Thinking of folding my tent and shuffling off to the great unknown

Northcott

08-16-2007, 12:06 PM

I was hoping Eberron would be the first to be translated :(

And that the rules might finally be in synch with the flavour text of the book? That would be a nice change.

PWD

08-16-2007, 12:06 PM

Fuck that whole staged release shit. I hated it with 3E and I'll hate it again.

Granted, the DMG can wait a bit given how they've restructured the breakdown of content from the 1E days and shifted the content from necessary mechanics to "how to" and supplementary type content, but still - giving me the PHB a month before the MM is fucking stupid.

Sack it up, release all three at once.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

08-16-2007, 12:12 PM

I won't rule out a 4E purchase somewhere down the road, but right now I have so much 3E stuff it isn't funny. I intend to get my use out of it, too.

If 4E is not OGL then expect a real schizm in roleplaying. You will have a "D20/OGL" contingent that will continue as I will, and a "D&D" contingent that will support the official version of the game. Both will be playing D&D, but unlike the switch from from 2E to 3E, there will be a healthy number of people that probably say "no thanks" to the new version. You'll also see a big push from the remaining big-boy third parties to keep D&D 3.x alive and relevent.

Kind of weird, but a 4E version of D&D will have to honestly compete against its previous incarnation. And you know what - I'd have to say it's going to be a real struggle. Look at all those miniatures people bought - they all have 3E stats on them. I use those cards for my RPG because they are so handy. Under 4E I won't have that option.

3E was a vast improvement in my mind over 2E (and even 1E). I can't see a new version improving that much on it.

Enk

08-16-2007, 12:14 PM

I noticed that the press release Janos posted said that the OGL would remain, but didn't specify if the 4e rules would be added to it.

EhtoZed

08-16-2007, 12:29 PM

Also, regarding the stuff about encounter design and monster roles: check out Dungeonscape and some of the recent articles on the website (notably the developer's notes for MM5). Quite a lot of talk about that kind of stuff there.Gots a link yo?

Droid101

08-16-2007, 12:37 PM

I don't play enough anymore... I have tons of 3.5 stuff so I think I'm good.

I'd probably peruse it if I saw it at a bookstore, but not much else.

Janos

08-16-2007, 12:40 PM

Good news? They are going to charge you for the book then charge you again to use the digital content of the book. IE: You pay for the book, then pay again if you want to use those options with the character generator you are already likely to be paying for.

Where did you find this?

http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11123.html

Yup, good news. And from what's described up there, you won't have to pay for basic access to the generator, just to tie more rules options into it on a one-time basis. I'm okay with that. They were going to charge you anyway, and a PDF accessible online version of the book would be a dream for me, tying it in with a character generator is just an added bonus.

And the good news is incorporating ToB and per encounter into the rules rather than per day. They should have done it with 3.x and as Dacke said, they've been moving that way with recent product releases.

I noticed that the press release Janos posted said that the OGL would remain, but didn't specify if the 4e rules would be added to it.

Debate is RAGING about that one, I'm not even trying to keep up with it beyond the minimum.

Dinkeldog

08-16-2007, 12:41 PM

5 pages already.

What edition is Ars Magica on? How about Champions? What about a little boardgame like Talisman? And how old are those?

Janos

08-16-2007, 12:43 PM

5 pages already.

What about a little boardgame like Talisman?

The 4th edition rules set of Talisman came out at this GenCon and jumped to 7 pages within a day or two of the thread being posted at EN World, and another several at CM.

:p

doc

08-16-2007, 01:10 PM

I don't play enough anymore... I have tons of 3.5 stuff so I think I'm good.

I'd probably peruse it if I saw it at a bookstore, but not much else.

You're a collecter, you'll be in line with the other WoTC junkies wanting you're NEW IMPROVED FIXX, O MAN $40 FOR THE PHB !! O YEAH gottahaveitgottahaveit look at all the COOL art, gottahaveitgottahaveitgottahaveitgottahaveit. HEY Cod Pieces ARE BROKEN !!!gottahaveitgottahaveitgottahaveitgottahaveitgot tahaveitgottahaveit

So what are they going to change ?

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 01:54 PM

What's interesting about the article Janos posted is it's the first idea of cost for DnD Insider I've seen. More than Dragon and Dungeon subscription but less than a MMORPG, so between $7 and $14 dollars a month, but then you have to add on the nominal fees to use the digital content of books you buy.

BOZ

08-16-2007, 02:30 PM

i'll see what i can learn at gencon (leaving chicago in 5 hours or so), but i'm going to try not to get too excited one way or the other about this anytime soon, at least until i see it for myself (in May of 2008, or whenever previews appear on the internet).

Dacke

08-16-2007, 03:17 PM

Gots a link yo?
Well, the D&D site is all taken up by the "4dventure" countdown. I'll see what I can do tomorrow when I get back from work. I doubt I can do much about links to Dungeonscape though.

Steampunk

08-16-2007, 03:21 PM

Well, the D&D site is all taken up by the "4dventure" countdown. I'll see what I can do tomorrow when I get back from work. I doubt I can do much about links to Dungeonscape though.

I would have liked to have been able to get the rest of the site, still. I get it, you are about to suck more money out of our wallets. Now, let me get to the 3.5 stuff I still use.

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 03:37 PM

What edition is Ars Magica on? How about Champions? What about a little boardgame like Talisman? And how old are those?

Well CoC is on its second or third different print edition of it's 5th edition rules, and that is near the same age as D&D. But to be fair their is very little difference rules wise between the editions.

Ars Magica is on 5th Edition as well I think, and it isn't as old.

Personally I'm not that bothered that 4th Ed will be here by Summer 2008.

doc

08-16-2007, 03:52 PM

What I want to know is has Eric Noah start his site yet ?

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 06:38 PM

Service Unavailable

That's pretty disappointing... :(

and it's the whole site not just the DnD page.

The Winslow

08-16-2007, 06:42 PM

Bye, Cyragnome. Hi, Tiefling. (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204217)

The Winslow

08-16-2007, 06:55 PM

Service Unavailable

That's pretty disappointing... :(

and it's the whole site not just the DnD page.

Well, ENWorld (and Circus Maximus too, since it's on the same server) is nearly collapsing, too. I expect the old image http://gez117.free.fr/NKL/ENWorldIsDown.gif to get some action soon!

I was hoping Eberron would be the first to be translated :(
It wasn't possible. Since they've removed the gnome (okay, not confirmed, but what else, seriously?) to make way for the tiefling, and since gnomes play an important part in Eberron -- it just couldn't do. On the other hand, nobody ever noticed gnomes existing in the Forgotten Realms (where they're nicknamed the "Forgotten Race of the Forgotten Realms", without history nor territory nor even famous NPC), except for the dubious 3e retcon of the Lantanese from humans to gnomes, it makes sense easily.

In extenso, it's possible to write for the Forgotten Realms in a ruleset that can't be applied to a far-away exotic part of the setting like Lantan. It's difficult to write for Eberron in a ruleset that can't be applied to a central, important part of the setting like Zilargo.

Ancalagon

08-16-2007, 07:15 PM

Bagpuss

08-16-2007, 07:18 PM

From what I've seen Bo9S is combat abilities like they have done Force Abilities. IE you get X many per encounter and you pick them from a 'spell list'.

Janos

08-16-2007, 07:40 PM

From what I've seen Bo9S is combat abilities like they have done Force Abilities. IE you get X many per encounter and you pick them from a 'spell list'.

Correct. With manuever classes, you generally have 3-5 prepared tricks you can use once each, and "reset" by taking certain activities and use again. You have a list of slightly larger to select from. You also have stances, persistant always active abilities that tie in with the manuevers you have selected.

Manuevers have levels/tiers going from 1-9. You gain them based on your levels in an initiator class plus 1/2 of your levels from non-initiator classes.

Most of them take a standard action to activate and give you an attack as part of that action, so they are not combinable with full attacks, two-weapon fighting, etc (except for a few special manuevers that allow you to do those).

Many of them are also swift action boosts that give you a quick bonus. They also run the gamut from supernatural abilities to extrodinary (with most being extrodinary).

Ancalagon

08-16-2007, 07:51 PM

.... almost... final fantasy ish...

The Winslow

08-16-2007, 07:51 PM

Basically, they're fighter spells.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-16-2007, 07:54 PM

They say that the new rules will incorporate elements of SW saga and the book of 9 swords.

... I know nothing about that book of 9 swords. can anyone comment on it?

As far as SW Saga, if they do the spells like they did the force, that could be quite interesting!

Ancalagon

How does that link in with the way they've done magic in True20?

I should start another thread on T20, since I've thought a bit about it since the last thread. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me to have the potential to model a more grim and gritty setting like LotR from the books. The idea of magic inducing fatigue seems to me to model Gandalf the Grey, for example.

Janos

08-16-2007, 07:57 PM

I should start another thread on T20, since I've thought a bit about it since the last thread. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me to have the potential to model a more grim and gritty setting like LotR from the books. The idea of magic inducing fatigue seems to me to model Gandalf the Grey, for example.

In our experience trying to replicate Iron Kingdoms using True20, we found the opposite of what I would consider Grim & Gritty. Damage was much less lethal (although random when it affected you), magic was too powerful to be low magic oriented, and it was pretty easy to build an almost unstoppable defender.

You could probably tweak it to address a lot of those problems, but as its written, its a pretty light combat system and fragile, it breaks easy with a bit of power gaming.

Cyragnome

08-16-2007, 08:03 PM

What edition is Ars Magica on? How about Champions?
5th Revised, but honestly, there's not a real significant difference between 1st and 5th (some power expansion and skill expansion but all the concepts are pretty much as they were early on...there is, IMO, a much, much larger conceptual difference between D&D and 3.5E).

Bye, Cyragnome. Hi, Tiefling. (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204217)

Since they've removed the gnome (okay, not confirmed, but what else, seriously?) to make way for the tiefling[...]
Fuckers.

I was going to say I'm just the sort of chump they'll love...I'll buy at least the core rules and likely some of the other books...but no gnomes? Fuck them!*

*Naw...I ain't one of *those*...I honestly haven't played a gnome since High School and even then it was only once ;)

The Winslow

08-16-2007, 08:18 PM

http://gez117.free.fr/NKL/ENWorldIsDown.gif

Atticus_of_Amber

08-16-2007, 08:24 PM

In our experience trying to replicate Iron Kingdoms using True20, we found the opposite of what I would consider Grim & Gritty. Damage was much less lethal (although random when it affected you), magic was too powerful to be low magic oriented, and it was pretty easy to build an almost unstoppable defender.

You could probably tweak it to address a lot of those problems, but as its written, its a pretty light combat system and fragile, it breaks easy with a bit of power gaming.

I'm at the great disadvantage of never having actually played it, just read it. But on paper it seemed to have such potential. Oh well...

One thing, though - I don't thing "grim and gritty" was the right phrase for me to have used to describe what I mean. You have heroic unrealistic behaviour in LotR (e.g. Aragorn and Eomer fighting in the battle of the Pelanor Fields all day and coming out without a scratch; etc) but the "rules" are reasonably realistic in that they aren't just soaking up damage through hit points (Borimir fighting on after being peppered with arrows might be an exception, but they arrows did kill him; more of an adrenalin and despair induced final rage, really).

One thing I did think about the T20 magic system is that you needed to use the option of calculating fatigue from magic use across a whole day, rather than just an encounter.

Northcott

08-16-2007, 08:31 PM

Atticus_of_Amber

08-16-2007, 08:51 PM

Re: T20 -- my group thought about keeping it to low-mid levels, and using 2d10 instead of d20's. That way you've got results weighted toward the middle, and skills become more important.

The problem is, of course, that the whole thing is still level dependent, so it makes the skill system clunky in the long run.

Is that how it pans out? From reading, I thought the fact that toughness saves don't level tended to make it gritter in that a level 5 character can really hurt a level 20 enemy if he gets a in lucky shot. OTOH, the level 5 give will find a level 20 enemy is almost impossible to hit unless surprised, can do skills so much better than him, can hit him almost at will and do so many more magic tricks so much more powerfully than he can.

Janos

08-16-2007, 09:44 PM

One thing I did think about the T20 magic system is that you needed to use the option of calculating fatigue from magic use across a whole day, rather than just an encounter.

We actually did impliment that. The problem is that up until really high levels, its easy to keep your will save significantly higher than the difficulty to resist any level of fatigue. I used Light Manipulation to give myself Displacement almost every battle, and would maintain it throughout the fight. The penalty for sustaining a spell was relatively minor set against a flat 50% all the time miss chance for example. And with just a 4th level character I was able to get the effect off consistently because it was only a 20 difficulty with Caster level +3 + primary stat + feats to trigger it. So with just 1 adept level and a 3 intelligence I was still able to get and maintain a 50% miss chance for a whole fight.

The thing about damage saves is that you either have a high one, or don't pretty early on, and that fact doesn't change. There are enough things like armor proficiencies, a high Con score, and feats to increase it that you can really push it upward to resist almost all but cannon level damage. But you have to do so or you're pretty much screwed and incredibly squishy.

We had a fight where the dex based 9th level Swashbuckler villian was killed in one hit with a lucky to hit, and a low damage save by BBG that stunned him and denied his dex to a follow up hit, but his 2 1st level thugs went on to nearly TPK the party because they were toughness maxed.

Granted we were using firearms, which have a slightly higher damage output than most melee weapons, so that may have skewed our results a bit. I think a stagged damage save is needed because its relatively easy to get around the defense score. May only at half character level or some such, but otherwise its just too easy to hit someone, and regardless of their class level they go squish or shrug it off entirely.

We only played till 7th then moved on and liked the system, but it needs some number and feat revisions before I'd be totally head over heels in love with it.

Harry

08-16-2007, 09:48 PM

Yeah, I guess this doesn't need it's own thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqEAubzZjN0

Sobek

08-16-2007, 09:56 PM

I've never quite gotten people's problem with squares. Whereas hexes make my head hurt... :shrug:

Fuck! I agree with Atticus.

Lisa Nadazdy

08-16-2007, 10:01 PM

Fuck! I agree with Atticus.

I don't know. I rather like hexes; I cut my teeth on Champions. While hexes make combat and positioning feel more fluid, I recognize that most people prefer squares. Savages.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-16-2007, 10:07 PM

Fuck! I agree with Atticus.

Fuck! I agree with Sobek. :rolleyes:

Northcott

08-16-2007, 10:30 PM

Is that how it pans out? From reading, I thought the fact that toughness saves don't level tended to make it gritter in that a level 5 character can really hurt a level 20 enemy if he gets a in lucky shot. OTOH, the level 5 give will find a level 20 enemy is almost impossible to hit unless surprised, can do skills so much better than him, can hit him almost at will and do so many more magic tricks so much more powerfully than he can.

Our d20 Modern campaign showed us how wildly the linear probability of d20 could screw with even the best laid plans. It was impractical to go for a "jack of all trades" when the only way to come close to ensuring success was blatant specialization min/maxing. We hated that.

But the switch to 2d10 allowed for greater breadth of character, and suddenly every point of difference in ability mattered.

I'm not 100% sure it would work smoothly in T20, but that was what we were planning when real life rudely interrupted and slowed our gaming to a crawl. We haven't had the opportunity to test the theory yet.

Dark Jezter

08-16-2007, 10:34 PM

Ya know, so far I'm liking most of what I've read about D&D 4e. I like the fact that a fighter's choice of weapon will make actual differences in the abilities he can use in combat, and I also like it that your choice in race will be important at high levels. The fact that it will supposedly be quicker and easier to run for the DM also makes me happy, because the long prep times was one of the only things I didn't like about 3.x.

I'll definitely be keeping track of 4e.

Ancalagon

08-16-2007, 11:41 PM

short DM prep time could go a *long* way to convince me to switch. It's why I switched to warhammer frpg (2nd ed).

obryn

08-16-2007, 11:43 PM

Hehehe... Beek Gwenders... Lord, I love the names from the D123 series...

Lisa Nadazdy

08-17-2007, 12:05 AM

obryn

08-17-2007, 12:35 AM

I'll only buy into 4e if it addresses a few things I despise:

AoO- While I'm not against the concept, it grinds combat to a near stanstill at times, especially at high levels. Furthermore, too much of the combat system is hinged arounf 'threatened squares' and 5'-steps.
Saga got rid of 5' steps, and I think D&D4 may go a similar route. I'd expect to see AoO's still part of the system, but simplified... I think Reach will be easier to implement, and probably triggering events will be easier to notice.

Iterative attacks- by the time the game hits the high levels, iterative attacks often mean "he who wins initiative, wins". Keep most of combat down to one attack per round for most characters, thanks.
Again, I'd expect to see this like Saga. Characters can get multiple attacks only by taking feats. If they make >1 attack per round, all attacks get the same penalty - -5 for 2 attacks, -10 for 3.

Baseline character CL- the big assumption of the CL/experience system is that characters will have a default level of magic items to deal with threats, which makes judging CR tricky when a DM wants to build a low magic or high magic game. I would prefer that the CL is based off baseline characters (aka- no mgic items by default) and magic items calculated as a modifier to CL. This way, you can have characters that aren't walking magic item Christmas trees, and still be able to easily eyeball the CR.
Lord, I hope so. I think there's a good possibility of this. While magic items can be fun, it's a real hassle when creating higher-level characters. I'm crossing my fingers for a reduction on the importance of buff items, and fewer assumptions about character net worth. I think this is very likely - but magic items like Bags of Holding are as much a part of D&D as fighters & fireballs, so it won't (and shouldn't) completely disappear.

Kill the 'Dungeonpunk'- I hate this style of art. Stop with the buckles and spikes. Seriously. It's fuckin' ugly.
Matter of taste. Personally, I kinda like it and have since Earthdawn.

Optional- a class and PrC construction kit, with guidelines on how to build them and make them consistent. This would probably be best reserved for a splatbook, and that's fine. Hell, while we're at it, put in a basic point construction system to create a 'classless' game.
Again, if it's like Saga Edition, it will come damn close to classless - a few somewhat generic classes that can pick from a palette of talents and abilities.

Find a way to drop stat blocks to a few lines. Prep time is a killer for me, and it's one of the reasons I hate 3.x.
I'm hoping for this, too. Again, I think it's likely.

-O

Harry

08-17-2007, 01:28 AM

Another video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs&NR=1

Ergeheilalt

08-17-2007, 02:00 AM

Another video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs&NR=1

The equation is inefficient!

Rock my world, best game ever? Fuck, they sucked the life out of the game with that lame ass cookie cutter power point. I've seen better, more engaging presentations in my engineering class projects. :rolleyes:

Atticus_of_Amber

08-17-2007, 03:07 AM

Another video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs&NR=1

My God! That was the lamest, most pathetic piece of marketing guff I've ever witnessed in my life. It didn't actually say anything and it sounded stupid while not saying it.

Bagpuss

08-17-2007, 04:39 AM

Atticus_of_Amber

08-17-2007, 04:58 AM

the end of it and part two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZ2WdeTo1M)tells you a lot more. Demo of the online play table, character visualizer, etc.

I like the fact you can design your own miniature for the online table.

Ok, I'll bear with it.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-17-2007, 05:01 AM

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 09:45 AM

Ok, just watched the end of 1 and all of 2. i agree, the crunch to cheese ration gets less cheesy.I would agree with this. (and I'll skip the "damn, I agree with Atticus" :D )

I found theRPGPundit's latest piece (before the announcement went live) to be interesting. (background info short version, Pundit loathes Pramas and his wife and Green Ronin to some extent despite loving True20 and the new WFRPG. Pramas wrote a blog bit saying that 4th would be out soon. (can't remember how soon he said))

Linky (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/610434033/item.html)
IF the supposed 4th Edition release doesn't turn out to be a very clever piece of viral marketing, I am presenting a challenge to Mike Mearls, Bill S, or anyone at all in a position to speak on behalf of Wizards of the Coast to explain why they felt the need to LIE to their fans in February at the D&D Experience, when they stated that there'd be no D&D 4th edition until at least 2009.

Because the second worst thing out of all of this is that it allows the utter shitheads out there who've been crying wolf for the last 4 years to pretend that they were somehow "right"; when in fact they were only as right as someone "predicting" that a D20 would roll a 20, sooner or later it was going to happen, but it didn't mean that the person making the prediction has amazing psychic powers, much less that shitheads like Chris Pramas have secret "insider" knowledge. So thank you, WOTC, for making it easier for these assholes to pretend that they're part of the "industry".

That's only the second worst thing though. The worst is that you're letting assholes like Pramas paint you as an uncaring corporation that lies to its clients and fans, because, well, apparently you did. There's no possible defence for this. No justification you can make for this. You weren't forced to LIE to people in February, you could have just answered "no comment". Instead you grinned and quipped and lied to our fucking faces.

Do you have any good explanation? Any way to justify yourselves? An apology? Anything?

Otherwise, I've just lost the ability to keep defending you from those who attack you, and Wizards has lost the Pundit as a friend.

RPGPundit

Currently Smoking: Mastro De Paja 2D + Ashton Type IIIf you cut through the overthetop hyperbole I think there is still a legitimate question there as to the marketing tactic considering that what we just saw has obviously been in the works for awhile. (now if they want to say that Hasbro informed them that they had to rush it into production a year early that's one thing, but at least it's dealing with the issue.)

obryn

08-17-2007, 10:42 AM

If you cut through the overthetop hyperbole I think there is still a legitimate question there as to the marketing tactic considering that what we just saw has obviously been in the works for awhile. (now if they want to say that Hasbro informed them that they had to rush it into production a year early that's one thing, but at least it's dealing with the issue.)
Well, if you take a close look at everything official in the past several months at least - I'm especially pointing to the WotC Q&A about the Dragon/Dungeon license cancellations - nobody actually in the know at WotC has said a single word about when 4e would be coming out, or whether the Dragon/Dungeon thing is because 4e was imminent.

Their complete silence on the issue was telling, imho.

Personally, I don't think that WotC/Hasbro can be held to statements made a year ago, under a different brand manager. Timelines change, priorities shift... It's the way business works.

-O

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 10:54 AM

Personally, I don't think that WotC/Hasbro can be held to statements made a year ago, under a different brand manager. Timelines change, priorities shift... It's the way business works.

-OI didn't realize the brand manager had changed, it really makes me wonder when the old release date was supposed to have been under the former manager.

PWD

08-17-2007, 11:01 AM

If you cut through the overthetop hyperbole

If you cut through that jerkass's hyperbole, you're left with nothing. There's a point to be made, and others can make it, but from him you will never get anything more than wind. Anything he says automatically gets round-filed.

Janos

08-17-2007, 11:16 AM

Personally, I don't think that WotC/Hasbro can be held to statements made a year ago, under a different brand manager. Timelines change, priorities shift... It's the way business works.

Work on the new edition began in 2005, with the major work all accomplished in the last year.

They started working on 4e in 2005. Whether or not they put most of it into the final stages this past year, they've still been lying about it to some extent. Probably for a good reason because of the impact on sales, but lying none the less.

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 11:16 AM

If you cut through that jerkass's hyperbole, you're left with nothing. There's a point to be made, and others can make it, but from him you will never get anything more than wind. Anything he says automatically gets round-filed.:D I'm always amused, both by this reaction and the fact that he is one of the few who are mostly refered to by his former (original?) username. (His swine rants got old a long time ago, but if you get the guy talking about some of the games/worlds he runs... if he were running a game using the new online tabletop... I'd sure as hell give it a try if I had the option)

So PWD, I will ask you (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) so that the question is coming from me. (and taking into account obryn's point about the change in brand manager)

1) Do you think that WotC should have said No Comment back in Feb when they instead stated that there would be no 4th ed till at least 2009.

2) Does this apparent lie/contradition bother/annoy/piss you off?

3) Do you think a change of Brand Managers for the line between Feb and yesterday gets them out of said complaint?

Janos

08-17-2007, 11:19 AM

1) Do you think that WotC should have said No Comment back in Feb when they instead stated that there would be no 4th ed till at least 2009.

2) Does this apparent lie/contradition bother/annoy/piss you off?

3) Do you think a change of Brand Managers for the line between Feb and yesterday gets them out of said complaint?

My PWD impression is pretty bad, but:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No, because they were working on it previously.

It probably won't impact my purchase of the product, but it does piss me off and take them less seriously, as well as trust them a lot less.

obryn

08-17-2007, 11:29 AM

They started working on 4e in 2005. Whether or not they put most of it into the final stages this past year, they've still been lying about it to some extent. Probably for a good reason because of the impact on sales, but lying none the less.
The start of a project doesn't imply a set, specific end date for said project. I think everyone knew 4e was in the works, somewhere in the depths. The only question was when it would be released.

Personally, I think "It would financially ruin us" is more than sufficient reason to withhhold project development schedules and business secrets from customers.

So PWD, I will ask you (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) so that the question is coming from me. (and taking into account obryn's point about the change in brand manager)

1) Do you think that WotC should have said No Comment back in Feb when they instead stated that there would be no 4th ed till at least 2009.
Where did they say there would be no 4e until 2009, again? The only quote I could find was along the lines of "We have a great release schedule through 2008." That's fundamentally different from "No 4e until 2009!"

It's either (1) an indication that they've changed direction, or (2) a corporate half-truth. Either way, I'm perfectly fine with it.

2) Does this apparent lie/contradition bother/annoy/piss you off?
Nope. They're a business. They can't be expected to divulge information which could cripple their sales for a long period of time.

3) Do you think a change of Brand Managers for the line between Feb and yesterday gets them out of said complaint?
Assuming I thought there was a hook to get off of, yes. You don't expect a company's plans & processes to remain the same when they hire a new manager, do you? If they stayed the same, why would they bother hiring a new manager in the first place?

-O

Janos

08-17-2007, 11:35 AM

The start of a project doesn't imply a set, specific end date for said project. I think everyone knew 4e was in the works, somewhere in the depths. The only question was when it would be released.

Personally, I think "It would financially ruin us" is more than sufficient reason to withhhold project development schedules and business secrets from customers.

I think there are better ways to handle it than saying "nope, not in the works". Companies face issues about product release dates all the time, and most don't resort to outright lying. I respect their right not to out their business plan before it is ready, but that doesn't exclude baldfaced lying to the customer base.

And frankly, while I am somewhat sympathetic, I also have to point out that lying to your customers could potentially to have almost as large an impact on sales as the impending release of a new edition is. So I think its the short-term easy answer decision rather than the well thought out one.

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 11:38 AM

Janos

08-17-2007, 11:47 AM

If I understood the statement was about them running 3.x stuff till the end of '08 or something along those lines, so I don't think it was a "nope, we aren't working on one" I could be wrong of course.

I know I was told the same thing at the GenCon SoCal booth in 2006 when they did a Q&A. Now that was a booth worker and not a developer, but none the less I would expect some inter-connection. I don't have other exact quotes handy (or the time to look them up at the moment), but I do recall at least one other statement of "we are not working on 4e" about the time Dacy stepped down a few years ago.

This past year their answers have sounded more hedged at least (and why I started suspecting 4e for real since ToB).

obryn

08-17-2007, 12:11 PM

I think there are better ways to handle it than saying "nope, not in the works". Companies face issues about product release dates all the time, and most don't resort to outright lying. I respect their right not to out their business plan before it is ready, but that doesn't exclude baldfaced lying to the customer base.

But did they say that? I'm looking for quotes, but I can't find any, still.

And frankly, while I am somewhat sympathetic, I also have to point out that lying to your customers could potentially to have almost as large an impact on sales as the impending release of a new edition is. So I think its the short-term easy answer decision rather than the well thought out one.
It could, right, but I think they weighed that with the rest of their options. I mean, some fans will be upset because they weren't in the loop from the beginning of the development cycle. However, (1) they will probably get over it when they see the new & shiny stuff, at least buying the core books; and (2) one goal of a new release is to attract new players, not just convert the old ones.

It's not a bad bet.

-O

EhtoZed

08-17-2007, 12:17 PM

Saga got rid of 5' steps, and I think D&D4 may go a similar route. I'd expect to see AoO's still part of the system, but simplified... I think Reach will be easier to implement, and probably triggering events will be easier to notice.

Again, I'd expect to see this like Saga. Characters can get multiple attacks only by taking feats. If they make >1 attack per round, all attacks get the same penalty - -5 for 2 attacks, -10 for 3.

Lord, I hope so. I think there's a good possibility of this. While magic items can be fun, it's a real hassle when creating higher-level characters. I'm crossing my fingers for a reduction on the importance of buff items, and fewer assumptions about character net worth. I think this is very likely - but magic items like Bags of Holding are as much a part of D&D as fighters & fireballs, so it won't (and shouldn't) completely disappear.

Matter of taste. Personally, I kinda like it and have since Earthdawn.

Again, if it's like Saga Edition, it will come damn close to classless - a few somewhat generic classes that can pick from a palette of talents and abilities.

I'm hoping for this, too. Again, I think it's likely.

-OI love what I'm hearing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Really, if D&D4E can simplify things and make both playing and prepping easier while keeping it fun I'm in. I doubt I'll buy as many books as I did for 3E but you never know. 2-3 years from now I may have a sizable collection. We'll see.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

08-17-2007, 12:21 PM

I'll only buy into 4e if it addresses a few things I despise:

AoO- While I'm not against the concept, it grinds combat to a near stanstill at times, especially at high levels. Furthermore, too much of the combat system is hinged arounf 'threatened squares' and 5'-steps.

Iterative attacks- by the time the game hits the high levels, iterative attacks often mean "he who wins initiative, wins". Keep most of combat down to one attack per round for most characters, thanks.

Baseline character CL- the big assumption of the CL/experience system is that characters will have a default level of magic items to deal with threats, which makes judging CR tricky when a DM wants to build a low magic or high magic game. I would prefer that the CL is based off baseline characters (aka- no mgic items by default) and magic items calculated as a modifier to CL. This way, you can have characters that aren't walking magic item Christmas trees, and still be able to easily eyeball the CR.

Kill the 'Dungeonpunk'- I hate this style of art. Stop with the buckles and spikes. Seriously. It's fuckin' ugly.

Optional- a class and PrC construction kit, with guidelines on how to build them and make them consistent. This would probably be best reserved for a splatbook, and that's fine. Hell, while we're at it, put in a basic point construction system to create a 'classless' game.

Find a way to drop stat blocks to a few lines. Prep time is a killer for me, and it's one of the reasons I hate 3.x.

Agree with a good deal of that, with a few comments.

AoO's I don't have a problem with per se, but they really need to streamline what does and does not trigger them.

Iterative attacks are not that big of a problem if you are moving around - usually you only use all of your attacks if you are surrounded or standing still for a good deal of time. The DM can control this by doing the old "Rocky" tactic, stick and move.

Entirely agree on the stat-line being simplified. This is what 3E was supposed to do, I thought. Fortunately, as I said earlier, I've been using alot of the minis and the stat cards that are included with them. It's been a lifesaver.

Right-freaking-ON! with the dungeonpunk art style. I liked the original DiTerlizzi artwork on Planescape, but that seemed to be the genesis (or at least the impetus) of this pervading style.

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 12:22 PM

Really, if D&D4E can simplify things and make both playing and prepping easier while keeping it fun I'm in. I doubt I'll buy as many books as I did for 3E but you never know. 2-3 years from now I may have a sizable collection. We'll see.Same here. What I'd like to know is if the online material for books, that you pay a small fee to be able to add into your online database, could have openings for 3rd party material as well.

ie: I buy my new and improved Tome of Horrors from Necro/Paizo, then I pay WotC $5 (or whatever it is) to be able to use those monsters in my online games and the companies split it between them.

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 12:23 PM

Right-freaking-ON! with the dungeonpunk art style. I liked the original DiTerlizzi artwork on Planescape, but that seemed to be the genesis (or at least the impetus) of this pervading style.From the covers/art they have been showing, it looks like it's here to stay. (not to imply that they couldn't change the covers between now then next spring of course)

Northcott

08-17-2007, 12:55 PM

From the covers/art they have been showing, it looks like it's here to stay. (not to imply that they couldn't change the covers between now then next spring of course)

I think that the problem is that they're over-using it. Everything is buckles and spikes, or at least from that design ethic. It's boring as Hell. When I did work for Kenzer's D&D line I consistently had my hands slapped for not going punk enough... in every. Fucking. Picture.

First I'm told that they don't want a "medieval Road Warrior" look, and then I get back pages of niggling critiques on every bloody illustration until everybody looks like... you guessed it, medieval road warriors.

Playing with variety in clothing and armour through gender, cultural, and class/financial differences isn't so bad a thing, people.

TiQuinn

08-17-2007, 01:01 PM

Playing with variety in clothing and armour through gender, cultural, and class/financial differences isn't so bad a thing, people.

I'm sorry....this druid picture doesn't have enough metal spikes....pls. revise.

Dacke

08-17-2007, 01:56 PM

Now that the site is up again, here's the link to the article discussing monster roles: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070727a

Sobek

08-17-2007, 02:25 PM

The start of a project doesn't imply a set, specific end date for said project. I think everyone knew 4e was in the works, somewhere in the depths. The only question was when it would be released.

We were explicitly told that 4E was in the works in 2005 or early 2006. After that, it's just a matter of nailing down the date. Honestly, I can see a realy switch in direction between Feb and now, whether that means moving up the release by a yearish or just setting a date doesn't really matter.

Personally, I think "It would financially ruin us" is more than sufficient reason to withhhold project development schedules and business secrets from customers.

Where did they say there would be no 4e until 2009, again? The only quote I could find was along the lines of "We have a great release schedule through 2008." That's fundamentally different from "No 4e until 2009!"

It's either (1) an indication that they've changed direction, or (2) a corporate half-truth. Either way, I'm perfectly fine with it.

Nope. They're a business. They can't be expected to divulge information which could cripple their sales for a long period of time.

Assuming I thought there was a hook to get off of, yes. You don't expect a company's plans & processes to remain the same when they hire a new manager, do you? If they stayed the same, why would they bother hiring a new manager in the first place?

Generally agree with all of the above.

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 02:38 PM

Now that the site is up again, here's the link to the article discussing monster roles: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070727aBoth of those articles were good, and now I'm a lot more tempted to consider the MM5

There are also links there to articles on 4th ed Class (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b)and Race (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a)concepts. (you have to click the button to log in as a guest to access them)

Bagpuss

08-17-2007, 02:41 PM

folks found the secret door on the DnDInsider website, that takes you back to the old D&D site?

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 02:52 PM

folks found the secret door on the DnDInsider website, that takes you back to the old D&D site?The two I linked to are on the front page of the D&D section.

Even more D&D presentation stuff on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/GamerZer0

edit: Has video of them on stage introducing things and also an interview or two from my quick look.

EhtoZed

08-17-2007, 03:14 PM

Now that the site is up again, here's the link to the article discussing monster roles: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070727a
Cool, thanks!

Bagpuss

08-17-2007, 03:29 PM

I've noticed virtually all the old archive is missing at the moment, two articles from 2005-6, no web enhancements, no galleries, etc. Map a week is still there.

Using the search engine I found the stuff, it's just not listed any more, probably a glitch

Dacke

08-17-2007, 03:58 PM

Look under Home->Resources->3.5 Archive.

Bagpuss

08-17-2007, 06:39 PM

Yeah you look there but on the page it takes you to the actual links off that are (or at least were) missing. If you checked articles for 2006 there was only one, for example.

Harry

08-17-2007, 10:04 PM

From the covers/art they have been showing, it looks like it's here to stay. (not to imply that they couldn't change the covers between now then next spring of course)

Here are some images, from a WotC flash drive freebie, that Spoony shared at ENWorld today...

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 10:31 PM

Here are some images, from a WotC flash drive freebie, that Spoony shared at ENWorld today...Nifty pics, Dwarf pic the coolest imho, once again makes me wonder how/why/when Dwarves became so norse but without the whole boats thing. (also makes me wonder wtf is up with tieflings that people think is so cool, maybe I'll have to dig out my mm and see what it says. )

Cyragnome

08-17-2007, 10:36 PM

(also makes me wonder wtf is up with tieflings that people think is so cool, maybe I'll have to dig out my mm and see what it says. )
They're part demon, that's, like, you know, so wicked cool, you know! They can shoot magic missiles at the darkness while scoring the HO-ooooo-OOOT CH-iiiiiiiiiiiii-CKS!

<shrug>

'Course, I'm not a fan of any of those "part type" races like genasi or the like they seems to like to cram it. Bleh...

cnath.rm

08-17-2007, 11:17 PM

They're part demon, that's, like, you know, so wicked cool, you know! They can shoot magic missiles at the darkness while scoring the HO-ooooo-OOOT CH-iiiiiiiiiiiii-CKS!

<shrug>

'Course, I'm not a fan of any of those "part type" races like genasi or the like they seems to like to cram it. Bleh...are the tails prehensile offhand? the idea of them getting rid of gnomes and putting tieflings instead seems insane to me, and makes me wonder where the rumor came from.

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 12:16 AM

I'm generally pretty jazzed about 4e. I've liked a lot of what I've seen and read. A few things are causing me misgivings - mostly the loss of some of the races and classes.

The races that are lost - and I'm gonna guess the half-orc and gnome will be gone - can easily be put back in, and will likely reappear soon after 4e's release. The half-orc should really get some love. Anyway, I dig the notion about the races getting different abilities as they advance, along the lines of the racial substitution classes in Unearthed Arcana - but without having to take a whole level, just feats.

The classes...my guess the bard, monk, and possibly the paladin will go. This won't be so bad if, as it seems from what little we've been told, the classes will be pretty customizable, so the "lost" classes can be achieved by clever choices during creation. An interesting tidbit was the comment that the ranger "killed the scout and took its stuff." Could mean a ranger customizable enough so you can have one that's a non-spellcaster. I also dug the comment about how a spellcasting rogue - or was it fighter? - (for example) doesn't have to suck at spellcasting and combat both. So Grey Mouser-like magic dabblers can be more satisfying as a character concept. I'm also betting that the Warlock becomes core and replaces the Sorcerer. Or maybe the Sorcerer and Warlock will be folded together. I'm also betting reserve feats - or a similar mechanic - become a major component of spellcasting classes.

Regarding my own pretty extensive collection of 3.5 books, once I see enough of 4e to confirm that I'll like it, I have no problem getting rid of all those 3e books. I might hang onto a few, like the Manual of the Planes and the first Fiendish Codex, because both are really kick-ass.

And oh yeah...anyone else notice Ruin Explorer suddenly appearing again at EN World?

Pigs in Space

08-18-2007, 12:43 AM

Oddly enough, one of my first thoughts was "Poor Rich Burlew, he's gonna have to reboot OotS again."

Oh man: total opportunity for a "disturbance in the force" quote.

Pigs in Space

08-18-2007, 12:58 AM

Also, I am not happy with the concept of "online play" here.

I would totally be up for a server->client app where players ran clients on pc's/laptops/palm pilots/tablets/etc and there was a DM server that kept track of player status etc etc.

At it's simplest level you could just keep track of player status in your campaign. Advancing from there, it could kick ass:

- graphical room representation
- fighting monsters held on the server
- auto dice rolling (for play where people really are online, not in the same room)
- video and voip of the player in your campaign
- and so on.

It could evlove man, and the DM could host an online game, "aided" by the PC. I was totally hoping for a step in this direction.

guess I'll wait 30 years.

btw, anyone want to start a company with me?

I got an idea.

;)

PWD

08-18-2007, 01:22 AM

Ancalagon

08-18-2007, 01:26 AM

I would agree with this. (and I'll skip the "damn, I agree with Atticus" :D )

I found theRPGPundit's latest piece (before the announcement went live) to be interesting. (background info short version, Pundit loathes Pramas and his wife and Green Ronin to some extent despite loving True20 and the new WFRPG. Pramas wrote a blog bit saying that 4th would be out soon. (can't remember how soon he said))

I highly respect Pramas for the work he has done - my very limited interactions with the guy have been good.

Even if I had no clue about who Pramas was, the truckload of vitriol made the article useless IMO. You hinted at he had an old user name - who is he?

Ancalagon

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 01:54 AM

I highly respect Pramas for the work he has done - my very limited interactions with the guy have been good.

Even if I had no clue about who Pramas was, the truckload of vitriol made the article useless IMO. You hinted at he had an old user name - who is he?

Ancalagon

nisarg. He was banned...well, everywhere, essentially. EN World and RPG.net, specifically. He's a Canadian ex-pat living in Uruguay, of all places. His hatred of Pramas and Nicole Lindroos has always struck me as nonsensical.

It can be hard to follow his logic at times. For example, his favorite whipping boy is the Forge. He hates everything the Forge stands for. Yet somehow the Amber Diceless RPG is an object of unending adoration from him, despite it being almost the prototype (in my opinion) for Forge-type games.

Martin

08-18-2007, 06:51 AM

I'm not fussed. I'm kind of looking forward to the new ruleset to see what they do, but I'm not going to live or die over it. If they come up with good rules that I can use, then I'll use them. Truthfully, I'd like to see a revision to d20 Modern, but it ain't going to happen.

Scarbonac

08-18-2007, 09:39 AM

Another video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs&NR=1

Urge...to kill...rising...:gnasher:

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 09:45 AM

Urge...to kill...rising...:gnasher:

Why? I thought what they discussed sounded interesting.

Scarbonac

08-18-2007, 10:04 AM

Why? I thought what they discussed sounded interesting.

Presentation. I had to hold back from punching my monitor whenever they spoke. I'm pretty certain that any two of us could have done a better job, even if we'd just had 18" stainless steel knitting needles thrust into our eyes.

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 10:14 AM

Presentation. I had to hold back from punching my monitor whenever they spoke. I'm pretty certain that any two of us could have done a better job, even if we'd just had 18" stainless steel knitting needles thrust into our eyes.

I admit they aren't the best public speakers (I think this was recorded from a live presentation), but I was happy to hear the actual voices of guys associated with the design of the game. I got the feeling just from the way they spoke that they believed in the game, which was a good sign.

cnath.rm

08-18-2007, 10:21 AM

I'm generally pretty jazzed about 4e. I've liked a lot of what I've seen and read. A few things are causing me misgivings - mostly the loss of some of the races and classes. Is this in one of the other videos that I haven't watched yet?

I highly respect Pramas for the work he has done - my very limited interactions with the guy have been good.

Even if I had no clue about who Pramas was, the truckload of vitriol made the article useless IMO. You hinted at he had an old user name - who is he?

AncalagonPundit/Nisard was pissed about the setting for Blue Rose (on a number of levels, collectivism, the "magic deer", it's doing a bad job of emulating it's source material, and far down on the list yeah, the gay thing.) and felt that they had taken a good system and killed it by pairing it with that world and declaring that there was no way to have the system without it. A bit after Pundit and others realized and commented on the GR boards about how one could use the OGL to reverse engineer the system and sell it by itself the announcement came out that GR would be putting out a pdf of their new True20 system. (which is why he claims credit for it's existance. :rolleyes: )

nisarg. He was banned...well, everywhere, essentially. EN World and RPG.net, specifically. He's a Canadian ex-pat living in Uruguay, of all places. His hatred of Pramas and Nicole Lindroos has always struck me as nonsensical.

It can be hard to follow his logic at times. For example, his favorite whipping boy is the Forge. He hates everything the Forge stands for. Yet somehow the Amber Diceless RPG is an object of unending adoration from him, despite it being almost the prototype (in my opinion) for Forge-type games.If I understand it right, he is pissed about Forge-type games taking the power away from the DM/GM/whatever and coming up with games that "aren't rpg's yet claim to be." The "Brain Damage" comment is brought up of course. (:D as something that stupid deserves to be) I'm not sure how the Forge ranks in his hate compared to rpg.net but yeah...

Amber he loves (and hosts the official forum for it) is considered by him to be near perfect as it is. When GOO had the license to do one, he got sick of hearing "the swine" :rolleyes: demanding that a new version use the noblis system and make lots of changes. From bits of the original threads that I read I think his issues were that Amber was being held up as a brilliant insperation, and yet then was being called unplayable and nothing but a power trip for the person running it. If you can get past the hate/ravings to where he is actualy talking about running games there are some good bits. (his "cast of thousands" concept I really liked and wish I had a group where I could try pulling it off)

Sorry, back to the main topic...

So which of the other youtube videos do I need to check out, or pretty much all of the ones WotC posted?

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 10:30 AM

Is this in one of the other videos that I haven't watched yet?

No, it was the "What we know" thread at EN World. Plus some of this info is distilled down on EN World's front page. EN World ha s the best info I've found so far.

cnath.rm

08-18-2007, 10:32 AM

No, it was the "What we know" thread at EN World. Plus some of this info is distilled down on EN World's front page.Damn, what do people have against half-orcs and gnomes? (I was about to say, "and how many freaking tieflings can there really be" but then I realized that the same could/would/should be said of half-orcs)

edit: Reading over it, I like that casters won't lose XP for creating magic items.

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 10:38 AM

If the gnome and half-orc don't make the cut, I'll also be unhappy. But, as i said elsewhere, they can be easily added back in, and I'm willing to bet WotC themselves will do so in an article online or in a book.

doc

08-18-2007, 11:38 AM

Not sure how I feel about this, got touble with the video so only got thru part 1 but from it and some of y'all comments I got a few of my own.....

They getting rid of the Gnome ? Fuck the lil fuckers are about sacred cow.
30 levels , about damn time
5' step gone.....hoozaa !
Online BS, what about the folks that don't own a computer, thier about screwed aren't they ?

PWD

08-18-2007, 11:47 AM

I oughtta macro this:

The online stuff is an optional bonus, not a required element. If it sucks that hard to not have a computer, then people can get off their fat lazy asses and get a computer.

doc

08-18-2007, 12:03 PM

Working on it !!

Any reason they're replacing the Gnome with the triefling ?

Kwalish Kid

08-18-2007, 12:08 PM

Any reason they're replacing the Gnome with the triefling ?
Because it's way cooler. Anyone who really wants to play a gnome can figure out a conversion for themselves (or, I bet, find it on the website).

Kwalish Kid

08-18-2007, 12:10 PM

I admit they aren't the best public speakers (I think this was recorded from a live presentation), but I was happy to hear the actual voices of guys associated with the design of the game. I got the feeling just from the way they spoke that they believed in the game, which was a good sign.
They should have released this audio in their podcast!

doc

08-18-2007, 12:17 PM

Because it's way cooler. Anyone who really wants to play a gnome can figure out a conversion for themselves (or, I bet, find it on the website).

Yeah, hey I like Gnomes, the piss others off but I like em......Anyone know if WoTC are going to have Iconics for 4e ? :D sounds like Nebiin needs to say his goodbyes at ENWorld

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 01:09 PM

Working on it !!

Any reason they're replacing the Gnome with the triefling ?

Nobody from WotC has said what races or classes are being dropped or added. Everything is speculation.

doc

08-18-2007, 01:23 PM

How did the Gnomeless rumor start ?

Dacke

08-18-2007, 01:26 PM

From what I read when I braved the WOTC forums (damn, the asshat amount there is staggering), InQuest has apparently run an article where they mentioned that the tiefling is in the PHB, and that at least one race is leaving (but will be put in an early sourcebook).

It's pretty obvious that humans, elves, and dwarves will still be in, which leaves half-orcs, half-elves, halflings, and gnomes as possible casualties. The previews show a halfling cleric, and they mention the half-elf's "inspiring presence" ability, which leaves half-orcs and gnomes.

Janos

08-18-2007, 01:30 PM

From what I read when I braved the WOTC forums (damn, the asshat amount there is staggering), InQuest has apparently run an article where they mentioned that the tiefling is in the PHB, and that at least one race is leaving (but will be put in an early sourcebook).

The online discussion mentioned specifically that the Tiefling is in the PHB too, and changeling was being considered. EN World has a summary of the major changes so far right on the main page (http://www.enworld.org/forums/index.php?).

They did reveal that there would be fewer than the current 11 base classes, and that Scouts would not exist (And are part of Rangers now).

Kwalish Kid

08-18-2007, 01:39 PM

EN World has a summary of the major changes so far right on the main page (http://www.enworld.org/forums/index.php?).
I like how they capitalize their own spelling mistakes.

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 01:42 PM

They did reveal that there would be fewer than the current 11 base classes, and that Scouts would not exist (And are part of Rangers now).

Yeah, the quote I saw was one of the designers saying the ranger "killed the scout and took its stuff." That's cool. I thought the scout would make for a good spell-free ranger. This could mean that the ranger can be customized to be either like the scout (no spells) or like the traditional ranger.

The barbarian was specifically mentioned, so it's still in there in some form. Others have deduced that the classes that haven't been mentioned specifically are the bard, monk, and paladin. So it could be any combination of those that are dropped or absorbed into another class. Plus, based on the various things said about spellcasters, it strikes me that a lot of what is to come for them was previewed by reserve feats and the warlock. The warlock and sorcerer could become one class, in essence, if my deductions are right (but I'm probably wrong).

Janos

08-18-2007, 01:44 PM

Yeah, the quote I saw was one of the designers saying the ranger "killed the scout and took its stuff." That's cool. I thought the scout would make for a good spell-free ranger. This could mean that the ranger can be customized to be either like the scout (no spells) or like the traditional ranger.

I'm actually thrilled about this potential change. I loved Rangers in my early D&D days, but got bored of their limited fighting options and somewhat weak powers in most editions. Combining them with the Scout (the best of the new classes from the Complete series) means they might have a fun role, AND live up to my wants and desires has me giddy.

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 01:46 PM

I'm actually thrilled about this potential change. I loved Rangers in my early D&D days, but got bored of their limited fighting options and somewhat weak powers in most editions. Combining them with the Scout (the best of the new classes from the Complete series) means they might have a fun role, AND live up to my wants and desires has me giddy.

Well, I thought the warlock was the best of the new classes, but I liked the scout quite a bit also. I'm pretty glad to see that the ranger does seem to have some coolness in store for it.

Dacke

08-18-2007, 02:06 PM

Others have deduced that the classes that haven't been mentioned specifically are the bard, monk, and paladin.
Paladin has been mentioned in an off-hand fashion by one of the designers - I think it was on one of the GenCon blogs.

Ah, here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906388) it is:
I'm playing a paladin in Andy Collins' monthly game. I love paladins—I seem to keep writing about them in my fiction. (Check out "Blade of the Flame" in the Tales of the Last War anthology for a concise example, or read my other novels!) But I've never liked playing a paladin. At one point during the design of this game, I made a paladin for a game where we were testing out Dungeon Tiles, and it made me so sad. I could smite evil once. Then I was done—down to swinging my sword once per round. I wasn't sad when I died. I love my new paladin.
(emphasis added)

Sobek

08-18-2007, 02:10 PM

The online discussion mentioned specifically that the Tiefling is in the PHB too, and changeling was being considered. EN World has a summary of the major changes so far right on the main page (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.enworld.org%2F forums%2Findex.php%3F).

They did reveal that there would be fewer than the current 11 base classes, and that Scouts would not exist (And are part of Rangers now).

Other than reducing base classes and killing the scout, there's not much there that I can get behind.

Yeah, the quote I saw was one of the designers saying the ranger "killed the scout and took its stuff." That's cool. I thought the scout would make for a good spell-free ranger. This could mean that the ranger can be customized to be either like the scout (no spells) or like the traditional ranger.

WTF? The ranger should have more in common with the barbarian than the scout. Sorry. Personal pet peeve is pansifying the ranger into some sort of wilderness rogue. It's a fighter class first, skill monkey second. If they combine the two, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "scout" rather than "ranger".

Janos

08-18-2007, 02:16 PM

WTF? The ranger should have more in common with the barbarian than the scout. Sorry. Personal pet peeve is pansifying the ranger into some sort of wilderness rogue. It's a fighter class first, skill monkey second. If they combine the two, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "scout" rather than "ranger".

The scout isn't a wilderness rogue really. They get very little in the way of abilities relating to nature. Its the mobility specialist in D&D, they are consumate skirmishers (no pun intended), masters of spring attack and hit and run tactics. And that's a role that the Ranger could fill easily and should fill.

Sobek

08-18-2007, 02:19 PM

Well, I thought the warlock was the best of the new classes, but I liked the scout quite a bit also.

I tend to agree. I hope the warlock makes it in the PHB (and the sorcerer is gone). I'd also like to see the paladin removed -- with prestige classes, it's the poster child for a base class that shouldn't be.

And, my dream would be to see the ranger and barbarian merged into one class with talent trees to distinguish the brutal rager from the borderlands warrior. Either that or remove the barbarian and put the ranger in the "lots of hit points and really hard to kill" slot. The d8 ranger was my biggest gripe in the 3.5 PHB.

Sobek

08-18-2007, 02:23 PM

The scout isn't a wilderness rogue really. They get very little in the way of abilities relating to nature. Its the mobility specialist in D&D, they are consumate skirmishers (no pun intended), masters of spring attack and hit and run tactics. And that's a role that the Ranger could fill easily and should fill.

Eh, my gripe is really with pushing the ranger to a lower hit die or a lower BAB. I don't care about the homocidal mania, but the ranger concept (IMO) is really the guy who can take a shitload of damage, whether from combat or the elements, and keep going.

In 1E, I never saw a ranger who didn't outclass a fighter in hit points by a pretty good margin. That's become one of the defining traits of ranger, in my mind. I don't really care what they need to do to balance it out, but anything that lowers the hp or BAB of a ranger violates the concept, IMO.

Martin

08-18-2007, 02:50 PM

Actually, I really like the whole basic class/talent tree concept. It's one of the best things introduced in d20 Modern.

With that, you could merge concepts from 2E/3E - have basic warriors and then be able to pick and choose from the talent trees to make the warrior into a paladin, a ranger, a fighter, a barbarian, etc. I remember reading somewhere that you can break the classes in D&D into the fighting class, the spellcasting class and the skilled class. Monte Cook in AU, I think. Talent trees can take that concept and allow for a variety of classes, with only three basic classes. Further specialization can come with the Advanced and Prestige classes.

Lisa Nadazdy

08-18-2007, 04:25 PM

Bah. It's THIEF, not ROGUE. You 3etards replaced the thief with his pansy cousin. :mad:

Ancalagon

08-18-2007, 05:05 PM

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 06:13 PM

Paladin has been mentioned in an off-hand fashion by one of the designers - I think it was on one of the GenCon blogs.

Ah, I remember reading that, and it slipped my mind. I've always thought Wyatt was one of the most underrated of 3e's designers, and I'm glad he's on board for 4e. If he says he loves the new paladin, I'm inclined to think good things are in store for the class.

WTF? The ranger should have more in common with the barbarian than the scout. Sorry. Personal pet peeve is pansifying the ranger into some sort of wilderness rogue. It's a fighter class first, skill monkey second. If they combine the two, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "scout" rather than "ranger".

See, I think the ranger should be more rogue-ish than a straight-up fighter. That's the whole point of the concept - more a wilderness warrior attacking from ambush than a tank standing toe-to-toe with an enemy.

The scout isn't a wilderness rogue really. They get very little in the way of abilities relating to nature. Its the mobility specialist in D&D, they are consumate skirmishers (no pun intended), masters of spring attack and hit and run tactics. And that's a role that the Ranger could fill easily and should fill.

Agreed.

Northcott

08-18-2007, 06:32 PM

Paladin has been mentioned in an off-hand fashion by one of the designers - I think it was on one of the GenCon blogs.

Ah, here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906388) it is:

I'm playing a paladin in Andy Collins' monthly game. I love paladins—I seem to keep writing about them in my fiction. (Check out "Blade of the Flame" in the Tales of the Last War anthology for a concise example, or read my other novels!) But I've never liked playing a paladin. At one point during the design of this game, I made a paladin for a game where we were testing out Dungeon Tiles, and it made me so sad. I could smite evil once. Then I was done—down to swinging my sword once per round. I wasn't sad when I died. I love my new paladin.
(emphasis added)

1) I empathize with his stance. I love the concept of paladins, but I've always disliked (sometimes intensely) the way in which D&D has handled them. Really, if you're a wrathful god of smiting and justice, you'd think they'd choose the best man for the job, rather than a (at best) mediocre fighter.

2) If they've really done justice to paladins this time around, I'll be a happy, happy lad. They should have been a PrC the whole time.

Dacke

08-18-2007, 06:33 PM

See, I think the ranger should be more rogue-ish than a straight-up fighter. That's the whole point of the concept - more a wilderness warrior attacking from ambush than a tank standing toe-to-toe with an enemy.
I think part of the problem is the disconnect between old-schoolers and the rest of us. The old-schoolers remember the old days when the model for the ranger was Aragorn, who was the ultimate badass. Newer players see the ranger as a warrior who can sneak and survive in the wild, and of course the ranger has to trade in some of his fighting skills to compensate.

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 06:57 PM

Newer players see the ranger as a warrior who can sneak and survive in the wild, and of course the ranger has to trade in some of his fighting skills to compensate.

Actually, that's pretty much what I've always thought. Aragorn was, to me, the very ideal of a ranger, but I also knew he was more than "just" a ranger. I mean, he'd served as the head of Gondor's armies decades before the events of the Lord of the Rings, after all.

Dacke

08-18-2007, 08:35 PM

Here's a video interview with James Wyatt about 4e, focusing on character roles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs

Notably, the combat roles of the different classes are defender, healer, controller, and striker (corresponding to fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue). He discusses that these are the core roles, and that they've made sure that each class can fulfill one of these roles well - so the druid and cleric are on equal footing when it comes to healing. They will probably go about it in different ways (maybe the druid will have some spells that give lots of fast healing, whereas the cleric will be more of the "heal me up NOW" variety), and will definitely have different abilities in secondary areas.

He also mentions that the ranger is classified in the "striker" category, meaning it's a class with lots of focused damage, similar to a rogue.

Cyragnome

08-18-2007, 08:41 PM

Here's a video interview with James Wyatt about 4e, focusing on character roles:

Notably, the combat roles of the different classes are defender, healer, controller, and striker (corresponding to fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue).
I suppose I'm going to have to get used to it (or at least learn to not bitch about it every five minutes ;) ) but I'm dreading and loathing the apparent MassivelyMultiplayerOnline-ification of the game...It tweaks me when City of Heroes players bring it over to HERO/Champions ("my latest 350 pt toon" :mad: ) and I'm not digging it here.

I wonder if Wizards is going to put out the Mob Manual? ;)

Atticus_of_Amber

08-18-2007, 08:42 PM

Actually, that's pretty much what I've always thought. Aragorn was, to me, the very ideal of a ranger, but I also knew he was more than "just" a ranger. I mean, he'd served as the head of Gondor's armies decades before the events of the Lord of the Rings, after all.

I wonder how you would accurately model Aragorn?

- greatest tracker of his age.
- skilled at healing.
- badass fighter.
- very good leader of men (general of Gondor under a pseudonym when Denethor was young, Cheiftain of the Dunedain, very effective general of the Armies of the West at the end of the WotR).
- accomplished guerrilla fighter and tactician (Chieftain of the Rangers)
- high knowledge of things like the history of the Dunedain, the Edain and the Eldar.
- not bad at disguise (either that or he really changed a lot between being Ecthelion's (?) mercenary general and when he came back to Minas Tirith thirty or so years later in the WotR)
- wisdom up the wazoo (ability to control the palantir - even taking into account the effect of being its rightful owner, he did face down Sauron in a mental battle)
- pretty high charisma (leader of men, chicks digged him - Eowyn, Arwen)

Dacke

08-18-2007, 08:46 PM

I wonder how you would accurately model Aragorn?

Very, very high level.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-18-2007, 08:58 PM

Very, very high level.

Exactly. And given he'd gone off adventuring for sixty years before LotR after leaving Rivendell at 21, it makes sense he'd been very high level. By the time of LotR, he'd explored Eriador, fought orcs with the rangers and with Elrond's sons, acted as a mercenary general for Rohan (for Theoden's predecessor) and for Gondor (for Denethor's father), explored Mordor and the lands to the east, come back, met Gandalf and become his chief helper in the search for Gollum - all in an attempt to prove to Elrond he was good enough to marry his daughter. God, the things some men will do to bonk a hot elf chick!

But that's why I also think damage save systems would do it better than HP. Aragorn always felt fragile and human, not superhuman, to me. There was that time at Helm's Deep when he slipped and nearly bought the farm. He seems to me to be to be best modelled as a guy with a heap of high level skills, and an attack bonus and defence bonus to die for.

Dacke

08-18-2007, 09:06 PM

Atticus_of_Amber

08-18-2007, 09:14 PM

To be honest, I think someone like Aragorn shows the pitfalls of a class/level system. He'd work much better in a system like Eon. Greatest tracker of his age? Very, very high Tracking skill. Skilled at healing? Decent level in the Healing skill. Badass fighter? A bunch of weapon skills. Leader of men? Leadership and Warfare skill. Scholar? Various skills like Geography, History, and so on.

Class-based systems often make more fun games, but they're inherently unrealistic.

I agree - mostly. But what about class-based systems with very few classes - like just fighter, theif and spellcaster - with feats and skills used for most of what are now class abilities. Want a barbarian? Take a fighter with the rage and fast movement feats and a lot of nature skills and maybe trade away literacy for another feat. Want a druid? Take a spellcaster with lots of nature-based and shape-shifiting spells and lots of nature based skills. Want a ranger? Take a fighter with lots of nature based skills and either take some cross-class stealth skills or maybe throw in a couple of levels of rogue. Etc..

Janos

08-18-2007, 11:03 PM

I agree - mostly. But what about class-based systems with very few classes - like just fighter, theif and spellcaster - with feats and skills used for most of what are now class abilities. Want a barbarian? Take a fighter with the rage and fast movement feats and a lot of nature skills and maybe trade away literacy for another feat. Want a druid? Take a spellcaster with lots of nature-based and shape-shifiting spells and lots of nature based skills. Want a ranger? Take a fighter with lots of nature based skills and either take some cross-class stealth skills or maybe throw in a couple of levels of rogue. Etc..

Or just take True20 and skip the subtly of hinting at it?

:p

ColonelHardisson

08-18-2007, 11:09 PM

Atticus_of_Amber

08-18-2007, 11:31 PM

Or just take True20 and skip the subtly of hinting at it?

:p

Nah. I've given up on that idea. Too many people who've actually played the game are too critical of it for me to believe anything other than that it's flawed.

The problem for me is that several of the design ideas in it were very attractive to me. I'd love to find a way of making those ideas work.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-18-2007, 11:52 PM

Maybe it's just my own quirkiness, but I've never had a problem with Aragorn being portrayed in a class/level system. Being the "wisest and hardiest" man of his age implies a high level character to me, with a lot of skill points and feats to spend.

My own opinion on it is that if anyone ever did a d20/D&D based Lord of the Rings game, the classes would have to be tweaked a bit. Maybe increase xp needed to level up in exchange for more skill points. Either that, or make Dunedain a race much like what we've heard will be true for races in 4e, or bloodlines in Unearthed Arcana. That is, Dunedain could simply get extra skill points and feats as they fulfill their bloodline requirements. Matter of fact, I like the bloodline thing - you'd have average men of Middle Earth advance without bloodlines, the next tier (I forget Tolkien's terminology, but folk like the Rohirrim and mixed-blood Dunedain) have minor bloodlines, and the very rare guys like Aragorn have major bloodlines, with the requisite perks.

Could work.

From memory, Tolkein's hierarchy of men was:

Dunedain/Numenorians - direct descendents from those who had lived in Numenor. In LotR, that would be Aragorn and the rangers of the North. In Gondor, Denathor, Faramir and Imrahil were Numenorian "throwbacks" (Borimir and most others were much more like the Rohrim, as were, by that time, most of the people of Gondor). The King of the Nazgul had been this kind of man, as were the Black Numenorians of Umabr, of whom the Mouth of Sauron was a descendant.

Non-Numenorian Edain - descendents of those men who had fought on the side of the elves in the First Age but had not followed Elros to Numenor. In LotR, the Rohirim were the best example of this sort.

"Middle-Men" (my term, can't remember the proper one) - men who started to follow the elves to Belariand, but stopped on the way (maybe I'm getting this confused with the migration of the elves, though).

Non-Edain - descendants of men who did not follow the Eldar to Belariand in the First Age but who stayed in the East and never really new the Eldar. The Haradim would be a good example of these.

Aragorn had the added advantage of not just being a Dunedain (rare enough in itself) but a direct descendant of Isuldur and Elendil, which meant he was a direct descendent of Elros, which meant he was Elrond's great-...-great-nephew. And, according to the Appendix to LotR, every man in his line married a full-blooded Numenorian woman - though the amount of in-breeding that would have necessitated after the Fall of Numenor and the dissaster of the Gladden Fields killed most of the pure-bred Numenorian males is a little implausible.

There is a rather cool passage by Tolkein, I think in one of his published letters, where he goes into the strained relationship between Elrond and Aragorn. Elrond chose immortality, and his twin brother Elros chose to be mortal and found the Numenorian line. As a result, Elrond has seen and worked with numerous of his dead brother's descendants over the centuries. And some of these descendents were uncannily like Elros, particularly Elendil and Aragorn. It's gotta be hard being confronted with the spitting likeness of your dead twin brother every few centuries... And then, when the latest of those spitting images asks to marry your daughter...

Dacke

08-18-2007, 11:56 PM

Maybe it's just my own quirkiness, but I've never had a problem with Aragorn being portrayed in a class/level system. Being the "wisest and hardiest" man of his age implies a high level character to me, with a lot of skill points and feats to spend.
The thing is that yes, you could model Aragorn in D&D as a very high-level character, but he'd be a "bad" high-level character because of all the multiclassing needed (sort of like Elminster has six pointless levels due to character history).

In a skill-based system, it's often very easy to build up skills to a decent level but hard to become an expert. In RuneQuest (at least older versions), for example, after using a skill in an adventure you get to roll an experience check for it, which means you have to fail a roll. This means that when you're at 50%, you'll get an increase after two adventures (on average), but when you're at 90% you need ten adventures to increase it. It also means that experienced adventures tend to get certain common skills to at least decent levels just by surviving (e.g. Spot Hidden), which leads to these types of systems generally having high-"level" characters with broad competencies rather than being super-specialized the way they often are in D&D (or, for that matter, in skill-based systems where you have free placement of experience like Exalted).

Atticus_of_Amber

08-19-2007, 12:04 AM

The thing is that yes, you could model Aragorn in D&D as a very high-level character, but he'd be a "bad" high-level character because of all the multiclassing needed (sort of like Elminster has six pointless levels due to character history).

In a skill-based system, it's often very easy to build up skills to a decent level but hard to become an expert. In RuneQuest (at least older versions), for example, after using a skill in an adventure you get to roll an experience check for it, which means you have to fail a roll. This means that when you're at 50%, you'll get an increase after two adventures (on average), but when you're at 90% you need ten adventures to increase it. It also means that experienced adventures tend to get certain common skills to at least decent levels just by surviving (e.g. Spot Hidden), which leads to these types of systems generally having high-"level" characters with broad competencies rather than being super-specialized the way they often are in D&D (or, for that matter, in skill-based systems where you have free placement of experience like Exalted).

Improving skills by using them was one of the things I really liked about Elder Scrolls:Oblivion. But I wonder how you could model that in a pen-and-paper game. Was the RuneQuest system clunky?

Dacke

08-19-2007, 12:27 AM

Improving skills by using them was one of the things I really liked about Elder Scrolls:Oblivion. But I wonder how you could model that in a pen-and-paper game. Was the RuneQuest system clunky?
Not really. When you succeed on a skill during an adventure (during a reasonably difficult situation), you put an X in the box next to the skill on your character sheet. After the adventure, you go through your skill list and rolled for all the skills with experience checks, and if you roll above your skill you increase it by 1d6 percentiles. Of course, unlike in a computer game, this doesn't provide a differentiation between skills used all the time and just occasionally.

You could also increase your skills during downtime. There are two ways of doing this:
Getting trained in it by someone who's better than you . This gives an automatic increase of d6-2% (which can be 0 or -1) or, if you like playing it safe, 2%. This takes a number of hours equal to your current skill, and can be pretty expensive (moreso at higher skill levels, because the higher the skill level the fewer students a single teacher can teach). Also, with the exception of purely theoretical skills, instruction can't bring you higher than 75%.
"Research", which basically means training without an instructor. This is essentially the same as training, except you have to make an experience check (roll above your skill), and that the "safe" option is 1% increase.Another option for "organic" skill increases was used in the Swedish game Drakar och Demoner. There, you got one experience point in the skill the first time you used it in a day, and if you made further critical successes you could get more. After you got enough XP and had some time to think through what you had learned, your skill would increase. There the diminishing returns was created through increasing the cost of the skill at higher levels: x2 at 11-14 (skills were rolled on d20, roll low), x3 at 15-17, and +1 multiple for each +3 skill. There were also options for training during downtime (which gave you experience points, so they had the same diminishing returns thing).

ColonelHardisson

08-19-2007, 02:07 AM

Aragorn had the added advantage of not just being a Dunedain (rare enough in itself) but a direct descendant of Isuldur and Elendil, which meant he was a direct descendent of Elros, which meant he was Elrond's great-...-great-nephew. And, according to the Appendix to LotR, every man in his line married a full-blooded Numenorian woman - though the amount of in-breeding that would have necessitated after the Fall of Numenor and the dissaster of the Gladden Fields killed most of the pure-bred Numenorian males is a little implausible.

Plus, Melian, a Maia, was one of his ancestors, as was Luthien. So he had Maia blood, which should count for something, even if several millennia removed. Luthien was pretty durned important, so her descendants - even the mortal ones - probably would be, too.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-19-2007, 02:34 AM

Plus, Melian, a Maia, was one of his ancestors, as was Luthien. So he had Maia blood, which should count for something, even if several millennia removed. Luthien was pretty durned important, so her descendants - even the mortal ones - probably would be, too.

Crap! I'd forgotten that.

So the guy has, in his family tree, Beren, Luthian, Melian, Fingolfin (?), Earendil, Elros, Elendil and Isuldur.

And everyone says that Arwen is the spitting image of Luthien, too...

ColonelHardisson

08-19-2007, 02:39 AM

Crap! I'd forgotten that.

So the guy has, in his family tree, Beren, Luthian, Melian, Fingolfin (?), Earendil, Elros, Elendil and Isuldur.

Yeah, that's why when people say Aragorn doesn't fit this or that class, my first thought is that he shouldn't be looked at as just another guy who made good. He had greatness and fate thrust upon him. He's also a good example of why games that stress balance may not work so well for Middle Earth. In Tolkien's world, some people are just better than others. An uncomfortable thought regarding his views of real-world society, but can work in a fantasy setting.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-19-2007, 02:48 AM

Yeah, that's why when people say Aragorn doesn't fit this or that class, my first thought is that he shouldn't be looked at as just another guy who made good. He had greatness and fate thrust upon him. He's also a good example of why games that stress balance may not work so well for Middle Earth. In Tolkien's world, some people are just better than others. An uncomfortable thought regarding his views of real-world society, but can work in a fantasy setting.

Although, Tolken did make it clear that a great lineage did not guarantee goodness or wisdom. Isuldur, after all, was bloody stupid (though gutsy as all hell, he was, after all, the guy who stole the fruit of the tree from the Numenorean kiing's garden right under Sauron's nose).

Small point, but the Aragorn of the books (as opposed to the movies) did not have greatness "thrust upon him". He chased after it ruthlessly.

Aragorn: I'm in love with your daughter, can I marry her?

Elrond: Be serious! She'd have to choose mortality. I'd never let her do that for a vagabond leader of a scattered people, no matter what his lineage.

Aragorn: I am serious. What would I have to do?

Elrond: Oh, I don't know, be king of a re-united Arnor and Gondor. How about that?

Aragorn: Done. I'll be back in 60 years. Don't marry her off before that.

And then, he goes and does it.

To be fair, the fact that everyone in Rivendell called Aragorn Estel (i.e. Hope) when he was growing up there (and before they todl him who he really was) indicated that at least some thought he was an outside chance to restore the line of kings.

ColonelHardisson

08-19-2007, 02:55 AM

Well, yeah, but if he hadn't had that lineage and the incredibly long lifespan to pursue such a huge destiny, he would never have had even a glimmer of a chance.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-19-2007, 03:00 AM

Well, yeah, but if he hadn't had that lineage and the incredibly long lifespan to pursue such a huge destiny, he would never have had even a glimmer of a chance.

Indeed.

I've always thought it would be good to have someone retell Aragorn's story from his POV. He's taken to Rivendell as a baby after his dad dies. No one there tells him who he really is or even what his real name is. They just tell him that his mum is a noble member of the northern Dunedain and that his dad was a warrior who fell bravely in combat.

Then he comes of age and Elrond tells him, actually, you're the Chieftain of the Dunedain and heir of Isuldur and Sauron wants desperately to find out if you exist and if so kill you and you're probably going to be the last of your line because Sauron is coming back and, oh, btw, me and all these elves you grew up with can leave Over the Sea, but you're probably going to be stuck here to see it all destroyed by the big S. But hey, if no on kills you, you'll probably live to be about 400.

Now there's some late teen angst.

Ancalagon

08-19-2007, 03:13 AM

Atticus_of_Amber

08-19-2007, 03:32 AM

I for one think that Elrond knew that Aragron would succeed... IF properly motivated. So while a part of him didn't want to lose his daughter, another wanted Aragorn to pull through.

... this deserves its own thread though, we're doing a LotR hijack!

Using your daughter as a motivational tool? Wow, that's cold.

But, hey, what 21 year old wouldn't be motivated by the prospect of marrying Liv Tyler? ;)

There's actually a comment somewhere that, for Elrond, the WotR was a lose-lose proposition.

This thread so needs to be forked...

Martin

08-19-2007, 06:24 AM

This thread so needs to be forked...

I was so thinking this.

But on the original subject that caused the diversion, you're never going to have a game system that will accurately plot out all fictional characters. Game systems are constrained by more stringent rules than those by which the writer was writing.

Atticus_of_Amber

08-19-2007, 06:27 AM

I was so thinking this.

But on the original subject that caused the diversion, you're never going to have a game system that will accurately plot out all fictional characters. Game systems are constrained by more stringent rules than those by which the writer was writing.

I know that's been the experience so far, but I've always wondered if you couldn't design a flexible enough system...

Martin

08-19-2007, 07:14 AM

It's a nice dream, but I still say that it's next to impossible if not all the way there.

Dacke

08-19-2007, 08:02 AM

I know that's been the experience so far, but I've always wondered if you couldn't design a flexible enough system...
The closest I've seen to a "balanced unbalanced" system if Buffy. Basically, there are two kinds of characters in the system: "Heroes" and "White Hats". Heroes get more stats, skills, and advantage. White Hats get more drama points (and can buy new ones cheaper). This means that White Hats can do pretty well in support roles (e.g. research), and can avoid being smashed by the Big Bad (by spending drama points so he misses), but it's up to the Heroes to actually be combat monsters.

Harry

08-19-2007, 10:02 AM

So, here I sat, pondering great mysteries of the universe...

I was wracking my noodle, wondering what wonderfully ironic handle might be bestowed upon fans of the new system. I mean, there have been so many great ones in the past. Fans of OD&D, Grognards. Fans of D20, 3tards. Hmmm... maybe I could invent a new name myself, and live on forever in internet infamy?

Then, I scrolled through a hilarious thread over at Dragonsfoot, and I see that someone beat me to it:

4rons.

:D

[And, as long as I'm posting - Here's a nice macro I saw at ENWorld last night...]

TiQuinn

08-19-2007, 10:27 AM

ColonelHardisson

08-19-2007, 01:41 PM

It's only bad if you're looking at optimizing the character in every way.

Yeah, that is often the problem. Some characters are so beloved that people assume they can do everything better than everybody else. When it comes right down to it, it's all a matter of perception. In D&D terms, Aragorn could simply be a 4th level ranger (or whatever; maybe a Paldin 2/Ranger 2 or something; just an example). If most characters are 1st level Commoners, he's gonna seem like a badass regardless.

TiQuinn

08-19-2007, 01:49 PM

Yeah, that is often the problem. Some characters are so beloved that people assume they can do everything better than everybody else. When it comes right down to it, it's all a matter of perception. In D&D terms, Aragorn could simply be a 4th level ranger (or whatever; maybe a Paldin 2/Ranger 2 or something; just an example). If most characters are 1st level Commoners, he's gonna seem like a badass regardless.

It's that and the fact that if someone takes a few levels of bard because it fits in with their character's history, there are many who'll say that the character isn't viable at higher levels or isn't maximized in some way.

ColonelHardisson

08-19-2007, 02:00 PM

It's that and the fact that if someone takes a few levels of bard because it fits in with their character's history, there are many who'll say that the character isn't viable at higher levels or isn't maximized in some way.

True. Maximization is such a reflex action for many that they think you've made a mistake when you don't do it. That's a bullshit attitude to have.

Dacke

08-19-2007, 02:41 PM

James Wyatt talks about encounter design:
See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points). What that actually means is that you get up the morning, then have three encounters in a row that don't reallly challenge you. It's the fourth one that tests your skill—that's where you figure out whether you've spent too much, or if you still have enough resources left to finish off that last encounter. Then you're done. So basically, three boring encounters before you get to one that's really life or death.

It kind of makes sense, mathematically. The problem is, it's not fun. So what lots of people actually do, in my experience, is get up in the morning and have a fun encounter: there are multiple monsters that are close to the PCs' level, so the total encounter level is higher than their level. There's interesting terrain and dynamic movement. Sometimes there are waves of monsters, one after another. Whew! It's a knock-down, drag-out fight that could really go either way. And it's fun!

So you get up at 8:00 AM, you have that fun encounter, and you rest "for the night" at 8:15 AM. Repeat as needed.
While he doesn't actually say so, it is implied that this is different in 4e. This would probably tie into the previous division between per-day abilities, per-encounter abilities, and at-will abilities.

Mike Mearls also talks encounter design and other stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzcVi_ymzA

It appears that the "default" encounter in 4e will be with a number of monsters equal to the number of PCs, which will also make it easier to do on-the-fly modification in case one player doesn't turn up that night ("OK, I'll just drop that orc goon").

Dacke

08-19-2007, 02:51 PM

Cyragnome

08-19-2007, 03:11 PM

Another thing: in response to the stuff about character roles, I've seen people complain that they're turning D&D into World of Warcraft.

Here's a clue: that's because WoW works. When you're putting together a group, you want one with one tank, at least one healer, and three whatevers. The tank in question can be either a warrior, a prot-specced paladin, or a feral druid. Each one brings different things to the table, but they all make decent tanks. Same for the healer: can be either a priest, a holy-specced paladin, or a resto druid. Either one works, but in slightly different ways (for example, a paladin gives the group Blessings and has decent armor/hp in case he accidentally pulls aggro, the druid gives the group Mark of the Wild and has bear form for emergencies, and the priest has Stamina buffs and is probably the best healer overall).

I do not want to see D&D turned completely into WoW, but it would be stupid of WOTC to refuse to learn anything from it.
But they already do have defined roles as warrior, cleric/healer, wizard/artillery and rogue/thief/sneak (hell, they had them long before many of WOW's developers were a gleam in their daddy's eyes), they don't need to adopt the terminology of MMO Games, Wizards has a perfectly good and perfectly serviceable and well understood terminology/jargon already at hand...but, yeah, it's a cosmetic beef (and one I'm sure is intentionally to capture some crossover business), where I'm concerned (like my agreement with those that dislike the "buckle and spike" look).

Limper

08-20-2007, 10:35 AM

True. Maximization is such a reflex action for many that they think you've made a mistake when you don't do it. That's a bullshit attitude to have.

Since we always run up into the 20 range before going to the next campaign. I have the following observation about maximization and d20... you have to do it to some degree in order to meet the challenges of the high level game.

You can still make RP based choices but you need to make ones that can be built upon in later levels otherwise you have a 15th level character who can't survive a CR 10 encounter by itself.

EhtoZed

08-20-2007, 10:51 AM

You can still make RP based choices but you need to make ones that can be built upon in later levels otherwise you have a 15th level character who can't survive a CR 10 encounter by itself.Yep, and I have to say, if they can change that I will be ecstatic. I hate the feeling that I need to fill every slot just to be competitive with the other players. I'd much prefer to have a character with a handful of items that aren't necessarily essential but nice to have. And as a DM I'd love to be able to have characters lose items without inciting a riot.

Limper

08-20-2007, 11:02 AM

Yep, and I have to say, if they can change that I will be ecstatic. I hate the feeling that I need to fill ever slot just to be competitive with the other players. I'd much prefer to have a character with a handful of items that aren't necessarily essential but nice to have. And as a DM I'd love to be able to have characters lose items without inciting a riot.

Other players? Hell justy to keep up with the ramping CR.

I really miss being able to run a character who didn't use magic items at all.

Northcott

08-20-2007, 11:37 AM

I really miss being able to run a character who didn't use magic items at all.

Oh, fucking truth there, man!

I loathe the current trend of the character being defined by their gear. I like characters who's abilities are innate, not a part of some do-dad that anybody can swipe. We had some fun swiping Deadlands d20 "flaws" rules and throwing it in with a short Eberron game. It helped pick things up.

It was looking very promising at first, until the DM slipped into the "DM vs. The Players" mentality, and it became a game of min-maxing to survive.

EhtoZed

08-20-2007, 11:39 AM

Other players? Hell justy to keep up with the ramping CR.

I really miss being able to run a character who didn't use magic items at all.Yep. I do like a lot of what I'm seeing so far though. I'm pretty excited to find out what they come up with.

TiQuinn

08-20-2007, 11:41 AM

Other players? Hell justy to keep up with the ramping CR.

I really miss being able to run a character who didn't use magic items at all.

Yeah, that's something that 3rd edition did that I really didn't like: Magic Items became integral to the development of the character, and CRs and modules were designed with a certain magic level. That and the commoditization of magic items in 3rd edition were my least favorite aspects of the game.

Edit: I understand that all editions did this to a certain extent, i.e. a module where there was a creature that needed a +2 weapon to hit, etc. But somehow I think it became more entrenched in 3rd edition.

Limper

08-20-2007, 11:43 AM

Yep. I do like a lot of what I'm seeing so far though. I'm pretty excited to find out what they come up with.

I just don't really care. I think I've said it before in this thread but I'm very happy that no new rule books are coming out for 3.x d20, now I own it, nothing will change again and I can change what I want and not have to deal with anything new for it.

Its MINE!

Northcott

08-20-2007, 11:47 AM

Improving skills by using them was one of the things I really liked about Elder Scrolls:Oblivion. But I wonder how you could model that in a pen-and-paper game. Was the RuneQuest system clunky?

Harn Master did the same thing: you learned skills by using them. Characters were expected to have X hours a month to develop skills either professionally or in their spare time. As a result, you earned a number of monthly development rolls based on whether something was a hobby or your job.

Additionally, you could earn development rolls through stress situations: when the chips are down and you're risking a significant amount, you may manage to achieve brief inspiration that teaches you something new. Combat's the perfect example, though it applied to all skills. Entering combat where there's a chance of death or significant injury (such as a tournament), you earned development rolls for the weapons and skills used. In fact, combat skills had a ceiling of development, and you could only rise above that point through practical (dangerous) combat experience.

It's a nice dream, but I still say that it's next to impossible if not all the way there.

For that kind of thing you have to look at narrative-based systems like FATE or Dogs in the Vineyard. In those the player defines the traits that make the character stand out, which may have nothing to do with being a combat monster -- but because there's a shared power in storytelling between the GM, who sets the scene and guides things, and the players, who can 'invoke' the defining traits of the character to tweak the story, power becomes a relative thing.

To geek out further and relate it to LotR: Aragorn's all-around badassery looks more flashy and dramatic, and applies to a wide variety of situations. Samwise, however, has just as much, if not more, of a story impact because of traits such as loyalty, humility, and being trustworthy.

For a more simulationist experience, standard games are great. If you're looking to more accurately reflect the flexibility of storytelling, however, you need a system that acts as a story aid rather than a straight-up game.

Dacke

08-20-2007, 12:52 PM

I really miss being able to run a character who didn't use magic items at all.
They seem to at least be moving in this direction, where items are cool to have, but not needed. Here's what Rodney Thompson had to say about it:
In 4E, I think there is going to be a very interesting dynamic between magic items and players. I believe Mearls mentioned that the concept of the "magic item Christmas tree" was going the way of the dodo, and that magic items aren't going to be required to be competitive at high levels. While that may be true, I think people are still going to want magic items because they are going to provide cool and exciting effects. There's going to be a new dynamic where players are going to want new things but not need them to remain competitive, which I'm thinking is going to actually cause the "I'm happy for someone else when they get loot" mentality to spread. If I don't get new magic items for a while, I'm not becoming underpowered per se, so it's much easier for me to feel rewarded when someone else picks up a new magic item.

He also revealed another thing:
Wizards will be able to cast 25th-level spells.
That probably means that they're going away from separating caster and spell level, so a 7th level wizard will be casting 7th level spells.

Harn Master did the same thing: you learned skills by using them.
As I recall, Hârnmaster and Runequest are very much alike when it comes to increasing skills: you both roll d100+talent modifier and try to come over your existing skill. Only in Hârnmaster, you increase it by 1%, while in Runequest you increase it by 5% or 1d6% (depending on edition).

Janos

08-20-2007, 01:12 PM

That probably means that they're going away from separating caster and spell level, so a 7th level wizard will be casting 7th level spells.

Although if they have 30 levels standard, I'm not sure we have the whole picture, or why he didn't say "cast up to 30th" or some such.

Hastur T. Fannon

08-20-2007, 01:44 PM

I know that's been the experience so far, but I've always wondered if you couldn't design a flexible enough system...

Risus?

Northcott

08-20-2007, 01:53 PM

As I recall, Hârnmaster and Runequest are very much alike when it comes to increasing skills: you both roll d100+talent modifier and try to come over your existing skill. Only in Hârnmaster, you increase it by 1%, while in Runequest you increase it by 5% or 1d6% (depending on edition).

Yep, that's right. Plus in HarnMaster you have a Skill Base, which is made up of relevant stats (plus a possible bonuse from your medieval astrological sign) that determine your natural ability. When you roll to improve a skill, you get to add that to the roll, indicating that people with natural ability may advance farther and faster.

I had a lot of issues with HarnMaster -- overly detailed, cumbersome, armour and weapon values were wonky as Hell, and the way the simulationist bent was modelled wasn't to my tastes (too caught up in the standard D&D tropes while trying to escape them) -- but as far as creating a simulation of a quasi-medieval adventuring environment? It rocked.

I started playing around with creating a streamlined system that utilized some of the philosophies some time ago, but there's really no need to dump a new game into an already saturated market.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for posting all that info, Dacke. If D&D actually manages to dump that "Magical Christmas Tree" attitude, I'll be impressed. If they manage to do so -and- reduce a characters need for massive magical armour to keep from being chopped up, I'll be really impressed.

Harry

08-20-2007, 02:25 PM

I always seem to miss out on the D&D other people are playing. Magic Christmas Tree games? Never been in one. Never seen a Monty Haul game either. Games where you can shop the DMG and start as a tenth level character? Never. Games where I can choose at will amongst every supplement out there to make a broken character? Nope. Games where Wizards suffer from not being able to chuck spells all day? Nope. Games that die without a well balanced party? Nope.

Ok, I've seen Fighter players bored to tears, but that's about it.

Fuck it. Ignore me. I forgot, I apparently hate everything.

Dacke

08-20-2007, 02:30 PM

Yep, that's right. Plus in HarnMaster you have a Skill Base, which is made up of relevant stats (plus a possible bonuse from your medieval astrological sign) that determine your natural ability. When you roll to improve a skill, you get to add that to the roll, indicating that people with natural ability may advance farther and faster.
Runequest (at least the version with which I'm familiar, 3rd ed) had something similar. Each group of skills had a skill group modifier, which both modified the skill and experience checks (essentially meaning that the experience check was made against unmodified skill).

The difference is that the skill base in Hârnmaster is always positive (the average of three stats, plus possibly a sun sign bonus of up to 3 or maybe 4), whereas the modifier in Runequest could be 0 or even negative since it came from combining (stat-10), ((stat-10)/2), and (10-stat) for various stats. For example, the modifier to the Stealth group could often be negative, since it had both Size and Power as negative modifiers (10-stat) and only Dex as a positive (stat-10).

Edit: Oh, and thanks for posting all that info, Dacke. If D&D actually manages to dump that "Magical Christmas Tree" attitude, I'll be impressed. If they manage to do so -and- reduce a characters need for massive magical armour to keep from being chopped up, I'll be really impressed.
You're welcome, and I hope they go away from the need to use magic to keep up too. Then again, it wouldn't really be D&D without magic items at all, so they have to find some way of balancing it.

Northcott

08-20-2007, 02:58 PM

You're welcome, and I hope they go away from the need to use magic to keep up too. Then again, it wouldn't really be D&D without magic items at all, so they have to find some way of balancing it.

I think part of it was the way they played up buffs, and how they were made so damned common. It very quickly became the case that if you didn't have access to buffs, you were at a significant combat disadvantage. Plus, of course, the relative power of spells like stoneskin and such.

Stepping back to a video game experience, I swear that my party in NWN2 spent most of the game looking exactly alike because they were stoneskinned every bloody hour of every day.

The focus for these kinds of games really needs to remain thematic or they lose their way very quickly. When you need +1,2, or 3 items just to damage a creature at all, number inflation very quickly enters the picture. But flexibility in temporary blessings from the local priest/cleric add flavour to the theme and allow for much the same effect without requiring a golf bag to carry around one's arsenal of pointy objects. Or a blade of orc slaying that has an extended critical range when fighting orcs, and perhaps more damage, rather than bonuses to hit: it doesn't make you a better fighter, but by GOD does it slice and dice those creatures handily!

doc

08-20-2007, 03:52 PM

Dacke

08-20-2007, 04:09 PM

Kwalish Kid

08-20-2007, 05:27 PM

What's the deal with the "Warlord" class?

ColonelHardisson

08-20-2007, 08:36 PM

Missed about 15 pages of this thread, but was it revieled what if any classes from the splat books if any will be included in the 4e PHB ? I'ld really like the Scout to be the new Ranger, Paladin to be a prestige class and the Scorcerer to be redone.

Here's a quote from EN World's front page, which will probably be the best source of distilled info for 4e, since Morrus was wishing for something like this to happen so EN World would get some much needed freshness:

"We want to know the core classes and races for 4e. "Nope, we want you to sign up for D&D Insider." - Chris Thomassan"

Lisa Nadazdy

08-20-2007, 08:58 PM

Here's a quote from EN World's front page, which will probably be the best source of distilled info for 4e, since Morrus was wishing for something like this to happen so EN World would get some much needed freshness:

"We want to know the core classes and races for 4e. "Nope, we want you to sign up for D&D Insider." - Chris Thomassan"

That kind of strategy is bullshit. They should know by now that the first things someone will do is sign up and then spill what they know to the rest of the world. Dumbasses.

cnath.rm

08-20-2007, 09:15 PM

Bah. It's THIEF, not ROGUE. You 3etards replaced the thief with his pansy cousin. :mad:I'll take the options that a 3rd ed Rogue has over the 2nd ed Thief (though leveling faster then everyone else has it's advantages of course)

(I had forgot that I had even mq'd that post till it popped up just now, :D but the comment still amused me, so I figured I'd make it.)

That kind of strategy is bullshit. They should know by now that the first things someone will do is sign up and then spill what they know to the rest of the world. Dumbasses.On the other hand, if I find out what kind of stuff they have there, I might be more likely to sign up myself. :shrug:

ColonelHardisson

08-20-2007, 10:01 PM

That kind of strategy is bullshit. They should know by now that the first things someone will do is sign up and then spill what they know to the rest of the world. Dumbasses.

I think they already know that's gonna happen. What cnath.rm says here:

On the other hand, if I find out what kind of stuff they have there, I might be more likely to sign up myself. :shrug:

...rings true for me too, and I'll bet WotC is counting on it. Much like how those threads posters at EN World made about the contents of each issue of Dragon and Dungeon, I think the D&D Insider may welcome "leaks" in order to pique the interest on non-subscribers. Lots of people wanna be one of the first to know, rather than be on the outside looking in.

cnath.rm

08-20-2007, 10:12 PM

Lots of people wanna be one of the first to know, rather than be on the outside looking in.Exactly, the urge to be both one of those who hand out information and thus one of the "cool kids"... it can be a powerful pull in a hobby like ours. :D (Hey, at least I recognize some of why I do things)

Lisa Nadazdy

08-20-2007, 11:48 PM

Oh, I'm curious to find out, but not enough to fuckin' pay for the "priviledge". I have better things to spend my money on, like C&C, Scion: Demigod, A&8s, booze, etc. Why the fuck should I pay for something that's going to end up on the net hours after it's released? Just to be first? That's for suckers, mang.

Ancalagon

08-21-2007, 12:11 AM

Ancalagon

08-21-2007, 12:14 AM

Although if they have 30 levels standard, I'm not sure we have the whole picture, or why he didn't say "cast up to 30th" or some such.

I'm really not sure that 25 (or 30) levels of spells is such a good idea...

Dacke

08-21-2007, 02:11 AM

I'm really not sure that 25 (or 30) levels of spells is such a good idea...
I'm not sure it is, but it could be. It is also an idea I specifically remember Monte Cook mentioning was one they considered for 3e, but filed away as too big a departure ("but maybe next time").

The two advantages I see with it are:

Greater graduation possible between different spells ("Well, it's better than flaming sphere but not as good as fireball").
It means that you will be casting spells that are the same level as you. Whenever I explain the spellcasting classes to a newbie (admittedly, it's been a while), their reaction is "Wait, at 7th level I can only cast 4th level spells? That makes no sense."

Limper

08-21-2007, 08:31 AM

... it's like paying to watch commercials...

The exact reason I don't have cable (or other subscription) TV.

EhtoZed

08-21-2007, 08:35 AM

I'm really not sure that 25 (or 30) levels of spells is such a good idea...
I think it be cool if spells scaled, somthing like the D20 Wheel of Time game.

Honestly I welcome any revamping of the D&D magic system. It's needed it for a long time. Even if it doesn't work out I'll be glad they tried. Hopefully it wors though.

doc

08-21-2007, 12:21 PM

No, nothing specific about classes other than the core four, the ranger, and the paladin being mentioned offhand. One of the designers apparently mentioned that the ranger "killed the scout and took his stuff."
Sounds like they took the Scout and renamed it Ranger, not a fan of what they did to it in 3e

I'm really not sure that 25 (or 30) levels of spells is such a good idea... Well between all the splat book and spell Comp. they got enough spells, wonder if this'll open up the spell Path option.

EhtoZed

08-21-2007, 05:19 PM

Apparently the designers have blogs on gleemax. James Wyatt talks about the math underlying D&D. And, again, I'm really liking what I hear. I'm really glad they aren't afraid to change things.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906388

Then another two hours in the booth, mostly evangelizing about Fourth Edition again. I came to the realization that perhaps the most significant change in 4e is the one that's going to be the least visible: the math underlying the system. But it's hugely important!

The reason there's a "sweet spot" in the current game is that it's the approximate range of levels where, purely by coincidence, the math of the system actually works. In those levels, PCs don't drop after one hit, and they don't take a dozen hits to wear down. In those levels, characters miss monsters occasionally, but less than half the time, and monsters miss characters only slightly more often. It's pure chance, really, but it means the game is fun. Outside of those levels, the math doesn't work that way, and the game stops being fun.

In Fourth Edition, we've totally revamped the math behind the system, and that's a big part of the way that we've extended the sweet spot across the whole level range. When PCs fight monsters of their level, they'll find that the math of the system is more or less the same at level 30 as it is at level 1. There will always be variation with different PCs and different monsters, but that variation won't be so great that monsters are either too deadly or too weak.

Of course, there's more to the sweet spot problem than just the math. The proliferation of save-or-die effects and adventure-breaking effects like etherealness and scrying also makes high-level adventuring more difficult to pull off, and we've addressed those issues as well.

Fundamentally, this has meant we've had to abandon some things that might have seemed like sacred cows—fireball spells don't do 1d6/level any more, for example—but it's all in the interest of a far superior play experience.

Droid101

08-21-2007, 05:24 PM

I'm more and more impressed by what I'm hearing, but I'm also more and more depressed, as my gaming group has scattered to the wind (and they don't have/use computers), so I probably won't have a reason to buy the new books. :(

Ergeheilalt

08-21-2007, 05:27 PM

:bawling: They ... they took fireball and broke it on the alter of 4e, only to then have sex on its entrails. Those bastards! :bawling:

Droid101

08-21-2007, 05:28 PM

:bawling: They ... they took fireball and broke it on the alter of 4e, only to then have sex on its entrails. Those bastards! :bawling:

I hope they do something about polymorph, too.

cnath.rm

08-21-2007, 05:30 PM

Somehow I don't think this is a move back to unlimited 1dX/level like it used to be way back when.

Ergeheilalt

08-21-2007, 05:32 PM

I hope they do something about polymorph, too.

I thought they fixed Polymorph with their sweeping errata of the shape changing abilities. It's clunky as hell, but it's not game breaking anymore.

I'm interested in see what the final product is, but it sounds to me like it's losing a bit of what it is to be D&D and not just any ol' FRPG.

Kwalish Kid

08-21-2007, 05:53 PM

:bawling: They ... they took fireball and broke it on the alter of 4e, only to then have sex on its entrails. Those bastards! :bawling:
Calling Son of a Preacher Man!

Ancalagon

08-21-2007, 11:30 PM

Math and sweetspot - that's good. I like they actually thought about it.

Fireball: Not so good. it's an iconic spell, and I would rather them make it higher level than mess with it... but I guess as long as the *spirit* of the spell remains, fine tuning it isn't so bad... but it better as heck still be a good spell!

Warlord: I too would like to know more.

Northcott

08-21-2007, 11:42 PM

Fireball: Not so good. it's an iconic spell, and I would rather them make it higher level than mess with it... but I guess as long as the *spirit* of the spell remains, fine tuning it isn't so bad... but it better as heck still be a good spell!

A comment was made about the sweet spot, and in relation to that, how many hits a fighter can take before he drops. If the HP system has changed so that it's no longer monsterous accrual, it makes no sense at all to continue having spells function in that way.

I'd imagine that fireball now drops damage in a fixed range, perhaps with minor level modifications... but I'd also imagine that the saving throw is more affected by the Wizard's level than it was before. Meaning that a low-level wizard's fireball is like a fireplace backdraft -- noisy and scary, but you probably won't be hurt badly from it (easy save). A high level wizard's fireball, on the other hand, may well reduce your party to a smouldering, charred heap (monsterously hard save).

Dacke

08-21-2007, 11:57 PM

A comment was made about the sweet spot, and in relation to that, how many hits a fighter can take before he drops. If the HP system has changed so that it's no longer monsterous accrual, it makes no sense at all to continue having spells function in that way.
It should be noted that fireball and other direct damage spells effectively got nerfed in 3e. Sure, fireball still does 1d6/level, but everyone can take much more damage. In 2e, a 5th level fighter could probably take 30-35 hp. In 3e, it's more like 40-45, and monster hp are even higher.

I'd imagine that fireball now drops damage in a fixed range, perhaps with minor level modifications...
This reminds me of an article I saw on the website a few months ago, where they talked about high-level encounter design (I think it was in the context of a scenario showing off the colossal red dragon "mini" at last GenCon, but don't quote me on that). Basically, they said something like "Sure, it's fun rolling 24d10. Once. But doing it every round, well that gets tired. So in this scenario we tried making a larger portion of damage get fixed, so the dragon did maybe 6d10+100 instead, and the same applied to the PCs' spells."

Ancalagon

08-22-2007, 12:04 AM

It should be noted that fireball and other direct damage spells effectively got nerfed in 3e. Sure, fireball still does 1d6/level, but everyone can take much more damage. In 2e, a 5th level fighter could probably take 30-35 hp. In 3e, it's more like 40-45, and monster hp are even higher.

granted

So in this scenario we tried making a larger portion of damage get fixed, so the dragon did maybe 6d10+100 instead, and the same applied to the PCs' spells."

that makes sense - the variability of that many dice is low anyway.

Dacke

08-22-2007, 01:38 AM

Some new stuff here (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a).

The thing that struck me the most was:
It’s the fighter’s turn. He charges the dragon and manages to land a solid blow, dropping the dragon down below half its hit points. (stuff) But at least the dragon is below 500 hit points!

Which tells us two things: an ancient dragon has ~1000 hp (biggest 3e dragon has just over 700), and a fighter is able to do 500 in one blow.

cnath.rm

08-22-2007, 02:06 AM

Basically, they said something like "Sure, it's fun rolling 24d10. Once. But doing it every round, well that gets tired. So in this scenario we tried making a larger portion of damage get fixed, so the dragon did maybe 6d10+100 instead, and the same applied to the PCs' spells."yeah, I think I could live with that, rolling past a certain amount of dice gets kind of annoying after a bit, particularly if one or more of those rolling is slow with the counting up afterwards.

Limper

08-22-2007, 08:04 AM

Dacke

08-22-2007, 08:22 AM

Some more stuff from Chris Perkins' GenCon blog.

I had a lot of people approach me with 4E questions. One of the most memorable ones was, "Will 4E have paladins that aren't lawful good?" The answer is yes. Hell, you can have evil paladins of Asmodeus in 4E. More on that later.

One of the things people noticed at Gen Con was the Gargantuan Orcus miniature on display next to the D&D Delve in the Wizards booth. Hopefully we can get him into a 2008 minis product. I can't tell you how nice it is to finally get Orcus back in the Monster Manual. (For those who don't know, "Orcus" was the code-word for 4th Edition.)

In case you're wondering, Asmodeus won't be joining Orcus in the new MM because, as I previously hinted, the Lord of the Ninth is getting a promotion to god status in 4E. His holy (unholy?) symbol will be among those appearing in the Player's Handbook.

EhtoZed

08-22-2007, 08:25 AM

Fireball: Not so good. it's an iconic spell, and I would rather them make it higher level than mess with it... but I guess as long as the *spirit* of the spell remains, fine tuning it isn't so bad... but it better as heck still be a good spell!As long as it's still a ball of fire that blows shit up I don't care what you roll.

Some new stuff here (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a).

The thing that struck me the most was:
It’s the fighter’s turn. He charges the dragon and manages to land a solid blow, dropping the dragon down below half its hit points. (stuff) But at least the dragon is below 500 hit points!

Which tells us two things: an ancient dragon has ~1000 hp (biggest 3e dragon has just over 700), and a fighter is able to do 500 in one blow.That article tells me another thing, It doesn't matter how you're rolling, or how many actions you get, or what they're called, how much damage you or the monster can take or even how the fighter, wizard, rogue and cleric use their abilities; as long as it's a group of PCs going up against things like dragons it's still D&D.

Bagpuss

08-22-2007, 08:27 AM

and a fighter is able to do 500 in one blow.

I'm not sure if you can read that from the example, it could be a later than first round. I'll grant you it did seem to imply it.

It might be the fighter has a special ability (once per encounter) that allows it to drop creature to half hit points, rather than 500 hit points every attack.

Dragon's AC in 49 as well, that's 10 points higher than a 3rd Ed Ancient Red (assuming it's a Red). Now in Star Wars SAGA you don't have an AC you just roll against the opponents, Reflex Defense, (you have a Fortitude and Will one as well). It seems odd to me that if SAGA was a testing ground for 4th ed they have taken a step back to reintroduce AC.

Could be they are just using familiar terms in the article to not give away too much too soon, or that AC is viewed as a sacred cow and isn't getting removed.

Dacke

08-22-2007, 08:38 AM

I'm not sure if you can read that from the example, it could be a later than first round. I'll grant you it did seem to imply it.
I figured that since he was charging, it was likely the first round.

Another thing I noticed: "Then, with a standard action, it slashes out at the fighter and the cleric with its two front claws (even though they’re both 20 feet away). As another free action, it uses its tail to slap the rogue, who was trying to sneak up behind it, and pushes her back 10 feet."

Is facing back?

Bagpuss

08-22-2007, 08:44 AM

Is facing back?

No chance, they are just being descriptive.

Bagpuss

08-22-2007, 08:49 AM

Note the cleric gets a critical, they don't mention confirming it, and he probably didn't need to confirm that critical, (I'll be amazed if he did considering the AC of the Dragon), if they are using that change from SW SAGA.

The dragon made no AoOs, even though it had 20ft reach, it could have made an immediate attack with it's tail, like an AoO except it had already used it's immediate action for the round when the fighter charged to do it's breath weapon.

TiQuinn

08-22-2007, 08:52 AM

Stuff about non-good paladins.

That'll be good. I personally liked the Champion class from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and his variations (Champion of Light, Champion of Justice, Champion of Death, etc.) Something similar to that would be a good step in the right direction for the class.

cnath.rm

08-22-2007, 09:17 AM

Some more stuff from Chris Perkins' GenCon blog.I really want to see the Orcus mini now, :D I don't suppose anyone got pix? Does make me wonder if Necromancer Games will have problems using it as their mascot if/when they start putting out 4th ed stuff.

Keeper of Secrets

08-22-2007, 09:39 AM

TiQuinn

08-22-2007, 09:45 AM

After getting past my initial feelings of (misplaced) anger and betrayal, I am actually taking something of an open mind about this now. What I felt upset about is the fact that some of the sweet stuff I have for 3.x (which I really like) will be useless under a new system. I guess I felt upset that I would have to run out and buy a whole bunch of new stuff.

Then it hit me - when 3.0 came out I really wasn't playing D&D. I let it appear and pass by but then about a year or so later had the opportunity to play. I went out and bought all the core books used and ended up kind of liking it.

But there were problems - little things here and there that I really did not like but grumbled through. I especially like Wyatt's assessment of 'getting up in the morning, having a few easy encounters and then a hard one - good test of managment skills but just not fun.' I think he's dead on with that and if they alter it enough to bring enjoyment to some of these areas I felt were lacking then there may be a really cool game going on.

Of course, the other upside is that the used section of my FLGS may soon be flooded with neat stuff.

I think that if I would've gotten heavily into 3.5, I would be pretty upset right now. As it was, I ended up getting the 3.5 PHB and that's it. My D&D playing days were somewhat scant after that, and I began playing other games like Champions and 3.5 version of Masque of the Red Death (which really need only one book). As it is, most of my stuff is about 7 years old, and I'm not too bent about it. I don't see much opportunity to play in the near future, but that probably won't stop me from at least picking up the 4th edition PHB.

Keeper of Secrets

08-22-2007, 09:50 AM

I think that if I would've gotten heavily into 3.5, I would be pretty upset right now. As it was, I ended up getting the 3.5 PHB and that's it. My D&D playing days were somewhat scant after that, and I began playing other games like Champions and 3.5 version of Masque of the Red Death (which really need only one book). As it is, most of my stuff is about 7 years old, and I'm not too bent about it. I don't see much opportunity to play in the near future, but that probably won't stop me from at least picking up the 4th edition PHB.

I, too think I could pick up a PHB for 4th to see if it really inspired me to get into it.

Lucita

08-22-2007, 10:11 AM

I had a lot of people approach me with 4E questions. One of the most memorable ones was, "Will 4E have paladins that aren't lawful good?" The answer is yes. Hell, you can have evil paladins of Asmodeus in 4E. More on that later.

I'm hoping this means that they pulled paladins as a core class and made an (Un)Holy Knight prestige class. Or, as Tiquinn suggested, lifted Monte's champion class.

I really wish that Asmodeus wasn't in the core rules. But then, I've hated what they've been doing with him ever since the Guide to Hell when the Athar were retconned into worshiping him.

I'm liking some of the things I'm hearing about 4e so far. Making race more important to a character's overall career sounds good to me, particularly if it means they can get rid of level adjustment...while not the most damned stupid thing that's ever been put into D&D (it doesn't even come close to hedging out alignment, f'rinstance), a racial learning disability based on the fact that they can see in the dark is definitely in the top 10.

Speaking of, if they ditched alignment I'd be one happy camper. But they won't, since it might take them up to 20 minutes to rework the magic system to accommodate not having that antiquated mechanic.

Trainz

08-22-2007, 10:54 AM

I really wish that Asmodeus wasn't in the core rules. But then, I've hated what they've been doing with him ever since the Guide to Hell when the Athar were retconned into worshiping him.

When I saw the words Asmodeus, Orcus, and Thor, it actually made me happy. They bring me back to my first edition days, and if they make them core into the mythology of 4th ed, it could be fun.

Lucita

08-22-2007, 11:03 AM

When I saw the words Asmodeus, Orcus, and Thor, it actually made me happy. They bring me back to my first edition days, and if they make them core into the mythology of 4th ed, it could be fun.

I don't really have a problem with Asmodeus per say, it's just that for whatever reason WotC decided that the Athar couldn't possibly get their spells and abilities from force of belief and their devotion to their philosophy or something. And this from an element that was introduced in the Planescape setting. Either that or they got into an "OMG we can't have atheists!11!!!!11!!eleven" mindset.

And then they officially introduced philosophy priests and and paladins in 3e. What-EVER.

Anyway, if they were to re-retcon the Athar away from the "they secretly worship Asmodeus, but they don't know it!!!" bullshit I wouldn't have any problem with him being in the core rules.

Northcott

08-22-2007, 11:09 AM

Which tells us two things: an ancient dragon has ~1000 hp (biggest 3e dragon has just over 700), and a fighter is able to do 500 in one blow.

I'm hoping the other guess was right, and that there's an ability to take a creature down to 1/2 HP as a higher level feat. If the fighter can dole out 500 HP in one hit, that hints that characters themselves will have massively inflated HP to compensate -- and that would suck dog-pissed rocks.

Could be they are just using familiar terms in the article to not give away too much too soon, or that AC is viewed as a sacred cow and isn't getting removed.

Or it could be that they're using Reflex Defence like Saga and d20 Modern, but are just lumping it all in under the familiar umbrella of AC... which would make sense, given how certain terms are almost key to the ambiance of D&D.

That'll be good. I personally liked the Champion class from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and his variations (Champion of Light, Champion of Justice, Champion of Death, etc.) Something similar to that would be a good step in the right direction for the class.

I'd be a happy camper if we see Paladins reworked into a PrC akin to the NWN2 "Divine Champion". I'd really like it if the DC were to kill the Paladin and take his stuff. :) The Paladin had some abilities that really brought out the 'flavour' of the character: the resistance to disease (keeping his pearly whites nice and shiny!), the special mount, etc. It would have been nice if they'd actually finished the job in designing the class.

It only makes sense to me that a Paladin isn't just going to be another brand of fighter, but rather the warrior who has proven him or herself through deed and devotion -- the cream of the crop.

Trainz

08-22-2007, 11:14 AM

I don't really have a problem with Asmodeus per say, it's just that for whatever reason WotC decided that the Athar couldn't possibly get their spells and abilities from force of belief and their devotion to their philosophy or something. And this from an element that was introduced in the Planescape setting. Either that or they got into an "OMG we can't have atheists!11!!!!11!!eleven" mindset.

And then they officially introduced philosophy priests and and paladins in 3e. What-EVER.

Anyway, if they were to re-retcon the Athar away from the "they secretly worship Asmodeus, but they don't know it!!!" bullshit I wouldn't have any problem with him being in the core rules.

Ah, I see.

I never got into planescape at all. For me, Asmodeus and the gang all come from 1st ed. I lost touch with them, and just created my own home brewn pantheons (as integral to my setting). But if indeed they become basic deities and monsters, then we'll have fun with them Lucita. They seem to have thrown the book out the window for this edition, so I think you can get your hopes up.